disarray

Indeed, this story of Abraham being saved from a furnace/fire is, say some Christian scholars, a misinterpretation by Jewish writers of the word for city ("UR") as it appears in the Bible (Genesis 15) and that from thence the story likewise found its way into the Quran. Christian scholars then scoff at the misinterpretation as if to prove that only the Bible can be the unerring word of God. But who knows if there really was a misinterpretation.... if anything it just goes to show that the Abraham of one religion's text is not the same Abraham of another religions scriptural text, if one is looking at actual events attributed to him...so, again, it is spurious to claim that it is the same person. Nevertheless, several miraculous events are attributed to Abraham in a variety of scriptural contexts. If one of them was not in the Bible, I hardly see how that fact detracts from my main point that the onus is on those making claims that an alleged historical character actually performed miracles, not on others to prove that he didn't. http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_abraham_ur.htm Also, I see no reason why you should dismiss the story as irrelevant, on the basis that it does not appear in the Bible. Are you suggesting that the Bible is a more credible or important source of information than Jewish or Islamic scriptures? I don't think that one can say the story of Abraham's almost sacrificing his child is authentic because it involves faith on Abraham's part, given that it parallels the faith that Moses had , if that is your claim. A more likely explanation is that both stories are merely exampled of writers making up stories that would encourage worshipers to believe things on the basis of blind faith. I remain skeptical that a God promised land to Abraham because history is replete with examples of political and religious leaders concocting stories to justify their taking the land of other people. Indeed, nations frequently claim that God is on their side as they fight over land. One need not do much research on the topic of religious wars to see this....I doubt that you will find a single example (our of hundreds of religious-oriented wars) in which a tribe, village, nation, empire, or whatever fights a war over territory and that claims that God is really on the opposing side. And it's not that I have a problem with the miracles, but rather with the fact that the miracles are so bizarre (e.g., birds being chopped up and then flying back alive and whole to the person who chopped them up the next day) and so typical of the culture of the time. This suggest to me that the miracles attributed to Abraham weren't something that a God would actually devise, but rather just anthropmorphic and culturo-centric literary creations of a people who needed an excuse to justify taking over someone elses territory, much like Americans justified converting or killing Native Americans as they took over their territory on the basis that it was their God given "manifest destiny" and right to do so, and much as Columbus and thousands of Spaniards had previously felt religiously justified in killing and maiming Native Americans in the name of God, as they took over the lands that they inhabited. So much blood shed because of someone's claim that God had whispered in his or some mythical character's ear that his tribe or nation had a right to take over someone elses land.

Robbitybob1: I wonder how many sheiks were called Abraham? The personage of Abraham is so vague that it doesn't really matter whether one says he existed or not since no one has any idea who they are talking about. I don't usually quote from Wiki, but since the source was given, I think that this sentence sums it up pretty well: "The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age,along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history. McNutt, p. 41-42." So its a story of his life can't even be connected with any definite historical period, but rather is just a vague literary construct, e.g., a work of fiction. "A common hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity, and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counter-claim on Moses and the Exodus tradition." Ska 2006 p. 227-228, 260. So its a bit of folklore that was made up by Jewish landowners to claim that certain land belonged to them. Ultimately, it is not whether a tribal leader existed, but whether the crucial events attributed to him can be substantiated in any way (No!), and whether anyone would have a motive to make up these events (Yes!). The most relevant event was that God gave Canaan to Abraham, now modern day Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. (Hmm...has there ever been any conflict over these lands?) Even today some Muslims claim to be descendants of the original Canaanites in order to substantiate their claim over these lands, while Jews claim the land was given to them through Abraham and later through Joshua. Both Muslims and Christians believe in Abraham, but they give quite different interpretations as to what events took place, to say the least, and as to who rightfully owns the Holy Lands. Suggesting that Abraham didn't really exist in the first place, or, that God did not promise the Israel, etc. to him certainly would be a blow to Jewish claims that they are entitled to this land. So no, we don't have a tomb or inscription, and even if we did, that would not really solve anything, as it would not give us any clues as to whether Abraham could sit in a burning furnace for several days without being hurt and whether God promised him the Holy Lands.

Robbitybob1: Well, again, I don't expect to have high expectations that someone produce some sort of primary certified document that proves their lineage, birth, death, or what have you. But I don't see any need to let the question as to the existence of someone in the past rest entirely on the availability of such personal documents. Let's broaden our perspective a little....I suspect that we can produce a whole range and network of primary and secondary sources, for example, that support the claim that various Kings and Queens of Europe actually existed. On the other hand, we don't have that sort of non-scriptural information to support the existence of Abraham. But that aside, the point I just made was that the onus is particularly on those making claims about the existence of some historical character who has been credited with a number of fantastic and improbable (aka chimerical) accomplishments, e.g., miracles: Came out of burning furnace just fine after a few days, when he should have been ashes Ancestor of the Son of God Could, with the help of Allah, cut four birds into pieces, scatter the pieces on various mountain tops...wait, and then the birds fly back alive and in one piece Given a tour of heaven ( Quran 6:75) etc. If you are just going to say that there was a man named Abraham, who had some wives and children and made a few prophecies, well that's fine....I don't expect such a person to have left much evidence of his existence behind. But if, in your story about a character in the past, you claim that he participated in miracles and was given huge tracts of land by God (or Allah), then I think that it is up to the storyteller to give me some evidence as to just why I should believe it. Similarly, if you are making the claim that a man named Robin (or Robert, or Ron, or Rupert or whatever) robbed some people who complained that they were being unfairly taxed, well, that could be any number of forest thieves, and, since there is nothing particularly remarkable or unusual about such a person, I really don't expect or care to see any evidence that there was one who had a particular name. However, if some story, which there is, credits him with being able to hit a target a mile away with his bow, a feat generally considered impossible at the time, then the onus is on the storyteller to provide reasons why such an "improbable" (as in chimerical) event ever took place. In particular, it would seem that the story of Abraham is more of a legend than anything else, given the paucity of historical evidence that the miracles he participated in ever occurred. (And by legend, I mean, a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated.) But as we know, the culture of many a nation is filled with claims that their present or past leaders had all sorts of supernatural powers or associations, e.g., a great number of the kings and queens of Europe. In particular, James I of England made a great display about his divine right to rule. An example of this tendency for royalty to declare that there family tree can be traced back to divine characters is found this site claiming that British rulers could trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve: http://www.jesusevidence.org/gen.html So, I am not looking just at the evidence, nor am I expecting an unusual amount of evidence, but rather, I am looking at possible motives for claiming that Abraham was a character who hobnobbed with God and performed miracles. Quite a difference between asking for evidence for a quasi-divine figure such as Abraham, and asking for evidence of blood quantum, or debating whether John Henry or Homer were actual persons or just legends.

Robittybob1: Well, sure, we shouldn't have too high expectations to find the equivalent of hospital birth certificates of Abraham. But the problem is much greater than just a lack of family tree documents. There is just no evidence at all that Abraham was an actual person, or that the narrative of his existence was anything other than fiction. Given the unlikelihood of some of the events described, e.g., number of descendants, I used the word chimerical as per the definition you gave, in order to describe how I viewed claims that this Biblical character actually existed, or at least existed in the manner in which he was described in the Bible, so that, even if there was one or more men called Abraham, or Ibrahim or whatever, who was a tribal leader with lots of offspring whose deeds resembled those of the Abrahamic character of the Bible, we have no way to determine which events associated with him actually happened, or are just improbably visions and fantasies, e.g., spending three days in a furnace unharmed. 'When I asked scholars the question, "Was there ever a man called Abraham?" as often as not they were respectful (we can't disprove it) but convinced of the futility of trying to find a flesh-and-blood individual. "Abraham is beyond recovery," said Israel Finkelstein, a biblical archaeologist at Tel Aviv University. Without any proof of the patriarch's existence, the search for a historical Abraham is even more difficult than the search for a historical Jesus.' http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/features/world/asia/israel/abraham-text At least with your Treaty...moth-eaten or not, there is some evidence, so it is a moot point as to whether future generations can believe in it. My point is that one should not believe in legendary figures such as Robin Hood or King Arthur or whatever unless there is some credible evidence to support myth and rumor. It seems to me that the onus is on a storyteller to give evidence that something really happened, especially when the story seems like an unlikely fantasy, not the other way around.

Yes, there doesn't seem to be any non-scriptural, significant historical evidence for Abraham's existence. But doesn't it then follow that we can't put much credence that his putative descendants actually existed either..... So, isn't the whole distinction between the Jewish/Christian lineage (from Isaac) and the Islamic one (from Ishmael) rather chimerical.

Phi for all: "People assume I'm declaring religion and its followers are stupid," Yes, similarly, there is a tendency for theists to assume and/or claim that atheists are actually misotheists....that they hate God. Even indifference towards God is interpreted from a theistic standpoint as being an active rejection of Gods love, and therefore, it is assumed, a form of hating God. But whether they assume atheists hate God, or hate theists, or assume theists are stupid, or are possessed or worship the devil, or are possessed with evil, or have no morals, or whatever, the bottom line is that they take a theocentric, "for or against" judgment by assuming that they are superior and good, and non-theists are inferior and bad. But look at it this way, its a long way from the attitude of Spanish inquisition....There is a lot more tolerance for atheists these days. Even in the 1950s one could be heckled and harassed for being an atheist, and atheism was seen as being much more of a bizarre stance than it is today. Many people still take the attitude that this is a Christian, or at least, religious nation, in the sense that if one does not subscribe to Christianity or at least believe in a single God, then one is not a proper person or true citizen. It is similar to the assumption that America is essentially a White nation or a heterosexual nation and that, if we let things slide, before we know it, America will have too many atheists, colored people, and homosexuals...Years back, people who had such attitudes were referred to as WASPS. Along with the elitism of Americocentrism, theocentrism, Europocentrism, and heterocentrism, comes a certain amount of phobia that one must be vigilant in order to maintain a degree of purity in the population. As, says Weber, a main purpose of religion is to provide social unity and cohesion, it is only logical that there will be a degree of atheophobia, if I may coin another term, particularly amongst conservatives. But from a Constitutional standpoint, I don't think that it is a stretch at all to suggest that the principle of Freedom of Religion include Freedom of No Religion, given, for example, that Jefferson himself, being more of a deist (though he though Jesus a wise person and passed out Bibles with what he thought were the superstitious and supernatural elements) was frequently heckled and harassed by those who assumed that he must be a bad person because he did not espouse standard Christian beliefs, and therefore must be an atheist. As an aside, there is a similar intolerance of those who are asexual (e.g., an estimated 1% of the population) in that they have little or no interest in sex, as well as those who are non-reproductive (i.e., don't get married), so that it used to be and still is to some extent disreputable to remain single all ones life (e.g., presumably wild bachelor, odd spinster, etc.). Be it in the atmosphere of a bar or conference room, there are still a lot of, perhaps instinctual, prejudices that still play out in day-to-day social interactions, even when such prejudice has been legislated against. Some say one can not eliminate intolerance entirely through legislation, but history has shown that it certainly can make a huge difference: Article VI, Clause 3 of Constitution prohibits barring people from public office on the grounds of religious affiliation, and, in general, generally, religious status (including lack of religious affiliation or lack of belief in a god) is a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After a Court of Appeals had upheld Maryland's attempt to bar a non-believer from public office on the grounds that without a belief in God, one could not have "any moral accountability for conduct,” the Supreme Court Case ruled (Tocaso vs. Watkins) that "Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the lst and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, laws prohibiting atheists from being in office are still on the books in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, and many people openly state that atheists are unfit in one way or another: Pat Robertson has stated in his book, The New World Order, that Christians and Jews are better qualified to govern America than Muslims, Hindus and atheists. https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2010-church-state/featured/%E2%80%98no-religious-test%E2%80%99-tested Things seem to be changing, but it is interesting that, be it an issue of gay marriage, atheists in office, or African Americans in a college classroom, there is often conflict between local, state, and federal legislation.

Tar My point was that, if not pure randomness (though that is essentially what Quantum theory proposes), then we can see that, as I mentioned before, nature tends to make an abundance of organisms in order to produce a few that adapt unusually well, or a plethora of desolate burning stars in order produce a planet that has suitable conditions for sustaining life. In a sense, it seems that trial and error is an essential aspect of the way nature works. Epigenetics, among other things, suggests that nature learns from its mistakes, while, at the same time, conserving those things that have been successful. And yes, I don't think it makes any difference whether additional universes arise out of our own, as some scientists claim, or out of some multiverse backdrop, as others claim. But no, as far as I know, there is no reason to think that the laws of relativity, quantum effects, etc. do not hold everywhere, despite apparent anomalies such as the inflation rate of the early universe. I think that the fact that laws hold everywhere is significant in that it appears that nature is essentially consistent in the way that it churns things out, and therefore, other universes or not, I subscribe to the school of thought that the nature has and always will create (intelligent) life forms over and over again, ad infinitum. I don't really have anything more to say on this topic.

Tar “You will never get a queen of hearts. For that, you need to be drawing from a deck of cards.” I have no idea what your point is here. I was using the dice metaphor myself to point out the trial and error way that evolution, as well as the existence of life on other planets, occurs, and also with reference to Einstein’s apparently overturned claim that pure randomness is not an integral part of the way the universe works, because “God does not play dice”. ……………………… I don’t mean to be contrary for the heck of it, but I am not going to agree when I don’t: I am guessing, unless you have completely changed your tune, that you don’t think that consciousness can survive death, much less be passed along from one universe to the next. So I don’t know why you bother having a pet theory about our universe coming from a previous universe at all, particularly as you consistently state that such things are so remote and lacking in empirical evidence as to not be worth thinking about. Apart from a brief attempt to make scientific sense of reincarnation, I have merely described the standard, mainstream scientific theories about the origin of life (it’s having a biochemical explanation that somehow dovetails into the theory of evolution) as well as the fate of the universe (gradual entropy and dissipation of energy). Yet, though you hold on to your own unique theory the fate of the universe and the existence of a previous one, you dismiss the standard view of the way in which the universe will fizzle out on the basis that we don’t have enough information, and can't possibly know about distant future events, cause that's a long time away and things could change and it doesn't really matter anyway. I am reminded of Creationists who have similarly told me that scientists can’t explain the origin of life, so there must be a divine explanation…or that scientists say the Big Bang happened billions of years, and since none of us were alive then, it is silly to try to say what happened way back then. Never mind that we can use such techniques as studying cosmic microwave background to scientifically estimate when the Big Bang took place, or study particle decay to estimate how long it will be before cosmic particles disintegrate, or extrapolate from what we can see through telescopes about what the unviewable universe is like. Your claim that one universe could come from another one and have completely different laws is dismissed in a Great Discoveries Channels article written by a physicist who warns laypersons about mixing philosophical speculation and science, “If you're going to claim that general relativity [for example] stops working beyond some sort of interstate-of-existence line, the burden of proof is on you to show that's the case - and strawman arguments on the nature of experimentation aren't going to cut it. You can say that the plank constant is a variable over time and space, but when we want to build an bridge or a fusion reactor we're going to stick with our silly, provincial, non-new-book-publishing "actual physics." http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/are-the-laws-of-physics-unique-to-our-universe-a-leading-expert-says-yes.html That the laws of physics might be different in another universe or that they significantly change in various places of our own is often dismissed as zany New-Ageism, e.g., http://gizmodo.com/5635559/zany-scientists-claim-the-laws-of-physics-change-throughout-the-universe Whether, universes other than our own might have different laws is conjectural, though I see no evidence put forth to suggest that they would be, given the ineluctable nature of our own, and given that their possible existence is predicted by virtue of extrapolation from the laws of our own universe, not just idle philosophical speculation. I think it is getting too far adrift to argue about your off-the-cuff rejection of mainstream scientific theories, particularly when this just seems to happen when they do not seem compatible with your own. To me, the most relevant issue to this thread so far is whether it is likely that there is life on other planets, which, again, is relevant, not because it offers us relief from our ‘alone-ness’ but rather because it is one more feather in the hat of evolutionary theory.

Given his omniscience, it seems unfair and un-benevolent that God would let things keep going if he knew all along that: One or more angels would be bad apples (rotten to the core) and so tossed out of heaven The first humans would eat a bad apple, and, succumbing to evil, tossed out of Eden. Descendants of the first humans would also have “evil ways” and thus almost every one of them wiped out in a flood, thus confirming God’s assessment of humans that “man's heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). People would continue to behave badly, as God expected, so, giving up on the idea of another flood, he would then have to send down his son (or himself, in which case he was just being a martyr who was ‘hard on himself’) to sacrificially take the punishment for everyone’s sin (arguably, much like those medieval whipping boy scapegoats) as well as to show that he was strong enough to overcome Satan’s power to tempt him into evil. Finally, he would have to arrange a final showdown between the good and bad angels, in which Jesus and the good angels, as well as those who tried to follow them, would be victors, and somehow never ever make bad, evil choices again. Are we supposed to take this comedy of errors literally or metaphorically? Perhaps the Bible is meant to teach us that the purpose of having free will is to learn to develop self control and will power. If so, then I guess using punishments is the way to go? But it does seem a bit unfair and un-benevolent….kind of like leaving a child in the kitchen and telling him not to eat the cookies in the jar, when all along, you know for sure that he will, so that he will then need to be punished, supposedly for his own good, unless he follows the role model of his older brother who has learned to be obedient and not to eat the cookies. Perhaps the point of the Bible is just that if one accepts a role model like Jesus, who is pretty darn good at resisting temptation, everything will be fine. (It wasn’t until Paul that the emphasis was on Jesus’ suffering on the cross, and not just on a belief in the resurrection and the need to follow Jesus). Again, such punishment and reward systems of behavior modification tend to involve black/white judgments of guilt (one is either saved or one is not)...and guilt implies that someone has not exercised his or her free will to make responsible choices, and therefore deserves vindictive, edifying, or deadly punishment. (Since men are stronger, punishment seems to be their domain, so that religions tend to be patriarchal). Of course, not everyone would agree with the (behavioral ) manner in which I have portrayed the Christian religion, but whether or not one believes in free will and/or predestination, it seems apparent that such a punitive worldview tends to ignore the subtler and more insidious reasons that people ‘misbehave’, as well as the less intrusive ways that their behavior might be modified.

Tar Here is a web page that more specifically addresses your previous question as to how evolution, or some version of it, could explain how life originated, given that it seems that something must already be alive in the first place in order to adapt: "The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for your last post, yes, it does seem quite likely that this universe might be put together from a previous universe, much like Mabel reheats leftovers to put on the table. Certainly this would be a good way to look at things if one is contending that reincarnation is not incompatible with a scientific outlook. Of course, a scientific view of reincarnation would suggest that one moves up the ladder with each successive incarnation: a chimpanzee mind (consciousness) might move up the ladder to become the consciousness of an early hominid such as CroMagnon in the next life, but not vice versa. In this scheme of things, if a universe comes to an end at some point, that chimpanzee's consciousness might need to hang around a while until the next universe is formed and new habitable planets are formed. Highly speculative, of course, but so is any religious or spiritual or scientific attempt to discuss non-corporeal existence. But just in terms of physical terms, it will take a lot of residue collecting to scrape together and compress enough energy to start a new universe, as the leftovers will be strewn all over the place: "There will come a time, safely off the scale for workaday concern, when not only the sun will die, but the lights of all stars will also vanish. Left in the enveloping twilight will be stillborn stars like brown dwarfs, stellar ghosts like white dwarfs and neutron stars and those powerful gravitational sinks known as black holes. In time even these will decay and disappear. All that will remain in this bleak, darkened future will be an increasingly diffuse sea of electrons, positrons, neutrinos and radiation.... The decomposition of protons, basic particles of ordinary matter, will destroy what remains of the stellar relics, thus ringing down the curtain on the degenerate era in 10 trillion trillion trillion years. The third period, the black hole era, would be an even longer span of time, during which even these objects with powerful gravitational forces would slowly radiate away their mass and disappear. This projected final dark era is expected to begin 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years from now." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-01-16/news/9701160210_1_trillion-astrophysicist-at-princeton-university-black-holes So, in the life of a universe, there is a lot of time when it obviously can't support life. And from a purely physical point of view, it will take a lot of scraping around for residual energy (presuming there is any) in order to collect enough to throw together another meal from the leftovers. But yes, whether we are talking about the attributes of other universes, or the attributes of one (our own) as it continues to give birth to itself, I think, as I mentioned before, that there can only be so much flexibility and variation from one universe to the next, given that the laws of physics are unalterable. Nietzsche prophesied the eternal recurrence of reality, so that, as I understand it, he thought that whatever happened now, will happen exactly again in some great span of time: his beloved Cosima (believing in a literal interpretation of Creation) will scoff over and over ad infinitum and ad nauseum at his romantic inklings as well as what she considered to be his bizarre mysticism . I guess that is possible that things would be exactly the same, but given the way that nature works, there is always an element of randomness, be it throwing out a number of stars in order to get some with habitable planets or churning out a litter of puppies in the hope that the "fitter" ones will survive and pass along their genes: Metaphorically speaking of course, Mother Nature does not sit down and construct a universe complete with flawless hummingbirds and bright-eyed monkeys in a single 24-hour day. Rather, she shoots out millions of dice, leaving a lot of crap on the table before she gets lucky. Whether she ever rests up in order to play another day is anyone's guess.

Personal biography affects social culture: As per the Pauline tradition, the Fall represents Satan's victory and power over an entire group of people (humankind), and God does not really defeat Satan until the coming of Christ. So Paul, wanting to extend the influence of the Church, does not think in terms of personal immorality and salvation, but rather in terms of being part of an entire congregation that accepts that we, by the Grace of God, have collectively been given a second chance and can be saved forever by rejecting this world (material things, idols, empires, etc.) in favor of the next. In contrast, it seems logical that Augustine, having struggled with his own lustful ways as a youth, interprets the Fall in terms of personal lust and rebellion, and therefore sees redemption as simply a matter of personally modelling the clean-living life of ones personal savior, so that even within the Catholic church, there will be some individuals who are saved and some who are not. .............................................. In any case, I don't see that God takes away free will from Satan or people at any point. ............................................. Unlike major Eastern religions, evil is not seen as an inherent aspect of reality in the Christian worldview. Rather it is an anomaly to be overcome....and either you win or lose. An exception to this way of thinking was provided by a peanut gallery of Manichean clowns in black and white outfits who thought that it was only natural that everything had its opposite, e.g., light and dark, good and evil. In any case, it was Augustine who threw these hooligans out of the Church and out onto dank Roman streets to drift off into obscurity. Augustine insists that you can prevent Satan from bullying you around and eventually conquer him for good. You just need to gain the confidence to do this by having faith that your coach (Jesus) has already softened him up in the alley before the fight a while back. All you need to do now, says Aquinas, is to obediently follow your coach's advice about how best to finish Satan off. Apparently your coach has taken a lot of the blame for mistakes that you (and your ancestors) have already made in the ring, but if, says Luther, you show that you believe in your coach and appreciate all the time and effort he has taken to help you, the referee (the coach's Father) will be so happy that you weren't one of those punks who tries to win on his own, that he will make you the winner even if you take more punches than you give. In Biblical times (not to mention Classical, Medieval, and early modern) people were virtually unaware of any way to modify people's behavior other than with extreme expectations of obedience and extreme punishments for disobedience. But even in modern times, conservative fundamentalists in particular tend to focus on the issues of personal free will, personal responsibility, inherent sin, guilt, and the possibility of extreme punishment in hell or reward in heaven. (Indeed, it is only recently that the Western world has done away with chopping off a starving boy's hand for stealing a loaf of bread, and extreme whippings of prisoners for minor infractions such as swearing at a ship's captain. Even Skinner said he was being innovative because he wanted to modify behavior by focusing more on rewards and less on punishments). But again, such thinking was all there was for Christians and non Christians alike. Terry Eagleton says that, when it came to such extreme thinking about good and evil, one could barely slip a cigarette paper between the ancient Christian and Muslim cultures. Even today, it seems that the majority of people literally believe in such things as Satan (wearing the black trunks) and Michael (wearing the white trunks) battling it out in a final Apocalyptic heavyweight fight in Madison Square Garden. Apparently, the referee somehow already knows who will win: Satan, along with those who supported him, will once and for all be thrown into some dark alley in Brooklyn where he belongs, while the winner and those who backed him will celebrate forever with electronic harps and alcohol-free champagne.

Tar Yes, the Laplacian dream was that science could, in theory if not in practice, predict everything that was going to happen in the universe if one had enough information because everything was determined by cause and effect. Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg in particular have shown that this Newtonian view of the universe is simplistic, and ultimately gives us a defective impression as to what the universe is like, as well as what we can know about it. It sounds to me that you are just saying the same thing in your own way...we have, of course, a very illusory sense that we are seeing and understanding the universe "as it is" when we wander out onto the back porch on a warm summer's night and gaze at a patchwork of twinkling lights. So, yes, we are limited, by definition, in our understanidng of things because we are always perceiving them from some Kantian-like perspective. Nevertheless, Einstein had an inkling that it might be possible to be conscious of things from several different perspectives, and indeed the cubists (not to mention the likes of Escher) also took a shot at understanding what such multi-perspectivism might be like. And yes, perhaps without a perspective, we don't have the same "ego" or sense of self that we would usually have. I have an open mind about the possibility that both "space" and consciousness are more malleable than we can imagine. When it comes to what Reality is "really, really" like, it seems our common sense and intuition repeatedly fail us. So, just because we can't "imagine" what it is like to experience things from more than one perspective at once does not mean it is not possible. Indeed, our eyes, for example, only focus on and thus see a small area in the center of our vision (focal point) and our brain fills in the rest so that we have a coherent vision of our surroundings....I think it very likely that it is possible for consciousness to somehow integrate multiple viewpoints into one coherent vision. Indeed, with the discovery of such things as nonlocal entanglement, there is scientific talk that what we see is just a hologram of what reality is really like, since every particle seems to be in instant communication with each other, even, perhaps, if galaxies away from each other. Indeed, our mental filters (mundane space and time as well as 'personal perspectives') are illusory and, say the Buddhists, fall away when our personal egos drop away like a butterfly's chrysalis as we enter into a state of expanded, perhaps universal, consciousness (aka Nirvana/Enlightenment). For what it's worth, it is relevant that those who report having "consciousness expanding" experiences say that they feel less bodily and mentally separate from their surroundings, as if blending in with their environment like, one might say, Blake's tiger in the night. In any case, I think that it is possible to discuss such things without being religious, given that one defines the term "religion" as a belief in a transcendent power/being that is personally conscious and/or aware of our existence, and that created the universe. If one can entertain the idea, from a scientific standpoint that the (or a) universe can come into existence "on its own", and that life can come into existence on its own, then I see no reason to not discuss the possibility that consciousness is something that arises further arises (and that may persist in a modified form after bodily death) without the outside help of some (usually anthropomorphic) personal deity. Again, attempts to explain the birth of a universe, or the first cell, or of consciousness without resorting to religion does not deny that it is possible that a deity created these things....it merely means that we are trying to explain these things without assuming that a deity created all these things in order to see what we find. So what that our universe is some 14 or 15 billion years old... If it happened once, it can happen again. I would suggest that we still have a "young" universe, seeing as there seems no end in sight, and that it will take thousands of trillions of years for all the particles to disintegrate. My own take (and I am not alone) is that nature, however varied, always begins with the same basic building blocks (e.g., the Higgs Boson, gravity, the hydrogen atom, carbon molecules), so that such things as universes, habitable planets, and intelligent beings repeatedly and inevitably come into being to form an ever expanding archipelago...no man or universe is an island.

Memammal: It appears that Paul’s emphasis was upon communal rather than personal guilt (and punishment) and thus redemption is more of a communal affair involving church-based ritual)m since Paul stressed the conflict between Satan and God: ” St. Paul is not thinking as a philosophical moralist looking for the cause of the fall of humanity and creation in the breaking of objective rules of good behavior, which demands punishment from a God whose justice is in the image of the justice of this world. Paul is clearly thinking of the fall in terms of a personalistic warfare between God and Satan, in which Satan is not obliged to follow any sort of moral rules if he can help it.” http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm It seems that Augustine was more focused on individual morality, particularly with regards to sexuality, and indeed interpreted the Fall in a more sexual way (e.g., concupiscence) than was previously the case. “A person can choose to either turn towards the eternal city of God, a turn which Augustine calls conversion, or turn towards the temporal carnal pleasures of Babylon, a turn which Augustine calls perversion.” http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/562/free-will-in-the-christian-cosmology-comparing-paul-and-augustine By the way, Augustine said we can still have free will when we choose, it’s just that God can tell the future and knows how we will choose. Again…sleight of hand reasoning. It is not always clear just how literally one is supposed to take Satan-fallen angel or force of evil-but I don’t think that it matters all that much…a conflict is a conflict. ........................................ Yes, I did not mean to imply that the Christ’s resurrection literally happened. .......................................... I agree that it seems that likely that one or more people who claimed to be the prophesied savior at the time, was thinking in terms of being a savior of just the Jews. Paul widened the compass of salvation to include Gentiles, and ultimately to include foreigners such as Greeks, thereby giving Christianity its universal flavor. .......................................... Yes, I agree. It seems that historically people have haughtily always wanted to have that qualitative division between humans and animals. Science continues to blur the division, chipping away at assumptions such as that humans are the center of the universe/solar system, humans are not indirectly related to apes, humans don't have instincts, humans don't make decisions subconsciously, etc. So I agree, there is no particular reason to assume that humans have more free will than any other animal, and indeed, there is no real definition of it or evidence that it exists. A recent claim is that it is like the randomness found in quantum mechanics, but as Pinker points out, randomness is not the same as personal choice, even if one agrees that quantum effects, as Penrose claims, take place in the brain. And, if one agrees with Nietzsche that morals are created by groups of people, and with Weber that religion is created by people in order to validate communal laws, then punishment for human sin is no different than a mother ape pushing around and biting a misbehaving baby. ................................................... Religions, as Weber says, do tend to have rules and punishments (of one sort or another) for breaking those rules....and, in short, can be seen as an institutionalized way of applying behavior modification, whether one suggests that one behave by follow scriptural laws to the letter, OR, on the other hand, believe that it doesn't matter if one behaves (is good or not) when it comes to salvation, because faith is all that matters....but, if you truly have true faith, then you would model Christ-like behavior by behaving (being good). Doublespeak? I don't mean to be irreligious, but it seems to me that, on the one hand, suggesting that faith/belief is sufficient for redemption and then on the other suggesting that one must use ones free will to either follow rules or model oneself after a deity in order to achieve salvation is a murky theology, and indeed, even Lutherans are not in agreement as to whether Luther's "sola fide" (faith alone) precept means that one has to be good or not. In this regard, there was a colonial sect, the ranters, many of whom thought that it was more important to accept the Christ spirit individually than to focus on some historical act of redemption, and, believing the end was probably near anyway, mocked Puritans by swearing, having affairs, drinking, walking around naked, gambling, dancing, etc., as if a belief in Christ and the acceptance of his spirit at a personal level was all that one need to be saved. In any case, the issue of whether faith alone is sufficient is directly related to the main idea of this thread....which is whether God is entirely fair and benevolent with regards to ones exercise of free will. Certainly a main criticism leveled at Christianity is that it apparently allows a person who has robbed, killed, etc. all his life to be saved if he repents on his deathbed, while, on the other hand, a person who lives a very good life in terms of helping others is not saved because (s)he did not accept Christ as his personal savior from the sin and guilt passed down from Adam/Eve's personal transgression against God to all of us (Augustinian emphasis) OR because (s)he did not participate in the fellowship of the church by communally showing gratitude that God victoriously overcame Satan's evil hold over us through Christ's sacrifice (Pauline emphasis).

Tar Of course, life adapts to its surrounding. If you choose to use the word "fits," you are still not deviating from standard evolutionary theory. But I agree that the origin of life is not generally considered an aspect of evolution for many scientists, though many nowadays do think that it evolves (perhaps inevitably) from more basic molecular crystalizations, etc. Similarly, if there are other universes, things could be quite different. However, I adhere to the school of thought that the laws of physics and perhaps therefore the way that the periodic table of elements are filled in after the initial Big Bang theory are inexorably true. Many scientists say the universe is essentially mathematical, and this confirms such a view. Of course, the intelligent life that might develop on another planet in our or another universe might not look just like human beings. Indeed, even on our own planet, hominids in general and humans in particular adapt different in accordance with time and the environment,..that's why there are geno and phenotypical differences. I didn't mean to imply that "ETs" would be just like us. Indeed, it has been remarked that Hollywood's portray of ETs is usually absurdly anthropomorphic. Yes, I agree that were consciousness to survive in some form after death, it would not be the exact same as that which we know now (e.g., the 5 or more senses we supposedly have). Indeed, what you described is similar to what Buddhists describe in their depiction of "consciousness" in Nirvana...a blissful state in which the earthly ego melts into the near nothingness of the universe. I have several times agreed that empirical/theoretical confirmation of life on another planet in our or another universe is, as you put it, "of no use to use" to the average person on the street going about his/her business. Again, my point was rather that such knowledge (to whatever degree) tends, like the Copernican revolution or Darwinism, to affect religious dogma in general, and conversely, to expand our understanding of evolution. I don't think that 'memories' per se have any particular significance to a discussion of an afterlife...it is a commonplace to say that we 'live' on in the memories of others through photographs, through what we accomplish, through art, through their recollection of good times with us, etc. On the other hand, those fleeting moments when a person's consciousness 'shifts gears' and one feels intellectually, emotionally, or sensually that one is part of ones surroundings or nature as a whole, I suggest, are more significant. Just whether we can reasonably claim that there is or may be life on other planets or whether Aunt Bertha can remember us after birth depends on the level of empirical and theoretically consistent information one is expected to give to support such a claim, and how skeptical our audience wants to be. According to Hume, we have no (logical) right to claim as an indisputable fact that Aunt Bertha can remember us after death or not, anymore than we can claim as fact that the sun will still be 'burning away' tomorrow. I would agree, though, that unified, standard scientific models of the way nature works (e.g., synapses, neural networks, etc.) do not point in the direction that specific memories survive death. At the end of the day, responses to questions such as whether we and/or the universe is alone depend on just how the questioner chooses to narrow down the question...much like one is taught in high school to narrow down ones general essay topic or in college to narrow down ones research topic. Similarly, ones response depends upon just how speculative one is allowed to be, and how much one is allowed to bring such things as personal belief and intuition into the discussion, as well as scientific evidence and conjecture.

Tar, I was not suggesting that nature itself chooses what is valuable or what is not, though, as you rightly point out, it might appear that I was personifying nature. I merely observed that, via the process of evolution, nature tends to conserve living organisms that are successfully able to adapt via reproduction. Admittedly, the jury is still out with regards to the question as to whether evolution is, by and large, progressive, e.g., whether it is inevitable that intelligent beings such as homo sapiens will eventually arise on an inhabitable planet via the workings of evolution, or whether it is inevitable that inhabitable planets and thus intelligent beings will inevitably arise in other universes. But, for the most part, evolution has in fact been progressive in terms of churning out more and more advanced and intelligent life forms since life began on our planet. Nature does not decide what is valuable, rather, it just so happens that what evolution automatically tends to conserve is the same as that which we ourselves tend to hold as valuable, i.e., advanced and more fully conscious living creatures. Apart from a few extreme animal lovers, most people value other human beings more than they value cats and cows, and don't blink an eye when it comes to shooting the latter in order to have the sort of thick, juicy steak that keeps them alive, even though, most of them would acknowledge that we could survive just as well if not better if we did not eat meat. It seems to me that you are going beyond speculation and just declaring as a fact that it is not possible that there is life after death. You say that, 'in your case' nothing will remain after you die...Are you suggesting that your case is unique and that others might live after death, or are you suggesting that, in your case, this is what you believe? Even from a scientific standpoint, it is not possible to rule out some form of life after after death, so I don't understand how anyone can categorically state that life after death is not possible. Indeed, there is no scientific evidence, for that matter, that would rule out the possibility that the universe as a whole is conscious, or rule out the possibility that there is a God like consciousness that pervades the universe. Let's face it, we just don't have enough evidence one way or the other to be claiming as a fact that a multiverse does or does not exist, or that immortality or a conscious universe is or is not possible. Nevertheless, scientists do not just sit on facts and then stop thinking. They are constantly re-evaluating data in an effort to form better hypotheses and theories, and even though much of what we know about the universe, including evolution, is not based much on first-hand observation, so many things point to the functional truth of evolution that this theory is generally considered to be fact. The standard scientific approach is to try to see what the data suggests, and then try to weigh evidence that supports ones guess without summarily dismissing contrary evidence. Thus, when it comes to the existence of another universe, for example, scientists do not claim to be able to show it to you in the same way that they might show the Grand Canyon to an incredulous child. The goal of scientists is not to take anyone to another universe to show that it exists, but rather to show that the existence of such things as the development of other universes can be predicted logically from the way that relativity and perhaps (physical and organic) evolution work. Indeed, the first really in-depth study of evolution could be said to have begun with Darwin's study of the beaks of finches on the Cocos islands, and, over the decades, has shown to be a theory that pervades virtually all branches of scientific endeavor, including the study of human behavior (though, admittedly, the claim that humans have Neanderthal ancestors, for example, is more demonstrable than, say, David Buss's claim that evolution causes women to be more genetically selective when it comes to choosing mates). I merely threw my two cents in by suggesting that a theory about the conservation of structured consciousness (as well as the conservation of successful physical structures such as bird beaks that can crack seeds) via, for example, reincarnation, might also be predicted from what we know about evolution. Who knows, as Carter Phipps suggests, what non-materialistic feather of knowledge we can tentatively dovetail into the peacock tail of evolution.

Tar Your attempts at optimism in the face of death reminds me of Mersault's attempt to find meaning in the universe in the face of death while in prison near the end of "L'Etranger." But again, I think any such Walt Whitmanesque effusions are misleading.....you can't with any consistency on the one hand take a nonreligious stance, and then state that the universe loves us unconditionally (even though it is not conscious)! You say, for example, "unconditional love we have, from the universe is the same love the buttercup in the field receives from the Sun." And no, the sun doesn't love the buttercup unconditionally, it is just burning off nuclear steam, so to speak. Though we at times get the feeling that the universe is a loving place in which to be...nevertheless, if we are going to personify the universe, we must adopt a balanced description of it by not forgetting that it also contains horrific things such as tornadoes and hurricanes that seem very destructive and cruel. So we can't say that the universe loves us in the same sense as it loves a buttercup...and indeed, nature has been known to shred a buttercup to shreds without mercy! In any case, I don't see the point of such poeticizing unless one is writing poetry or perhaps assuring a three-year-old that the world is not so bad after all, just because it makes horrible things occasionally such as thunder and lightning. I think that is possible that in some way beyond our comprehension the universe may have some sort of consciousness, though the manner in which evolution works does not seem to suggest that...In any case, I do not claim to know that the universe as a whole is not conscious. By the way, the existence of a conscious universe would be tantamount to the existence of God....though unless the universe tampered with its own laws (e.g., via miracles) it would seem to make no difference at all whether it was conscious or not. As for ETs, it may not change your attitude, but the discovery of intelligent on other planets would certainly grate against many religious doctrines and put a bee in the bonnets of many a parishioner. If anything, we might describe the universe and its relation to life as a series of creative separations and reunions. In this sense, I speculate that it is likely that the universe was just one among many have separated from the backdrop field of near nothingness, and will return to this field after trillions of years of dissipation...though, I would suggest, they don't absurdly disappear without a trace...there would always be some sort of "afterglow" residue. Evolution need not always go forward (he uses the example that a dolphin could conceivably evolve back to a fish), but going backward is statistically so remote that it is not worth considering. Personally, I think that nature is conservative in that nothing of value that is created is ever lost, so that given that the residual consciousness that I think remains after our separation from the universe, I would speculate that there is life after death (as the afterglow of bodily consciousness), so that, after all, no one is ever entirely alone. I don't see the universe as loving or hating in this regard (apart from the pathetic fallacy), but rather as something that just unfolds in accordance inexorably in accordance with its own inevitable laws.

@ Ten Oz: Well, I wouldn't say that French is the same as Spanish, just because they are both considered Romance languages, so again, I am not sure how relevant this analogy is. Of course, I take your semantic point that certain major religions are in some respects founded on the same God who revealed himself to Abraham. But for all practical theological purposes, I still maintain that it is very misleading to even indirectly suggest that therefore these major religions in any way have the same conception of God, which is really all that matters when all is said and done. And I can't see that it is valid to suggest that they have the same God if theologians from these religions repeatedly and adamantly reject this claim themselves. I am not speaking just from a Christian perspective in this regard. Jews, for example, also tend to be quite adamant about the matter in that they reject the Christian conception of the deity. Let's look at what a Jewish site dedicated to the implications of the Abrahamic tradition, for example, says with regard to the claim that Allah and Yahweh are the same "Before Mohammed, Allah was a well-known Arabian moon deity who had three daughters that are even mentioned in the Koran; Lat, Uzza and Manat. Arabic is a related language to Hebrew and Aramaic and nowhere in the language is Allah or anything close to it used for the name of God, Yahweh. Actually, Allah is equivalent to the Babylonian god Baal. Even the symbol for Islam the Crescent moon and Star still declares this origin. Just because Islam is a monotheistic faith that claims to believe in the God of Abraham (Ibrahim) does not mean they have the right [same] god. ...Clearly Allah and Yahweh are not the same."http://www.abrahamsdescendants.com/is-allah-the-same-as-yahweh.html I concede that this controversy may be getting off topic and am willing to move on, but I think that it is clearly glossing over the complexity of the issue in a misleading way to say that the three major religions have the same God. Despite the fact that Allah and Yahweh revealed themselves to Abraham, these deities were thought to have existed before Abraham, and their cultural roots branch off into all sorts of "pagan" and non-Abrahamic directions before and after the revelations to Abraham. Similarly, it is even more of a stretch to assume that the Satanic or evil forces mentioned within one religion is the same as that in another on the basis of this Abrahamic connection. But, as you say, this is a side issue....I guess, for the most part, though, I too, just wanted to clarify that we are talking hypothetically and descriptively when we discuss the religious aspect of these cultures. So back to the main issue: I think that these sort of discussions tend to become hopelessly complicated, owing to the fact that scriptures were cobbled together from a variety of sources by a variety of people in a variety of time periods, and interpreted by a variety of interpreters in a variety of settings with a variety of, often conflicting, assumptions. For example, when I look at the original post by MonDie, I see that he postulates that "Satan has free will eternally (E), he must inevitably be saved." I am not sure just where the assumption that Satan will be saved simply because he has free will comes from. Christians do not believe that people are in hell because of Satan's rebellious choices, but rather because of Adam and Eve's, though Satan may have done some tempting. But even here there are numerous interpretations. I think one interesting observation made by various writers is that there would have been no need for Jesus to become incarnate had not Adam and Eve "rebelled" since there would have been no Fall from Grace. In any case, the idea of Original Sin and the idea that it was passed along to the descendants of Adam and Eve (aka, humankind) was a concept that wasn't really interpolated into the religion until the likes of St Augustine centuries after the resurrection. The bottom line is that there is not a single coherent and consistent statement of belief regarding the issue of free will, much less the conditions for acquiring salvation, the role of evil and/or Satan, the benevolence of God, the personality of God, the nature of hell, etc. I think a more relevant area of investigation is that of predetermination....How is it that humans can have free will, if an omniscient God knows how we will decide beforehand? The idea of predestination looks even more glum, since it suggests that no matter what we say or do, God has already decided who will be saved or not. Again, there are variations between sects and branches of Christianity, and even various interpretations of the Calvinistic implications of predestination. Indeed, both Calvin and Luther, when pinned down on the issue of predestination and free will, remarked that they didn't understand how people could have free will in a world where God already knows what they will decide and who will be saved. Neither attempted to answer this conundrum with logic, but rather brushed it off on the basis that God's ways could not be understood using reason..., so that one just had to have Faith that it all somehow makes sense even though God works in mysterious ways. I guess it is relevant to ask what might happen if Satan said he was sorry. Humans still have the option of avoiding being sent to hell by not rebelling against God, by accepting God's forgiveness, and/or by following the Golden Rule, and/or by just believing in Jesus (sola fide), or whatever (as the exact formula varies from sect to sect). It seems that the God of Christianity has zero tolerance, and, once in hell, whether one is Satan or a descendant of Adam, there is no exit and no second chance. Hence Dante's famous line in this regard, "All hope abandon, ye who enter here.” I am not sure ultimately what the point of this forum is, though it ostensibly is about free will within a scriptural context..it seems that the focus of this discussion thread has more to do with the scriptural God's benevolence and perhaps unfairness: One can never draw a get out of jail (hell) free card. In this regard, it seems that major eastern religions are a little bit more benevolent and forever forgiving in this regard....you can make (karmic) mistakes, but you can always get up and dust yourself off and try again until you get it right....much like Bill Murray manages to do by the end of the movie, Ground Hog Day.

Tar I agree with your last post. However, your post before that stated that "being not a singularity allows the universe to keep itself company." If I may paraphrase judging from the rest of that post, your point was that people see the world from different perspectives and therefore at different points in the world (or universe). Then you go on to state that the various different points of consciousness (aka, minds) that humans have allow the universe to have company. This suggested to me that you think that the universe had "emotions" such as loneliness. Since you state in your last post that you don't 'think of the universe as having a consciousness "of its own"', I suspect that you were just speaking metaphorically when you said people allow the universe to have company. Unfortunately, I think your use of metaphor here and elsewhere has quasi-religious connotations when describing people's role with respect to the universe. (Indeed, many a Christian will make the similar claim that God wanted to have humans in the universe just to keep himself company.) In my recent remarks, I have been trying to suggest that people are seldom able to find the sort of unconditional love from other people that they seem to want so much, as if the desire for such companionship and love welled up from some deep instinctual and/or spiritual level....as if the ordinary amount of company or companionship that they could provide each other never seemed to be enough. Along these lines, a writer named Romain Rolland told Freud that he to,too, found religions to be just the manifestation of a human illusion, and that religions only developed because 'humans shared a common feeling of innate religiosity, an "oceanic" feeling in which the individual feels bonded with the entire world and the whole human race. It is a sense of oneness, boundlessness, limitlessness.' In response to this explanation for the ubiquity of 'man's religious impulse, Freud, ever the biologic cynic, retorted that the desire to be loved by and bonded to the entire human race and to the entire universe is really just a hang over from narcissistic and infantile (non-ego/oceanic) feelings in the womb, where all desires were satisfied, as well as from the infant's later attempts to gain unlimited love and security from the mother and/or father once the infant realized he could not satisfy his/her needs on his own: "Freud concludes that the source of religious feeling is not simply the memory of primary narcissism; rather, for him it derives from the helplessness of the infant, its need for protection by a stronger, more powerful force. Hence religions project their gods typically as father figures, who are allusions to the desire for such a protective figure." (quotes from http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/Civilization.Notes.html ) In any case, I only mention this Freudian theory as it attempts to give a non-spiritual explanation for people's longing to unite (or reunite) with the universe. In a nutshell, Freud is just saying that people take things to an extreme when it comes to desiring security, either as infants or as adults, and are continually seeking to be the only one who is the center of attention, or at least, to be a person who is unconditionally loved by either a partner, a parent, or by a God (or the universe). I don't think that this is one of Freud's wackier theories, as he is really just outlining the nature of human attachment anxiety, and relating this anxiety to the human need for an unconditionally loving parent, partner, or God. Indeed, as far as Freud was concerned, these three things kind of blended together (when it came to getting unconditional love) in the average person's mind. Your earlier comments, it seemed to me, tended to suggest that the universe itself, (conversely to Freud's comment that people want to bond with God or the universe) wanted to unite, bond, and/or keep company with human beings. It sounds to me now, once the misleading metaphor is dropped, that you are not suggesting any such thing, but rather just stating that people live in a universe and like to keep each other company. No problem...Einstein laced his description of the universe with religious language all the time to achieve effect, but when asked what he really thought, he was quick to acknowledge that he did not believe in a personal God who cared about us, much as people wanted to believe he cared. I am not really trying to explore whether a caring God exists or whether the universe is conscious and wants company. Rather, I find it interesting to explore the reasons that people are concerned as to whether they are alone in or with respect to the universe. Such a concern, I suspect, is also related to the concern as to whether their planet or universe is alone when it comes to sustaining intelligent life...... All in all, it seems like a whole lot ta people are concerned with just how much company and love there is to be had.

Ten Oz Christianity, Judaism, and Islam may have been cut from the same culture so that they are to "some extent influenced" by the depiction of a God with similar qualities, e.g., "revealed himself to Abraham. So far so good. But, from an anthropological standpoint, I suggest that one starts with the assumption that God only exists in the mind of each of these different groups of people (e.g., Christians, Jews, and Muslims). On that basis, as I pointed out, it is just not true that a God who created the universe along with human beings in a few hours can be said to be the same God as who created the universes along with human beings in several billion years. Certainly to say that they are exactly the same God except that the people worship him differently is quite a stretch. So yes, I am defining (not redefining) God in terms of how people conceive or feel about him. I suspect that most theologians would not be as quick as you are to assume that the God is the same in all three religions, just because they have been "to some extent influenced" by the same Abrahamic tradition. Says Columbia International University, for example: "Allah and Yahweh cannot refer to the same person [i.e., personhood of God] for the following reasons. First of all, their attributes are different. In Allah’s monadic oneness his attributes stem from his powerful Will which, because it provides no basis for relationship, often promotes capriciousness. Also, since his power is more important than his other attributes, there is an unequal emphasis on power over his other attributes. In the end, a follower cannot know God or even be sure of the consistency of his attributes. On the other hand, because Yahweh is by nature a triune unity his attributes stem from his nature. The eternal relationship within the Trinity promotes love within the Godhead and extends to his creation. Also, since his attributes are based on his unchanging nature rather than his powerful will, all his attributes are equal and promote trustworthiness rather than capriciousness. This means that believers can know God and be sure of his attributes. Second, Christians understand the nature of God to be triune (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), which is the only way that Jesus Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, could die on the cross to pay for our sins. If Jesus were not God himself, then his death on the cross would be meaningless. However, Muslims deny that Jesus died on the cross and they reject the belief in his resurrection from the dead. Only a triune God, defined as one essence and three persons, could become incarnate and still remain God of the universe, and yet this is the God that Muslims reject. For them, Jesus cannot be God nor can God be a Father, for he cannot have a son. Therefore, if Muslims reject God as the Father of Jesus, then Allah cannot be the same as the God of the Bible." http://www.ciu.edu/content/allah-islam-same-yahweh-christianity So no, being cut from the same cultural/historical cloth does not make Allah and Yahweh identical, anymore than siblings somehow must be the same person because they came from the same womb and talked to the same mother at some stage. By the way, your Wiki quote (whoever made it in the first place) does not actually say that Allah and Yahweh were the same, it merely states that the corresponding religions can be described as Abrahamic religions since they both accept that a God [of some sort] revealed himself to Abraham. Indeed, the same wiki article that you cite states that "early Islam was long considered one of many Christological heresies in medieval Christianity," which means, that Christians rejected the Islamic interpretation of what God was like and/or who he was. Perhaps you can see my point if I exaggerate just a little: Suppose we agree that the God of Muslims and the God of Christians both talked to Abraham (though we are not sure if this God said the same things to each group or even said them at the same time)...but Muslims grew to picture this God as a giant young clean-shaven soldier who uses his sword to cut off the heads of Christians, while Christians grew to picture this God as a bearded old man who threw Muslims into everlasting fire....Now, despite any tangential points that the young soldier and the old man have in common (e.g., they both spoke to Abraham), it is hardly reasonable to suggest that they are actually the same God....that is, unless you assume that said God actually exists and that both Christians and Muslims were just mistaken when it came to how they described him.

Ten OZ I have to side with Memammal on this one....the origins may be different, but the interpretation of Jesus and God, as well as the worship/rituals are so different as to make it absurd to say that they worship the same God. Just for starters, many if not most Muslims see Christianity as a form of heathen polytheism given its Triune interpretation of God. Or I could refer you to Bloom's book Yahweh, in which he concludes that even the God of the Old Testament is so different than the God found in the New that one cannot logically claim that they are the same God. For starters, apart from the personality differences, Yahweh is, again, not just a part of a triune. And personally, I detect a bit of difference between the God of the OT who doesn't blink a jaundiced, jealous eye when encouraging Moses and Joshua to slaughter masses of people for worshipping the wrong God in the wrong way, and the Jesus of the NT who suggests one turn the other cheek towards ones enemies (Yes, I know he chased moneylenders out of the temple, but apples and oranges). I think that there is always a bit of 'objectification' of God in such a discussion, as if "he" were actually there in the sky and people just interpret him differently...much like the story of the wise men who were blind and thus interpreted the same elephant in different ways. A more logical approach, I would suggest, is to note that if two or more people's picture of their God is different from someone elses, then let's call a duck a duck, and admit that the different societies/people do indeed have a different God. This was really my question...when people use terms such as Satan and God, are they taking a phenomenological approach, or are they taking the more religious approach of assuming that these "characters" really exist. Even a dispute within sects, imo, suggests that people are not really worshipping the same God. One sect may stipulate that a certain type of baptism is required for entry into heaven. Why, even members of these disparate sects will claim that those from other sects will not get into heaven because they have incorrect beliefs....Do you think Catholics think Muslims will get into heaven and vice versa? The God of some literal fundamentalists who created stars and humans in seven 24hr days is not the same as the God of progressive protestants or Catholics who works via the slow process of evolution. I have heard that Native Americans have really always worshipped Jesus because Jesus appeared to them, but only in a different way...so that Native Americans centuries ago could be saved because they had the chance to decide whether or not to believe in Jesus. Similarly, I have heard people say that Christians and Buddhists and Hindus and everyone else today really, when you get right down to it, worship the same God, because there is, after all, only the one true God....it's just that people interpret him differently according to their cultures................Seriously? Next I will hear that there is no difference between Zeus and Jesus....people just worship him differently. The bottom line is that one begins by looking at the attributes of the various God(s) from different cultures. One does not begin with the assumption that there is only one true God and then assume that "he" just appears differently to different people from different cultures. Does God appear as Jesus to a little boy's dream in a Christian culture and as Shiva in the dream of an Indian boy because Jesus changes his appearance to suit the culture as one Christian explained to me, or....does the little boy from each culture just project the cultural image of the God that they have been raised to believe in? Big difference in approaches here.

Let's look at some statistics as to what percentage of Americans actually take scripture literally: 'An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.” Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.' http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all Comments made in connection with the Gallup Poll 2011 include the following: "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God." "In general, the dominant view of Americans is that the Bible is the word of God, be it inspired or actual, as opposed to a collection of stories recorded by man." Highly religious Americans and those who have less formal education are more likely to hold that "the view that the Bible is the inspired word of God, rather than the actual word of God or a book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts." http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx Similarly, An "Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 77 percent of adults believe these ethereal beings [angels] are real. Belief is primarily tied to religion, with 88 percent of Christians, 95 percent of evangelical Christians and 94 percent of those who attend weekly religious services of any sort saying they believe in angels.Dec 23, 2011" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/ Though polls show that such literal beliefs are gradually going down in recent decades, the figures seem in-credibly high given that the source of such beliefs is reduced to, basically, one book, and one that, by any educational standard today would be considered woefully outdated and inaccurate. More importantly, such statistics suggest that there is often some sort of disconnect between what people believe, in terms of a scientific approach, and what they believe in terms of a religious one. Mark Lorch, for example, wondered how scientists can believe in both without some sort of face-twitching cognitive dissonance: "I could never reconcile what I saw as a contradiction between the principles of the scientific method and faith in a supernatural god. And ever since then, it has puzzled me how anyone could be religious whilst also being a scientist." https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4889/can-you-be-a-scientist-and-have-religious-faith He goes on to relate that as he grew older (and presumably wiser?) he began to realize that science also has its own faith (i.e., the power of the inductive method) and therefore that he should not be surprised that people can believe in science as well as having faith in a book such as the Bible (as if science is also a religion, and therefore can't claim that its textbooks are any more accurate than any other religious text). Well, I will let people make up their own minds as to whether such verbal legerdemain is a reasonable defense against any scientific efforts to dispute the sort of miracles described in many scriptural accounts, though I think it helpful to remember the cultural context in which the scriptures were written, when weighing, for example, the likelihood of a scriptural description of the origin of life and the universe in comparison with modern scientific descriptions about the way the universe unfolded.

I meant at this point in time...right now. And, yes, there are many things that science can't now explain, of course, but the ones I mentioned seemed most germane to the discussion.

Tar, You state, "This however goes more toward us operating from a standard play book, than being isolated forever from each other." I'm sorry, I can only guess that you mean (without providing any evidence or reasons) that our minds are joined together after death...In any case, perhaps you could elaborate or clarify. You also state that, "were we not thusly separated from the universe, we would not be able to notice it." I presume you mean that it is necessary that our minds are bounded. Well, yes, whether one is talking about spiritual existence or animal survival, having a sense of perspective and the concomitant sense of identity enables us to be conscious of ourselves as well as our universe/environment. It is relevant, however, that Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, both suggest that our consciousness does indeed return to the universe (after a series of non-competitive, yet moral-based conflicts while on earth), though with, perhaps, the loss of our personal ego. Nevertheless, if such religious speculation is true, I would suggest that it would make sense that our minds are still bounded even in such a state of Nirvana, though in parallel dimensions, much as they are on earth anyway...Perhaps the growth of consciousness as it cycles back and forth from microcosmic to macrocosmic states in various reincarnations is what T.S. Eliot partially had in mind when he wrote, "We shall not cease in exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." As an aside, I would suggest that if each of our minds (aka, consciousnesses) were not hermetically sealed and bounded, we could do such things as spend a day in someone elses body or read someone elses thoughts, etc. In short, there would be chaos and a complete breakdown in self-identity. ................................... You suggest that the universe created humans (with their various personal points of view) in order to keep itself from being lonely (much as is said of God in Christian churches). This looks good on paper.... however, there is zero evidence (empirical or otherwise, apart from religious scriptures) that the universe has a consciousness of its own. On the one hand, you emphasize the idea that we have no empirical evidence for the existence of a multiverse, but then on the other, you are quick to jump to the conclusion that the answer to this thread is that the universe created us as companions. (Actually, this is similar to the claims of the German Idealists, particularly Hegel, who talk in quasi-religious terms about the individual's or an entire society's spirit rejoining the Spirit (aka Geist) of the universe after a series of dialectical and competitive conflicts....in particular he saw Ubermensch (aka supermen) such as Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and himself (all Germans) in particular, and the German/Aryan "race" in general as the culmination of this cosmic progression, and thus the superior race, thereby prefiguring the rise of Nazi Germany). I don't see that you are really saying anything more than that we all live in the same universe, and that we all at least have that in common. I don't think anyone would dispute that, so I am not sure why you tend to stress that idea. Again, I agree with your reminders that we have things in common such as seeing the same object and communicating with the same language, or perhaps, being able to catch and throw the same object such as a Frisbee at a family picnic, etc.., But I think that such obvious reminders, merely serve, intentionally or not, to marginalize and avoid a discussion of the existential sense of loneliness that many people feel. It is that sense alone-ness and loneliness that I am trying to investigate, as well as the various ways that we try to escape our sense of alienation. Indeed, Heidegger, towards the end of Being and Time, goes to considerable length to explore the way that people try to ("inauthentically") avoid their sense of existential loneliness. (Ditto for Sartre in Being and Nothingness, as well as several other writers of that period and later on). This sense of existential loneliness is related, I would suggest, at least in part, to the fact that people's minds are bounded, as well as the related feeling that they they are disconnected from their fellow human beings in a consumerist society that itself augments such feelings of alienation...as if each person is just a number; they also feel disconnected from the alleged "mind of God" or some alleged "mind of Nature." It is this sense of loneliness that I am trying to explore....Since we cannot really answer the question as to, for example, whether there are other universes or other people on other planets, apart from citing mathematical formulas pointing in that direction, the best I can do, I guess, is to analyze the motivation behind asking the question itself as to whether we and/or the universe is alone. Ultimately, I agree with you that the universe created bounded minds, or to be more precise, I agree that bounded minds developed out of the universe. I am not suggesting that any one religion is right or wrong, but, like the Buddhists and unlike the Hindus, however, I see no reason to assume that the entire Universe has a consciousness of its own, or like some anthropomorphic god, could feel the emotion of loneliness, as you seem to be claiming. ....................................

Lyudmilascience: You write that " everyone has different morals and we should not punish people for eating meat because they have different morals." This is a very controversial comment, and I am surprised that you rattled it off so easily. It is really all about the question of absolute morality vs. relative...which is the basic bone of contention in the so-called culture wars between 'conservatives' and 'progressives', or fundamentalists and postmodernists, etc. It does make sense that we should not blame those who eat meat if they think that is okay and that is what they want to do. But what about those who think that abortion and euthanasia and animal experiments are okay (or not)? What about cannibalism...I am sure many people think that is perfectly fine? Can we blame the Aztecs for the horrific way that they conducted their worship services? Can we blame Hitler for trying to make the country a better place to live and for doing what he thought was right? What about Queen Elizabeth I, can we blame her for the imperialistic slaughter of thousands of colonials, when all she thought was that she was making the world a better place? I am not really making any particular statement here, other than to note that when one asks how we might have a more ethical society, the immediate question should be, 'Who is to decide how one should go about doing that?'

Science cannot give a full account of how the universe popped out of whatever it popped out of, nor can science fully explain how life pops out of, what some refer to as, the primordial swamp (aka soup). Nevertheless, science has made huge strides towards giving a coherent and unified account that is consistent with the rest of scientific knowledge over the centuries, making rather exponential progress. I could take a stab at discussing in a little more detail such topics as the significance of vibrations in the Higgs Boson field, or of rudimentary rDNA fragments in deep-sea hydrothermal vents (as possible scientific explanations for the origin of the universe and life), but I think that this would merely be a didactic excursion that does not address the true implication of the question, which is really, I think, :"What would be the impact on religion were scientists able to provide significant evidence that the universe and life forms "naturally" come into existence without supernatural assistance?" Perhaps the impact would be similar to that provided by Newton upon claiming that the earth moved (about the sun), or Darwin suggesting the interconnectedness of all life forms. Perhaps, we would have to redefine, as suggested by some posts above, the notion of God(s). Indeed, Einstein used the term God, but rejected any suggestion of a personal God as well as the suggestion that such a God would legislate morality. Also, I would point out that the question is a little rigged....just because science cannot, as of yet, explain everything (and probably will never be able to), does not mean that it can't present a more cogent and believable picture of the universe than that found, for example, in Michelangelo's rendition of the 'Creation of Adam'.