If God is real, how would you know?

[arfa brane]

One thing is abundantly clear, all humans have one less pair of chromosomes than all the other great apes and common ancestors. It is the mutation of chromosome 2 that altered the hominid DNA growth pattern and produced the first human hybrid species. There is irrefutable proof. See post# 357.

I prostrate myself before your irrefutable proof, but ask, is there irrefutable proof of the first known species of Homo, was it erectus?

 

[arfa brane]

You're only human.

Those early painted outlines of a human hand. What they say is "I did this, because only a human can". It signifies the awareness by early humans that they are different.

So that, a painting that obviously was a work of art when it was painted, says the same thing, but more eloquently and, it seems to want to say it to animals, or their spirits.
That the human figures seem much diminished suggests what they were trying to say was: "We're sorry".

On the other hand, caves are well known for acoustical effects, this might have been an important reason early humans made the effort to reach inner chambers. Maybe there was a cave-painting industry of sorts.
It's likely the locations of a lot of caves, accessible then, were well known. Maybe there was a belief that echos of sounds made by humans exploring caves, was significant. These guys were animists, after all, quite used to anthropomorphising.

Maybe the caves were painted with animal figures because people believed the caves to be occupied by animal gods. But what better way to apologise to their spirits, than caves where these spirits live?

 

[Write4U]

I prostrate myself before your irrefutable proof, but ask, is there irrefutable proof of the first known species of Homo, was it erectus?

Does it matter? It started a new branch on the Hominid tree, the branch (genus) "Homo", a new species with a different (mutated) chromosome count. Erectus may not be the very first Homo.x, but its superior mental abilities is already apparent.

Homo (from Latinhomō, meaning 'man') is the genus that emerged in the otherwise extinct genus Australopithecus that encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens (modern humans), plus several extinct species classified as either ancestral to or closely related to modern humans (depending on the species), most notably Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. The genus emerged with the appearance of Homo habilis, just over 2 million years ago.[2]Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably sister to Australopithecus africanus, which itself had previously split from the lineage of Pan, the chimpanzees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

 

[Write4U]

Now that I am checking, it becomes clear that the first humans were very primitive, but with the new chromosomal mutation had acquired an additional potential

__

____

_

__

Australopithecus__H. habilis___H. ergaster____H. erectus_____humans

Note the drastic change in jaw bones showing the effects of a changing diet requiring less jawbone strength and making room for the evolution of a larger and even more complex brain.

It looks like Homo Habilis is one of the older species of Homo

H. habilis brain size has been shown to range from 550 cm3 (34 cu in) to 687 cm3 (41.9 cu in), rather than from 363 cm3 (22.2 cu in) to 600 cm3 (37 cu in) as previously[year needed] thought.[4][16] A virtual reconstruction published in 2015 estimated the endocranial volume at between 729 ml (25.7 imp fl oz; 24.7 US fl oz) and 824 ml (29.0 imp fl oz; 27.9 US fl oz), larger than any previously published value.[17] Their average brain size was about 45% greater than Australopithecus, and 25% greater than Paranthropus. H. habilis appears to have had an expanded cerebrum, unlike australopithecines, specifically the frontal and parietal lobes which govern speech in modern humans.[18] H. habilis had a less protruding face (less prognathism) than australopithecines.

H. habilis was smaller than modern humans, on average standing no more than 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in).[citation needed] It had proportionally longer legs than australopithecines, and was more similar to humans in this aspect.[19] However, the arms were more chimp-like and adapted for swinging and load bearing, unlike A. afarensis and other Homo.
A 2018 study of the anatomy of A. sediba found that A. sediba is distinct from but closely related to both Homo habilis and Australopithecus africanus.

Reconstruction of the adult female KNM-ER 1813 by Élisabeth Daynès

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I went shopping today and I am sure I witness a new evolutionary step...many of the humans I see are half way to whale size ..some are so large they will have to go to the water to support their body weight...these folk will never find a tree that will support their bulk. And they seem to be the rule not the exception.

I guess they don't care that gluttony is a sin.

Is their ability to carry so much fat the thing that will see them survive? I mean if you think about it if the food supply goes down would they live longer than a person of "normal" proportion... heck some must have reserves that will last months.

Alex

Alex

 

[arfa brane]

Human evolution was very likely affected strongly by the dramatic climate swings of the Pleistocene.
These changes no doubt presented powerful new natural selection pressures. Many animal species were driven
to extinction by the advancing and retreating ice ages. Humanity survived primarily by becoming more
intelligent and adaptable.

This allowed us to develop new cultural technology to deal with cold environments and changing food sources,
especially during the last 1/4 million years. One of the greatest problems in the cold regions would have been the
relative scarcity of plant foods that humans could eat during the winters. In response to this, our ancestors became
more proficient at hunting animals, especially large ones that provided more calories.

This required inventing more sophisticated hunting skills as well as better weapons and butchering tools.
These changes in subsistence pattern were essential for our survival.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It is such a pity that these god believers miss the game.

When you look back at who went before us you can only feel proud.

I often think about my hypothetical great great etc grandmother..here she is..escaped a tiger attack somehow .dragged herself someplace but captured and rapped by some new group.thats a point we can all know we came from..what do we know of what they went thru to deliver us to today...and these misserable theists the way they detract from our history... miserable dogs is all they are... no thought or consideration of what went before...a stupid notion deviod of reality of who we are...simple non thinking fools ... f..k them what miserable fools they are...imagine if our ancestors could see their stupidity... know nothing idiots either content with being the under class or ignorant that is all they be...
Alex

 

[arfa brane]

If the caves were painted because humans believed spirits occupied the caves, then clearly there wasn't any fear involved. Some of the painted caves were also places humans lived. There is also evidence that the painted chambers in a cave system were intentionally not used as living places.
They had a separate purpose which has been lost to us, but no doubt was some kind of ceremonial function.

So obviously these early humans were quite comfortable living with spirits.

Life on the steppes was harsh, it took humans a while to get used to it, to develop the hunting strategies and tactics that improved their chances. They pursued herds of large Pliestocene megafauna for long enough that some of the animals would get tired or exhausted, then went medieval on their ass.

And that well before the Medieval period, although the brutality, the blood and guts and so on, was possibly much the same.
So, perhaps this need to apologise is connected to our awareness that we're a violent, bloodthirsty animal, but we compensate for this by depicting the animals we hunt as magnificent beings, much better looking than us, so that says we also love them.

.

 

[arfa brane]

I also conjecture that our attitudes toward prey animals changed with the advent of agriculture, and the rock art from this period reflects this.
We started riding horses instead of hunting them, we also started to use them as beasts of burden, carrying agricultural and metal products around to trade them.

So agricultural societies had to adjust their spiritual worldview; humans became the masters of other animals, the earlier ideas died out. Animals also started to serve a religious purpose, as sacrifices to gods. Again, what gods?

Those would have to be the mythical beings the new science of agriculture and animal husbandry required; we needed to apologise all over again for mastering other animals, riding them around etc, or taming their capricious spirit . . .

 

[Write4U]

Note that even 70,000 year ago humans were using seafood for sustenance and developed specialized small prying tools for opening clams and fine spearpoints for spearing fish. Pinnacle Point

Even more provocative were discoveries reported last year. In a cave at Pinnacle Point in South Africa, a team led by Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean found evidence that humans 164,000 years ago were eating shellfish, making complex tools and using red ocher pigment—all modern human behaviors. The shellfish remains—of mussels, periwinkles, barnacles and other mollusks—indicated that humans were exploiting the sea as a food source at least 40,000 years earlier than previously thought.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-human-migration-13561/

Pinnacle Point.

Pinnacle Point a small promontory immediately south of Mossel Bay, a town on the southern coast of South Africa. Excavations since the year 2000 of a series of caves at Pinnacle Point have revealed occupation by Middle Stone Age people between 170,000 and 40,000 years ago. The focus of excavations has been at Cave 13B (PP13B), where the earliest[vague] evidence for the systematic exploitation of marine resources (shellfish) and symbolic behaviour has been documented,[1] and at Pinnacle Point Cave 5–6 (PP5–6), where the oldest[vague] evidence for the heat treatment of rock to make stone tools has been documented.[2] The only human remains have been recovered from younger deposits at PP13B which are c. 100,000 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Point

 

[arfa brane]

So back to the question "If God is real, how would you know?".

First off, there is no question that early humans had notions of what we can call "animal spirits", and it was quite likely also notions of spirits that weren't animal ones; we understood fire to come down from the sky, until we learned how to make fire and use it for cooking, warmth, to keep predators away etc. This didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. Maybe what was really involved in the process of understanding how to make fire was an increase in brain size.

So I think I can say that early humans, possibly H erectus, knew that "God" was real, or at least, understood that it could do something, make fire, that otherwise was made by "something in the sky". But of course, that thesis is predicated on early humans having a capacity to make that kind of association, to reason with that much sophistication.

God is real because humans have a need to explain, to themselves, why they're so different. Of course, explaining is projected to the external world, to a God or spirit in the sky, where we can see a hunter who is one of us. Maybe Orion was an explanation from humans to themselves, that fit their worldview at the time; they didn't hunt animals for fun, they didn't paint their images for fun either. Life wasn't really all that funny, at the time.

The same notions those early humans had are still around, but moderated significantly. That's kind of a given, since life for the average human since the last ice age has gotten a lot more complicated. But we still have this need to apologise for being smart; for having pride in human achievements instead of just being thankful. God is real because we need God to be real.

This truism applies to atheist arguments: If you say God isn't real, doesn't exist, how do you know? Aren't you just saying the human notion of being a different kind of animal isn't real?

We started burying our dead after a while, but we hunted and killed animals for a lot longer. Humans are not unique in grieving for dead, or killed during a hunt, members of their social group; perhaps burials are again a way to say we're different.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you say God isn't real, doesn't exist, how do you know?

If you say a god, any god, is real then the onus is on you to provide reasonable evidence in support.

You can not in effect say there is a god and it is up to those saying there is no god to prove that there is no god...inventing a god to explain the unexplainable is rather lazy and perhaps if one does not have an answer it would be best to simply say "I don't know" rather than just make up stuff.

Humans may really truly want a god but that does not create anything we can call real in the sense that an actual entity exists.

Perhaps you can say god is real like Santa is real in that folk hold a vision of Santa, of God, but Santa does not exist as a entity that is more than the idea held in one's mind.

All gods are a human invention that is clearly apparent.

A theist believes that out of the thousands of gods invented through out history the particular one they have selected just happens to be real and not invented...what are the chances that out of the thousands of invented gods the single one chosen by a theist is the real deal particularly as there is no evidence offered. It seems the universe must be eternal and that means there was no point of creation and hence no creator...if one claims a creation point one needs to offer reasonable evidence to show such an event...
Making up an entity with nothing to suggest it exists is just make believe.
Alex

 

[arfa brane]

If you say a god, any god, is real then the onus is on you to provide reasonable evidence in support.

I already have said, more or less, than early humans believed in the reality of something, that I or you might call God. But that's what we call it now, back then it might not have needed a name. Or maybe it did.

You might be able to say, today, that naming constellations of stars doesn't mean there are real animals or a hunter, or water-bearer up there. Does that mean the people who did it made a mistake? Why did this particular mythology persist, I mean, it's obviously all imagined. The people who saw designs, pictures, up there needed to see them, for some reason.
That reason, I say, is tied to our need to explain why we're special animals.

 

[arfa brane]

Humans may really truly want a god but that does not create anything we can call real in the sense that an actual entity exists that is not.

Not what? Not as real as humans need?

How real is say, an ancestor with possibly godlike powers, who stole fire from the sky?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Not what?

Sorry I screwed up. I have now edited it so it shouldn't of make sense.

How real is say, an ancestor with possibly godlike powers, who stole fire from the sky?

I don't know I was not around at the time.
However it sounds entirely made up to me.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That reason, I say, is tied to our need to explain why we're special animals.

Humans just like to make stuff up I guess.
Are we special animals?
We are different in some respects due to technology and we think we are somehow superior to all other creatures .. maybe we are silly reading so much into things.. what is important.. eating and reproduction yet we waste time on other stuff.

You ask why but I suspect you ask expecting a particular answer..is that it?

If you have an answer or rather an opinion please present what is on your mind.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Maybe the caves were painted with animal figures because people believed the caves to be occupied by animal gods. But what better way to apologise to their spirits, than caves where these spirits live?

You may find this video interesting. I know that I did. It is a talk by an expert on art or hints thereof from the earliest of times.

Alex

 

[arfa brane]

Humans just like to make stuff up I guess.
Are we special animals?

I'm going to point out that today, a lot of humans believe things about our early human ancestry that are made up; are myths that aren't true or supported by the paleological evidence. Why? Is it because humans are special, or because we need to believe we're better off, smarter, we know a lot more than they did? Is it just what we do, denigrate the ignorance of our forbears because it makes us feel better?

Not very respectful though; perhaps we should all apologise . . .

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'm going to point out that today, a lot of humans believe things about our early human ancestry that are made up; are myths that aren't true or supported by the paleological evidence. Why? Is it because humans are special, or because we need to believe we're better off, smarter, we know a lot more than they did? Is it just what we do, denigrate the ignorance of our forbears because it makes us feel better?

Not very respectful though; perhaps we should all apologise . . .

Well I think you are on the money. Look at the disrespect for Neanderthals ... they were regarded from day one as stupid etc but nothing could be further from the truth and look at how long they were around for...and in that video the expert mentions how they were very material aware in that they only usedvthe best rock, best bones and only from particular animals and only transported the best meat from a kill.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Well I think you are on the money. Look at the disrespect for Neanderthals ... they were regarded from day one as stupid etc but nothing could be further from the truth and look at how long they were around for...and in that video the expert mentions how they were very material aware in that they only usedvthe best rock, best bones and only from particular animals and only transported the best meat from a kill.
Alex

Recognizing quantity and quality, natural calculations based on physical as well as abstract values and mathematical functions.