What if Eve had not eaten the apple?

[spidergoat]

Their sisters? What sisters?

[Medicine*Woman]

Their sisters? What sisters?

*************
M*W: The ones the patriarchs failed to mention.

[spidergoat]

No! If they aren't mentioned, they don't exist! Don't you take the bible literally?

[Qorl]

Cris
What if A & E had not eaten the forbidden fruit and had stayed in the Garden of Eden, how would the world have developed?

-I wish Eve did not eaten the forbidden fruit this time, if she did Adam will too

[Medicine*Woman]

No! If they aren't mentioned, they don't exist! Don't you take the bible literally?

*************
M*W: I don't take anything literally unless I say it.

[okconor]

Jesus said; “"All nature, all formed things, all creatures exist in and with one another and will again be resolved into their own roots, because the nature of matter is dissolved into the roots of its nature alone.” Quite radical for the time!

And "There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which we call 'sin' “

The tree of knowledge, also divulged the knowledge of good and evil. In nature, there is no good and no evil, just survival. Murder is exeptable, rape is, infanticide, theft, adultery – anything goes if it means your genes will survive. God created nature, we invented humane morality and sin. When you sin, you sin against humanity and that sin perculates throughout the generations.

Nature is perfect. If we look out into the universe, there is nothing we can see as remarkable and as perfect as nature. From the respect our world, life is a rare and beautiful thing.

The story of the fruit from the tree of knowledge is a story of our journey and our evolution, out of nature. A journey, Genesis claimed, we undertook of our own free will– something I’m not sure I agree with.

Now we are up a dead end branch of the tree of evolution, like the dodo. We will never resolve the fact that we are still animals, with our idea of what it is to be human.

[Vindicator]

I should give you credit for you posting format - it makes them easier to reply to (due to the fact that I can actually see what you responded to when I'm replying). I'll stick with convention though.

Perhaps its not rational to believe in that which has never been shown to exist. Further, it may not be rational to lead ones life based on those beliefs.

You mean that which has not been shown to exist through the scientific method? Perhaps, maybe not.

Cearly though, if the scientific method has not yet shown it to exist that doesn't mean it doesn't exist - this applies even within science (regarding observation vs hypothesis).

Interestingly, if I make the leap and believe before it's observed, like say, Eddington with Einstein's Relativity - I'm none the worse if it is eventually shown to exist. Otherwise I'll be in an awkward postion.

It may further be shown that it is irrational for some to control others based on those beliefs, although those in that power role may consider it completely rational, based on their own desires.

So they consider it rational and you consider it irrational? In the end "rational" is based on a majority vote I assume.

Agreed, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

What doesn't appear to be the case?

Proclaimed and protected ideals from a theistic thinking and decision making process. Please note the use of the scientific method coupled with critical thinking have dispelled those ideals.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you mean flat earth and geocentrism were "theistic ideals" I would disagree: they were due to common perception. What science has revealed is that what may appear to be an obvious case may work in an absolutely different way.

A 'masterful' understanding of reality does not exist, but perhaps one day may, if science is allowed to pursue that understanding and not be hindered by religious ignorance.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

God, I presume, should have a masterful understanding of reality, especially since he created it, and should therefore be quite able to convey that understanding to all.

Clear communication cannot be dependent on the sender (in this case God) alone - the aptitude of the receiver must be taken into account.

"In the Bible God "draws near", "comes down" and seeks after us in order to enter into an intimate relationship with us. The whole Bible is the story of God seeking man.

In contrast, the Qur'an portrays God as one who is "far", who is transcendent only. As a Muslim theologian has said, "God reveals only his will, not himself. He remains forever hidden". Islam is about man trying to please God by obeying his will.

The Bible reveals God as taking the initiative and coming down to seek after us. The movement is in the opposite direction."

http://answering-islam.org.uk/lovesus.html

Yet in both cases there is a clear move towards communication. I'm almost certain that within Christianity man is also compelled to seek God. Maybe some Christian reader can confirm, if they're interested.

What exactly are we to perceive, and how are we to assume it is there if it is invisible and undetectable in any way? And how is it such that many have already made their own interpretations of the invisible and undetectable? Imaginations perhaps?

What are we to perceive? Reality. The answer in your second question may be in your third and fourth. Imagination? What within human society isn't a product of the human mind?

What has religion provided?

Ask a religionist, I'm sure they'll have an answer.

[(Q)]

You mean that which has not been shown to exist through the scientific method?

No, observation.

Cearly though, if the scientific method has not yet shown it to exist that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Observation comes first, not theory or hypothesis, which is what the religious method advocates. They make claims and then go looking for evidence to back them up.

Interestingly, if I make the leap and believe before it's observed, like say, Eddington with Einstein's Relativity

Sorry, but Eddingtons work was based on observations, not beliefs.

So they consider it rational and you consider it irrational? In the end "rational" is based on a majority vote I assume.

That analogy was poorly scripted sarcastic humor.

What doesn't appear to be the case?

With religion, intellectual responsibility falls to the wayside.

If you mean flat earth and geocentrism were "theistic ideals" I would disagree: they were due to common perception.

They certainly weren't atheist ideals.

Clear communication cannot be dependent on the sender (in this case God) alone - the aptitude of the receiver must be taken into account

Are you saying god is faulty because he failed to create that which he could not effectively communicate with?

Imagination? What within human society isn't a product of the human mind?

True, but there is a huge difference between imagining a product and imagining gods.

Ask a religionist, I'm sure they'll have an answer.

Unfortunately, they don't.

[Vindicator]

Observation comes first, not theory or hypothesis, which is what the religious method advocates. They make claims and then go looking for evidence to back them up.

Certainly not within science my friend. That would be the ideal but there is inference, then observation and observation then inference in a continuous cycle of reinforcement and ellimination.

Sorry, but Eddingtons work was based on observations, not beliefs.

Sorry for what, exactly? I made no mention of Eddington's "work"; I'm sorry for the misunderstanding though.

Eddington was one of the first to appreciate the importance of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and published a treatise on the subject. He led an expedition to observed the total solar eclipse of 1919, in which the bending of light rays predicted by general relativity was observed (although it was later shown that the uncertainties were too large to make any definitive statement). See Science World

Additionally you may want to reference one of the biographies made by his contemporaries (Chandrasekhar) - that should further drive home the point.

My post referred specifically to his beliefs regarding relativity at a time when there were not enough observations to substantiate it as a "succesor" to Newtonian Physics.

With religion, intellectual responsibility falls to the wayside.

How so?

They certainly weren't atheist ideals.

Thus, in fact, they weren't ideals at all, just common perception.

Are you saying god is faulty because he failed to create that which he could not effectively communicate with?

No, you're inferring that from your construction of my statement, obviously.

Faulty would mean that there's an actual possibility that things can function another way. The question is; if God can't do it, who can?

Maybe if humaniity effectively creates an artificial life from on a computer, say, which has will to do what it wants, and effectively communicates what the human wishes from outside we may have an idea of the task God would have.

You might want to check your English and edit your post btw - from your apparent position, something clearly doesn't follow.

True, but there is a huge difference between imagining a product and imagining gods.

Sure there is: the tangible vs the intangible. The point is, however, that it is all from the mind, and there needs to be some sort of input for there to be an output.

Unfortunately, they don't.

Who did you ask?

[(Q)]

Certainly not within science my friend. That would be the ideal but there is inference, then observation and observation then inference in a continuous cycle of reinforcement and ellimination.

So, you're saying science is based first on inference?

My post referred specifically to his beliefs regarding relativity at a time when there were not enough observations to substantiate it as a "succesor" to Newtonian Physics.

I still don't know what it is you're getting at here. Are you saying science is based on beliefs?

How so?

We've covered that already.

Thus, in fact, they weren't ideals at all, just common perception.

Greeks already knew the earth was spherical, it was Christians who held the flat earth concept. Yes, they were theist ideals.

The question is; if God can't do it, who can?

Exactly. Why can't god do it?

The point is, however, that it is all from the mind, and there needs to be some sort of input for there to be an output.

And the input for gods is... ?

Who did you ask?

Theists.

[Cris]

Okconor,

Jesus said; “"All nature, all formed things, all creatures exist in and with one another and will again be resolved into their own roots, because the nature of matter is dissolved into the roots of its nature alone.” Quite radical for the time!

An observation of the cycle of life known and observed by man since man was able to think.

And "There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which we call 'sin' “

Sin has no meaning outside of a theist construct. If we are to consider morality then either an absolute or relative yardstick needs to be agreed first.

In nature, there is no good and no evil, just survival.

This is not true. Mankind is a part of nature and he is capable of taking pleasure at causing pain and suffering, i.e. actions that can be considered evil.

Murder is exeptable, rape is, infanticide, theft, adultery – anything goes if it means your genes will survive.

But none of those contribute to long term survival and if allowed to continue uncontrolled will result in long term extinction. Our intelligence is a part of nature and we can use reason to determine that these activities are not in our best interests. While survival of the fittest still operates that does not imply the physically strongest is the fittest. Our intelligence can easily outwit the strongest moron.

God created nature,

There really is nothing to support that idea or anything to indicate why it would be necessary to have a god involved.

we invented humane morality

OK.

and sin.

OK in as much as we invented religion and the concept of gods.

When you sin, you sin against humanity and that sin perculates throughout the generations.

The definition of sin means to disobey a god. By definition one cannot sin against humanity since humanity isn’t classed as a god. If you mean by percolating that an immoral act has an impact on future generations then it entirely depends on the actions. If a father murders his only son then there will no descendents or further generations in that tree. If you mean it is a genetic aberration causing a murderous nature for example then perhaps that could be inherited by future offspring.

Nature is perfect.

You would need to define “perfect” but by most meaningful standards it most definitely is not perfect. It is largely an undirected random process and is indifferent to pleasure, pain or suffering.

If we look out into the universe, there is nothing we can see as remarkable and as perfect as nature.

Only if you consider random processes to be perfect which is something of a stretch.

From the respect our world, life is a rare and beautiful thing.

Why rare? The entire planet is covered in one large biological mass; clearly it is not rare for this world. Beautiful? Sometimes, but it is also incredibly ugly, e.g. vultures ripping dead carcasses to pieces, people being burnt alive by volcanic eruptions, etc, etc.

The story of the fruit from the tree of knowledge is a story of our journey and our evolution, out of nature.

I don’t see that – we are most certainly biological organisms that apparently originated as part of nature as it evolved on this planet.

Now we are up a dead end branch of the tree of evolution, like the dodo.

Quite the contrary – we are on the very precipice of the most major changes in our evolutionary history. Technology, medical sciences, and genetic engineering sciences, are developing at exponential rates. We are on the very verge of being able to directly control the next stages in our evolution; with the ability to alter our genes, to control disease, to control the aging process, to add bio-mechanical neural implants, and onto the development of artificial intelligence. All these active research programs will have a dramatic and permanent change to our lives and our future.

We will never resolve the fact that we are still animals,

Of course we will.

with our idea of what it is to be human.

Instead we will go far beyond the current limitations of human understanding and thinking as we radically improve ourselves for the millennia to come.

[okconor]

You need to take a view of the whole picture rather than the detail.

God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...” 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed Cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

The trouble with humanity is that we elevate ourselves above nature, but in truth we are bound to it inextricably.

True, our technological advances appear extraordinary, but really they are nothing more than you would expect from an intelligent ape who has learned to control the environment around him and make his life more comfortable. Our economy, our intellect, everything we do manifests itself as a result of the biological system we came from.

You point out that we stand on the threshold of huge advances in genetic manipulation and technological advances, but we’re only dipping our toes in the water. We calculate that there are possibly 100,000 genes in the human genome, but that could result in 100,000 permutations, that result in a man, too big for us to comprehend, let alone control. Our fiddling with genes is analogous to throwing bricks at a stained glass window and then reconstructing it from the pieces. We rely completely on rotten flesh for our technology. We haven’t managed to create any self-sustaining system capable of supporting us without some input from the natural world around us. Even the weathers pretty well beyond our grasp.

The vastness and limits of the fabric of the Universe will arrest our spread. The speed of light will always be out of our reach. There’ll be no wormholes; no warp drives, no place much beyond the solar system where even a handful of men can escape.

If the sun were volleyball, then the earth would be a large grain of sand in comparison to it. Not much of a large biological mass.

Nature is more perfect than anything we’ve ever created. It goes on regardless of the devastation that as occurred on a regular basis, and it has continually and doggedly followed a path that has led to us, sentient beings who can look up at the night sky and began to understand the Universe around us. But we will pay for that knowledge. The world cannot cope with 10 billion people for long.

I’ve seen animals commit cruelty, revenge, get depressed, use tools, rationalise. We’re not that unique.

The God you contemplate is a one based on the idea of a sentient being, very simplistic, but we (in western society) have been conditioned that way. We were created by a system which created the universe, our sun, our planet, and all the life on it and then finally us. That system is God, ultimately too much for us to comprehend.

The story of genesis points out that we have created ourselves by using knowledge as a selective pressure. Adam and Eve were apes, who, when living in Eden - immortal with respect to the natural world around them, were governed by environmental pressures. Like a peahen selecting for a ever more massive tail on a peacock, Mankind began to select himself by knowledge, and therefore bred himself.

I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children.

A and E had small heads, gradually, down the generations the heads got bigger.

Prof. Ed Bahn produced a study, which proved that human evolution evolved more rapidly than environmental factors alone would normally achieve. I suggest that sexual selection, like the peacock, produced us. We were bred like dogs. Trouble is, in the comfort of your living room is any selection at work now? Very little.

[Vindicator]

So, you're saying science is based first on inference?

I'm saying science is not based on observation as opposed to inference. Each appears before the other at times.

I still don't know what it is you're getting at here. Are you saying science is based on beliefs?

My passing reference to Eddington appeared to get in the way of the discourse. If you're interested, refer back to the progenitor and consider it a minor observation.

We've covered that already.

Ah, relativity - remember you only speak for yourself.

Greeks already knew the earth was spherical, it was Christians who held the flat earth concept. Yes, they were theist ideals.

Yes, Greeks [blanket statement] held the spherical view and they were also theist. Clearly you are mistaken regarding a flat earth as a "theist ideal" - you have presented no justifiable reason.

The spherical earth, in fact, arose by purely aesthetic means - as an ideal - within Greek culture, science came later, obviously.

As was stated earlier on this thread, the flat earth view was widely held, not only due to Christian rejection, but due to common perception.

Exactly. Why can't god do it?

That has been covered.

And the input for gods is... ?

All input must be from reality - as I put forward before - if there's God, God is in reality.

Perception and interpretation of the input (if there's indeed any) are the issue.

Theists.

[Godless]

Yes, Greeks [blanket statement] held the spherical view and they were also theist. Clearly you are mistaken regarding a flat earth as a "theist ideal" - you have presented no justifiable reason.

Theist but not Christians, Zeusists, Appollonians, their gods were not the Christian omnieverything god of today.

But Q is not mistaken regarding the flat earth. There are till this day idiots who still believe the earth to be FLAT!

The Flat Earth Society.

This article is not advocating flat-earth theory, nor is it attempting to show that most or even many creationists believe in a flat Earth. It simply illustrates that there are still real people who interpret the Bible so literally that they think Earth is flat. The TalkOrigins Archive does not support or endorse the views of the International Flat Earth Society.

Click Ref.

Surely you can see for yourself that these fanatics are Theists dumbasses!.

Godless

[MarcAC]

Theist but not Christians...

Wow, 'tis strange that some seem to eQuate Theism with Christianity... ... then... this little quote seems to want to imply that Christianity is something... else?

There are till this day idiots who still believe the earth to be FLAT!

I really wouldn't use the belief in a flat earth to identify an idiot back then. Well, maybe now, sure... but I think "misguided in American" is a better term.

And

Yes, science is a system of beliefs based on empirical observations which have different labels depending on observational evidences and thus how widely accepted they are.

Theists

Surely didn't ask me, and if he did and I forgot I'd have surely given an answer; liar.

[Cris]

MarcAC,

...science is a system of beliefs based on ....

But that isn't true. Science could perhaps be described as a collection of observations, deductions and processes that explain the observations, but whether people choose to believe the conclusions is seperate to science. I.e. science isn't a belief system like religion.

[MarcAC]

Science could perhaps be described as a collection of observations, deductions and processes that explain the observations, but whether people choose to believe the conclusions is seperate to science.

Looking at The Flat Earth Society and Creationists who attempt to undermine the scientific method - surely.

It might seem like I'm one of those who attempt to undermine it, but really, I'm not - I'd be doing myself in.

science isn't a belief system like religion.

Never stated that. Science is objective, testable, repeatable - in the ideal instance. Religion is personal.

If I am to be true to my intellect and my perception I must accept the results of some scientific experiment within established uncertainties.

I am not going to remove myself as an integral part of the picture, however; I must believe what I'm observing if I'm going to accept it, naturally.

My brain still processed the info, I'm still human - not God. The most difficult ideal in the scienctific model is to become truly independent of the observer.

Maybe if we meet some aliens down the line and start knocking heads with them I'll be compelled to piety regarding my views on science.

For now, science promises a knowledge of truth, so does religion (Christianity in my case). One sided views on life and everything it has to offer are dangerous.

I'll continue on my path - looking seriously into what both offer - probably 'til death - i.e. 'til I'm justifiably convinced otherwise.

[Cris]

MarcAC,

Sorry - didn't mean to imply I was targeting you, just the statement.

Good comments overral, but even so -

... science promises a knowledge of truth, so does religion ...

I think that's how most people perceive science which is still not the most healthy view. I view science much like a tool, it works well when used properly, and can be a disaster otherwise, but by itself it has no position. And there are many qualifications one of which is that science doesn't claim to present truth.

Religion tends towards the opposite by beginning with promises of truth.

Is there a truth in the middle? Let's just keep an open mind.

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: If Eve's offering the apple to Adam caused the sin for man to fall, then it should be innately understood that any woman offering food to a man should be an abomination to god. Any man who accepts the food a woman offers to him should be immediately smitten by god or the food man eats should turn to poison.

If A&E were banished from the GoE for their ungodly deed, why are humans still searching for this vengeful god?

If eating the fruit was a sin, then eating fruit today should still be a sin if the god of genesis still exists. And what about vegetables? Why did it have to be a fruit that god condemned? Seems more logical that god would have condemned a weed, poison ivy or stinging nettles or something that we still wouldn't eat today.

Did god just forget about his punishment of mankind for eating an apple? Why aren't apples illegal? Why did god allow the further creation of Waldorf Salad and Apple Pie? With Thanksgiving coming up, aren't these an abomination to god? Perhaps we shouldn't be thankful for Apple Pie. Wouldn't that be like spitting in god's eye?

And how dare any Christian ever eat an apple and still claim to believe!

[okconor]

I think most of you guys need to start another thread, entitled: religion versus science and flail around in there for a while till your egos have exhausted themselves.

As for MW; well, as usual you're just taking the piss. Pick the lid off the story and look at whats inside. I know you've got more interesting comments to make.

I imagine you're a 55 year old ex army hippy, slightly embittered that flower power wasn't all that it seemed. Something out of MASH - hotlips Houlahan maybe.

If I had to save one book for mankind from destruction and I had a whole library to choose from, what would it be? selfishly it would probably be the bible, it would keep me more entertained. I would leave Steven Hawkins, Einstein and all the others on the burning shelves.

What was the original question? If Eve hadn't eaten the apple? If Eve hadn't eaten the apple we would still be monkeys like her, scratching our arses and beating our chests.