In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #230]

I don’t see how it’s a poetic account of evolutionary theory in any way. The author/editor had no concept of evolutionary theory.

What makes you think that? Did YHVH not place that information into human awareness, when creating humans? If not, why not?

It is possible that the author did have a concept of evolution, and the story simply reflects the authors poetic interpretation of that understanding, in order to condense it into manageable data, in the form of a Garden setting.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #231]

I don’t see how it’s a poetic account of evolutionary theory in any way. The author/editor had no concept of evolutionary theory.

What makes you think that? Did YHVH not place that information into human awareness, when creating humans?

I see no textual connections to ET being made by the author. ET hasn't been around since the time this book was written, it came much later, didn't it?

If not, why not?

I see no need for humans during the writing of this text to know about ET. I don't see how it benefits their day to day lives.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #232]

William: What makes you think that? Did YHVH not place that information into human awareness, when creating humans?

Tanager: I see no textual connections to ET being made by the author. ET hasn't been around since the time this book was written, it came much later, didn't it?

William: My question relates to your claim that YHVH instilled moral understanding into the fabric of Human consciousness. You said that Adam knew morality from the go-get.
In that, why would YHVH install moral information but not information as to how YHVH created the universe.
Further to that, my argument being that both moral information and ET information were allowed to form within human consciousness, rather than as something that was fully understood from the go-get, re ET & CT being reconcilable.

Therefore, it can be accepted that both moral understanding and how YHVH created the universe understanding are things which developed re ET.

Open AI: It can be argued that the Bible does not provide clear information on the origin of morality and the creation of the universe, and that these concepts may have developed and evolved over time within human consciousness. The idea that both moral understanding and understanding of the creation of the universe may have developed together and are reconcilable, is a matter of interpretation and open to different religious beliefs and perspectives.


William: Why should we be open to different religious beliefs and perspectives which are not themselves open to ET?

Open AI: Being open to different religious beliefs and perspectives allows for a greater understanding and appreciation of different cultures and worldviews. It can also lead to more tolerant and accepting attitudes towards others, regardless of their beliefs. Additionally, many religious beliefs and perspectives have evolved over time and have undergone significant changes and reinterpretations, so it is possible that some religious beliefs and perspectives may come to accept the idea of ET in the future.

William: Let us examine your statement re your first sentence. What does allowing for greater understanding and appreciation of different cultures and worldviews have to do with reconciling ET with CT, when there are CT beliefs which actively oppose ET and regard ET as being dangerous to the beliefs you say it is important to include in the process of reconciliation?
I acknowledge that you say there is hope that in the future such beliefs may change, but in that what is being argued is such beliefs be allowed on the table [re being open to said beliefs] when they do not belong on the table and we should not be open to them.
The very act of being open to them is to agree that there is truth to them, when there is not.

Open AI: You are correct that some religious beliefs and perspectives actively oppose the idea of ET and may view it as a threat to their beliefs. However, being open to different religious beliefs and perspectives does not necessarily mean agreeing with or accepting them as true. Rather, it means being willing to engage with them in a respectful and non-judgmental manner, and trying to understand where they are coming from. In the case of ET and CT, this means being open to the idea that different religious perspectives may exist, even if they do not currently reconcile with ET.

It's important to note that many religious beliefs and perspectives have evolved over time and have undergone significant changes and reinterpretations. So, what is considered as truth in one generation may be seen differently in the next. By being open to different religious beliefs and perspectives, we can foster a greater understanding and appreciation of different cultures and worldviews, it can also lead to more tolerant and accepting attitudes towards others, regardless of their beliefs. And in case, if any religious beliefs and perspectives change in the future that would be a positive step in the direction of reconciliation.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #233]

My question relates to your claim that YHVH instilled moral understanding into the fabric of Human consciousness. You said that Adam knew morality from the go-get.
In that, why would YHVH install moral information but not information as to how YHVH created the universe.

Because moral understanding is needed in order to rule over the earth in the image of YHVH, while scientific knowledge of how YHVH created the universe is not needed for such ends.

Further to that, my argument being that both moral information and ET information were allowed to form within human consciousness, rather than as something that was fully understood from the go-get, re ET & CT being reconcilable.

Are you distinguishing human consciousness from these moral and rational elements? If so, why? I see consciousness as these elements, not something in addition to them.

[thomasdixon]

It's important to note that many religious beliefs and perspectives have evolved over time and have undergone significant changes and reinterpretations.

Your posts are really informative, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
May you and yours enjoy life to its fullest.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #234]

William: My question relates to your claim that YHVH instilled moral understanding into the fabric of Human consciousness. You said that Adam knew morality from the go-get.
In that, why would YHVH install moral information but not information as to how YHVH created the universe.

Tanager: Because moral understanding is needed in order to rule over the earth in the image of YHVH, while scientific knowledge of how YHVH created the universe is not needed for such ends.

William: If I regard your answer as a claim, you will have to provide compelling evidence to support your claim.
Q: Why would an understanding of ET not be required "in order to rule over the earth in the image of YHVH?

William: Further to that, my argument being that both moral information and ET information were allowed to form within human consciousness, rather than as something that was fully understood from the go-get, re ET & CT being reconcilable.

Tanager: Are you distinguishing human consciousness from these moral and rational elements? If so, why?

William: No. I understand that these elements evolved alongside human consciousness and could not have evolved without human consciousness.

Tanager: I see consciousness as these elements, not something in addition to them.

William: I see these elements as natural outgrowths of human consciousness, and came into being because human consciousness brought them into being.

Open AI: It is a matter of perspective and interpretation on whether one sees moral and rational understanding as innate to human consciousness or as separate elements that evolved alongside human consciousness. Both views can be argued to have merits and evidence to support them. The question of why YHVH would instill certain understandings and not others is a matter of theology and belief, and ultimately cannot be proven or disproved through scientific means.

William: Given belief is opinion, it can be said that Tanagers statement "Because moral understanding is needed in order to rule over the earth in the image of YHVH, while scientific knowledge of how YHVH created the universe is not needed for such ends." should not be treated as a claim, but only as a statement of opinion.

Open AI: Yes, you can say that. Tanager's statement is an opinion based on a certain belief system, and as such it is not a scientific claim that can be proven or disproven through evidence. It is a matter of personal perspective and interpretation.

William: If humankind doesn't understand how YHVH created, how can humankind rule as effective ambassadors re the image of YHVH, without the knowledge science discovers re the creation process YHVH used?
The premise is understanding the nature of YHVH, in order to effectively rule the world according to that understanding, Given that science has been very helpful in that regard, understanding how YHVH created, must be essential to understand how YHVH would like us to rule the world.
Therefore, one's religious or theological understanding of the nature of YHVH and the purpose of humanity has to include acceptance of what science uncovers re how YHVH created, in order that the truer image of YHVH is conveyed re humanity ruling the world according to the information being gathered in all fields of human understanding and behavior.

Open AI: It is a valid argument that understanding the scientific process of how YHVH created the universe could be essential in order to effectively rule the earth as ambassadors of YHVH. The idea is that understanding the natural laws and processes that govern the universe can give insight into the nature and will of YHVH, and therefore can inform how we as human beings should live and govern the earth. This argument suggests that religious or theological understanding should be open to new discoveries and understanding from science, rather than being in opposition to them. This perspective can be considered as a reconcilement of science and theology, where both are viewed as complimentary ways of understanding the world and the nature of YHVH.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #236]

Because moral understanding is needed in order to rule over the earth in the image of YHVH, while scientific knowledge of how YHVH created the universe is not needed for such ends.

If I regard your answer as a claim, you will have to provide compelling evidence to support your claim.

The biblical authors consistently depict YHVH as doing good and wanting goodness done between humans. One may disagree that all the actions ascribed to YHVH are actually good, but that is irrelevant here. The authors think YHVH is good. YHVH’s way is good. We are called to follow YHVH’s ways. If humans are made to rule in YHVH’s way, then that would necessarily include doing good things.

Why would an understanding of ET not be required "in order to rule over the earth in the image of YHVH?

The biblical authors consistently depict YHVH as all knowing, but that humans are not and cannot be all knowing. Thus, the above reasoning doesn’t apply to knowledge as it does to morality.

Generally speaking, all societies have had to make moral decisions in their ruling. Morality is logically necessary when two or more people come together because it is (at least partly) about how we interact with each other. On the other hand, many societies have existed without having a scientific understanding of how the world was created.

Are you distinguishing human consciousness from these moral and rational elements? If so, why?

No. I understand that these elements evolved alongside human consciousness and could not have evolved without human consciousness.

Saying “alongside” distinguishes them as separate things. I would put morality alongside rationality, but that human consciousness is a categorical term that includes both things and is not anything in addition to them. What I see you doing would be like saying the NFL has evolved alongside the teams, owners, stadiums, etc. The NFL is the teams, owners, stadiums, etc.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #237]

Tanager: Claim: Because moral understanding is needed in order to rule over the earth in the image of YHVH, while scientific knowledge of how YHVH created the universe is not needed for such ends.

William: If I regard your answer as a claim, you will have to provide compelling evidence to support your claim.

Tanager: The biblical authors consistently depict YHVH as doing good and wanting goodness done between humans. One may disagree that all the actions ascribed to YHVH are actually good, but that is irrelevant here. The authors think YHVH is good. YHVH’s way is good. We are called to follow YHVH’s ways. If humans are made to rule in YHVH’s way, then that would necessarily include doing good things.

William: This does not fully address the claim Tanager - it does not address that knowledge of how YHVH creates is not necessary to know in order for humanity to rule the earth appropriate to the image of YHVH.

Why would an understanding of ET not be required in order to rule over the earth in the image of YHVH?

Tanager: The biblical authors consistently depict YHVH as all knowing, but that humans are not and cannot be all knowing. Thus, the above reasoning doesn’t apply to knowledge as it does to morality.

William: Morality is also based in knowledge, so your argument appears to be a strawman, as it still doesn't address why knowledge of how YHVH creates, is not a necessary component in humankind successfully ruling the world.

Tanager: Generally speaking, all societies have had to make moral decisions in their ruling. Morality is logically necessary when two or more people come together because it is (at least partly) about how we interact with each other. On the other hand, many societies have existed without having a scientific understanding of how the world was created.

William: No one is arguing that morality isn't necessary to that end, so there is no issue re that.
You are claiming that knowledge of how YHVH created is not also necessary to that end.

Tanager: Are you distinguishing human consciousness from these moral and rational elements? If so, why?

William: No. I understand that these elements evolved alongside human consciousness and could not have evolved without human consciousness.

Tanager: Saying “alongside” distinguishes them as separate things. I would put morality alongside rationality, but that human consciousness is a categorical term that includes both things and is not anything in addition to them. What I see you doing would be like saying the NFL has evolved alongside the teams, owners, stadiums, etc. The NFL is the teams, owners, stadiums, etc.

William: They are separate things created by the same thing. They are no more separate from their service to consciousness, than are the sun and the moon are separate from the service of the earth.

Open AI: It can be argued that while many separate societies may have existed and functioned without a scientific understanding of how the universe was created, the idea of humanity collectively ruling the world in the image of YHVH is a different concept that may require a deeper understanding of the natural laws and processes that govern the universe. This understanding can give insight into the nature and will of YHVH and how to govern the earth in a way that aligns with YHVH's will. Thus, when it comes to humanity collectively ruling the world, an integration of science and theology could be necessary in order to understand the will of YHVH and govern the earth in a way that is in alignment with that will.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #238]

No one is arguing that morality isn't necessary to that end, so there is no issue re that.
You are claiming that knowledge of how YHVH created is not also necessary to that end.

What I've been saying is that by definition, society involves morality because morality involves how people interact with each other. The definition of society doesn’t necessarily include knowledge of how the world was created. So, to include the latter would require further argumentation. Do you have any such argument?

They are separate things created by the same thing. They are no more separate from their service to consciousness, than are the sun and the moon are separate from the service of the earth.

What support do you have for this claim that they are separate things?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #238]

No one is arguing that morality isn't necessary to that end, so there is no issue re that.
You are claiming that knowledge of how YHVH created is not also necessary to that end.

What I've been saying is that by definition, society involves morality because morality involves how people interact with each other. The definition of society doesn’t necessarily include knowledge of how the world was created. So, to include the latter would require further argumentation. Do you have any such argument?

They are separate things created by the same thing. They are no more separate from their service to consciousness, than are the sun and the moon are separate from the service of the earth.

What support do you have for this claim that they are separate things?