ABEL\'S UNIVERSE (General)
DRAGONSHEART (under Intelligent Design): Tony would DEFINITELY tell someone the truth, even if it was painful. He has always been this way, and I, for one, appreciate it. He's told me on no few occasions when I was being a butt-head (I was). I can always count on his honesty. But, he does prefer constructive criticism over cruelty. It's not a matter of telling someone the truth in a manner that hurts them, it's more about telling them in a way that helps them.
First of all, I’d like to say how much I appreciate Tony’s (b_m’s) defence of this website. I too have come to regard many of the contributors as personal friends, even though we’ve never met. There’s wonderful comradeship to be gained from shared interests and from arguing the toss, in the full awareness that although we may never know which way the coin landed, the discussions themselves will continually reveal new aspects of the astonishing world we live in, not to mention the astonishing body that enables us to experience it.
Abel’s aggression has been directed mainly at myself, although others have expressed their scepticism – most notably David, who has not minced his words. I would like to think that my own posts to Abel correspond precisely to DragonsHeart’s description of Tony’s approach, except – I must admit – I would never tell anyone to their face that they were fat, ugly or stupid, but would look for a more tactful way to approach the subject! None of my posts to Abel have been deliberately offensive, unless it’s deemed “derisive†to point out what seem to me gross inconsistencies and claims that cannot be substantiated. Abel has not responded to Tony’s criticisms, and he has not responded to many of my comments and questions either. His silence will remain open to interpretation until it’s broken.
I’m opening a new thread with this post, because we’ve left the subject of Intelligent Design far behind. I’d be grateful if everyone would put new Abel-related posts under this heading, to avoid further overcrowding. I also hope that Abel himself will take to heart the genuine attempts that are being made to establish a basis for rational discussion.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by DragonsHeart 
, Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 14:50 (4565 days ago) @ dhw
Please feel free to call me Casey(it's a lot shorter than DragonsHeart).
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 15:08 (4565 days ago) @ dhw
Even I wouldn't be that tactless unless the use of tact had gone ignored, as it had in this case. Some times a bit of carefully placed tactlessness is every bit as effective as a sharp slap in the face, a shake of the shoulders, or a swift kick in the behind, which, as any one who has ever had children is aware, is sometimes precisely what a person needs to break them out of whatever self-defeating cycle they are in.
To use Abel's example of a fat person, the chances are they already know they are fat. Chances are, they do not like the fact that they are fat. Chances are, they already know WHY they are fat. Normally, the key ingredient is that everyone else in their life either accepts or ignores the fact that they are fat so they feel no motivation, no selective pressure, to do anything to change the situation. If their is anything that can be taken from the study of evolution, biology, psychology, and human nature it is that there MUST be pressure to affect lasting change. If the person is incapable, or unwilling to apply the selective pressure on themselves, then it must come from an outside source.
Of course, you could also argue that it is not my place or my responsibility to try and influence people that I care about to do better for themselves, and you might be correct. It all depends on which angle you view the world from I suppose.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by DragonsHeart , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 15:15 (4565 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
But isn't it EXACTLY your responsibility to point out to your loved ones when and where they need improvement? Otherwise it could be seen as indifference to their actions.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 16:12 (4565 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
That is the way I see it. I am simply not assuming that everyone else sees it the same way.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 16:35 (4565 days ago) @ dhw
I'm going to try and form some coherence out of Abel's posts by taking what I consider to be salient points, grouping them by topics, and then responding or commenting. This will likely take a couple of posts, so please bear with me. Some of these quotes will come under multiple topics as I think they apply.
Early Universe - Life/Evolution - Abiogenesis
Abel Quotes:
For abiogenesis to occur the entropy induced by simple kinetics would have to minimal (but not zero).
When abiogenesis occurred it happened in a much larger pool of matter, over a much longer period of time, someplace where entropy was not tearing every macromolecule to shreds before the first chapter of the book of life could be written.
This first cell was simple. The first race is complex and advanced.
If I don't believe that abiogenesis occured in matter as we understand it, it must have occurred in matter of a type that we don't understand. This, of course, is dark matter.
By my calculations, dark matter is only subject to about 2% of the effects of earth's gravitational field. If we are only subject to 2% of dark matter's gravitational field, then there is 50 times more dark matter in the universe that we even suspect.
I will define dark matter as "temporally saturated matter" and matter as we understand it to be "temporally polarized matter". And for the sake of future discussions: "time is not suspended in space" but rather "space is suspended in time".
In the beginning there was only darkness and time.
In the beginning there was only darkness and time. What we now know to be our universe, was linearly motionless, spinning about a zero point in space and time. Each of its' dimensions balanced in a quantum dance between where it was and where it will be. Its' only energetic emissions are the spiraling waveforms of time itself and gravity (if this in not just an expression of temporal energy-as I suspect it might be). But far away in this unfathomable vastness of darkness and time another much vaster universe spun. Eventually the gravity of that universe reached ours, causing it to move. Initially this movement was through time itself (the fastest, easiest way to move). But eventually a temporal speed limit was reached as the positive dimensions of energetic space "grew" to their maximum temporal length and width. When this happened the quadrants of matter/time that hosted the temporal particles necessary to alter that matter type's spacial relationship to time was lost, emitting two particles and two antiparticles and initiating a chain reaction that created light and kinetic entropy.
In the beginning, the universe was purely quantum in nature, utterly perfect. Every action and reaction was digital, either yes or no. Things only happen in exact places, at exact times, in exact fashions or they don't happen at all.
After untold aeons, temporally saturated stardust containing the elements of life from some long-dead supernova gathered on what was most probably a gas giant in a close orbit around a star. It is upon this world, in the homochiralic pools of life blocks that swirled there, that life began. After many more aeons those simple life forms there evolved into a race of sentient beings.
In a high-entropy system such as ours there is a metabolic advantage to simplicity that off-sets any advantage provided by complexity.
The catabolic power that an organism produces must equal or exceed the metabolic power that it consumes (its' metabolic load) or it will die by a process of energetic depletion. Replication/reproduction greatly increases those needs, a hostile environment will increase them as well.
The first and primary drive for this change are those monkeys furiously pounding away at their typewriters. In this low-entropy environment the advantages conferred by complexity far outweighed its' disadvantages so each of these chapters could be incorporated with little downside to their possession.
Dead things stay dead. (bacteria argument) (no cellular AAA battery)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 17:21 (4565 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
So now we have a list of points that we can question, argue, and refine. All of these quotes are straight from the horses mouth so-to-speak. So, without further ado
1: I don't hold with the theory of abiogenesis regardless of the level of entropy, though I gladly concede that it would be more like in a low entropy environment. However, saying that it would be 'more likely' is still not saying that it could/would happen regardless of the amount of time available, much less in the time that has been allotted.(i.e. since the big bang)
2: You seem to be contradicting yourself. You claim that life originated in a dark matter/energy environment, under different entropy levels, and under different stress factors, and yet you insist that the life forms were not only material, but cellular, and evolving in much the same way that we do in response to their selective pressures. Dark matter/energy interacting with regular matter is a rare thing, relatively speaking. How do you explain the discrepancies?
3: You claim that there is "50 times more dark matter in the universe than we even suspect" based on your calculations. First, the statement is self-contradicting. If you have calculated fifty times the amount, then you certainly suspect that there is fifty times the amount. Regardless, please provide some more information, such as a write up of your calculations. We have some very talented mathematicians on this site that I am sure would be happy to take a look. What are you using as the basis for your calculations?
4: If you define dark matter as Temporally saturated matter, and conventional matter as temporally polarized matter, and space as 'suspended in time', then you are implying that time is a tangible quality/quantity that can saturate, polarize, and suspend. Could you please confirm or clarify that? Also, if time is qualitative and quantitative, could you please give some insight into what the the actual qualities and quanta are?
5: If "In the beginning there was only darkness and time", are you again giving time a quantitative value? What about darkness?
6: You mention a much larger universe. Specifically: "But far away in this unfathomable vastness of darkness and time another much vaster universe spun. Eventually the gravity of that universe reached ours, causing it to move."
This is what I refer to as "Passing the buck." What that means is, unable to come up with a reasonable hypothesis based on things that we know exist, you invent something that we can not observe as the trigger for your hypothetical start up. In this case, it was another universe that started the engine on ours, but leaves us with many many many more questions such as: Where is the other universe? Can we detect it's effects? If it started us, how the hell did it get started?(which incidentally implies yet another, even vaster universe kick started the one that kick started ours. And so on and so on and so on to infinity.) You might as well say "God did it", because your explanation has nor more explanatory power than that.
7: I'm not even going to touch the temporal speed limit idea until you answer whether or not time is a physical quantity.
8: You contradict the early universe being nothing but "darkness and time" inside a much vaster universe when you say later that, "In the beginning, the universe was purely quantum in nature." Can you clear up the discrepancy?
9: This statement: "Every action and reaction was digital, either yes or no. Things only happen in exact places, at exact times, in exact fashions or they don't happen at all" is at best, superfluous. Things only happen now, in the material world, in digital terms. They either happen, or they don't. They either are, or they are not. While things may be perceived in degrees of motion, the reality is that what is perceived is a infinite progression from one static state to the next.
10: At first you claim that life originated in dark matter/energy. Later, you change your story to include gas giants and stardust which are most assuredly not made of dark matter/energy. Can you explain the discrepancy?
11: You are correct in your statement that life in a high entropy environment requires greater resources in order to maintain life. However, I can not see that simple statement as justification for most of the rest of your conjectures.
12: So you do believe in abiogenesis, that life can arise spontaneously from chance. You simply do not feel it could happen on Earth or in the material plane of existence. Is that correct?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 16:41 (4565 days ago) @ dhw
Abel's Universe
Religion
"I believe that an advanced science or technology might appear to be magical or miraculous, but it is not."
"I believe (The Old Testament) is primarily myth passed down by word of mouth over hundreds of years before it was committed to paper (with all its' inaccuracies), but still that legend possesses a few kernels of truth."
"The book of Genesis is a simplified (as it had to be)story of creation. If God's "days" were considered an age or era (millions of years, rather than thousands), I could generally live with it says."
"It is my belief that Adam and Eve represented the final race of man placed upon this world in an on-going effort to improve the genome."
"I don't believe that God created the universe, I believe the universe created God."
"I also don't believe that God is an individual, all-powerful, all-knowing being. "
I believe that "God" is a race of beings, brought about by the process of abiogenesis followed by evolution.
This race's design is much simpler than our own.
Many scientists subscribe to the theory of intelligent design, not because it conflicts with the theory of evolution, but because it complements it. It fills in the gaps nicely (and there are huge gaps).
When abiogenesis occurred it happened in a much larger pool of matter, over a much longer period of time, someplace where entropy was not tearing every macromolecule to shreds before the first chapter of the book of life could be written.
Call this race the first race, the ancients, the Elohim, God, god(s), ET’s, angels, archangels, whatever you want, the archaeological evidence of their existence is in the tools that they made."
When matter fell from this state of "grace" it became imperfect and its' interactions imperfect as well. Each successive "fall", from EM matter to M matter or E matter then finally to matter, induced another degree of uncertainty and entropy into the system as integral relationships that added or subtracted perfectly on a a real brane, became a range of values that were referred on an imaginary one (the quadrants that contained these matter/time particles are now empty). Thus interactions that before would have only occurred perfectly at specific times now occur imperfectly all the time.
Humanity, as a race is advancing genetically towards extinction as the telomeres at the end of our strands of DNA become shorter with each passing eon.
To understand why life in matter as we understand it is corrupting, you must the concept of a necessary evil. In matter as we understand it, life is very hard. This drive to survive is a necessary evil.
Dead things stay dead. (bacteria argument) (no cellular AAA battery)
Since I was a child, I could see ghosts
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 17:55 (4565 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Abel's Universe
Religion
1: Any sufficiently advanced technology would indistinguishable from magic. ~ Arthur C. Clarke .. I can agree with that.
2: I also concur that most legends and myth start with a grain of truth.
3: I also concur that the book of Genesis is not to be interpreted literally as 6 days. However, my belief is based on the literal translation of the word used, which translates roughly to 'a period of time'.
4: According to your statements, you seem to believe that no 'intelligent' life evolved on its own on Earth, and that apes were genetically altered in order to produce Homo Sapiens. Also implied in your statements is that other members of the Homo genus were also engineered from apes, with Homo Sapien being the culmination of the genetic alteration process. Is that an accurate summation? If so, how do you reconcile the large time spans involved with the transition between ape and Homo Sapien? Was this the work of a single generation of God(s)/Aliens, or multiple generations of them? What is your definitive answer regarding the length of their lifespans?
5: You statement that the universe created God is at odds with stating that God is not an individual, but a race, and is also disingenuous. The sum of your statements is, "A superior race evolved, and there is no god as such" which is directly at odds with your claim of being a theist. Can you please reconcile these disparities with clear and concise statements?
6: What is your definition of 'far simpler' in respects to the design of a race of beings? Also, please give contrasting examples to describe how their design is simpler than our own. While you are at it, please reconcile how humanity could be less perfect yet more complex than our creators?
7: I would agree that science and religion do in fact compliment either other far more than either side gives credit for. However, I see it as each searching for answers to a different set of questions.
8: In trying to rectify the bible with your theory, you labeled your aliens as: Elohim, God, God(s), ET's, Angels, Arch Angels, etc. Could you please pick a name and stick with it? The reason for this particular request is that they do not all imply nor mean the same thing, and it makes the conversation hard to follow when you use them interchangeably. Since earlier you said that you believed those called "Gods" by ancient civilizations were in fact aliens, I would suggest that you stick with calling them Aliens. It is something that everyone here can completely and unequivocally understand.
9: Could you please refine your comments regarding the 'fall from grace'. You are mixing metaphors there and it makes it hard to follow you. Also, what, in your theory, is the cause for the fall from grace. You explicitly state that ti happened, but give no surrounding information. To me, it simply seems like a very poor attempt to quantify a biblical statement with bad science. Please stick to either a scientific explanation or a religious one until you are able to describe both events with the utmost clarity.
10: I would agree, and have stated as much on this site, that humanity is de-evolving. I suppose it could be better stated as, humanity is evolving to a lower state of physical, mental, and spiritual realization since de-evolution is sort of an oxymoron.
11: Are you claiming that the survival instinct is a necessary evil, or that a difficult life is a necessary evil?
12: In the last two statements, you seem to contradict yourself again.
Dead things stay dead. (bacteria argument)
Since I was a child, I could see ghosts
Since by definition, a ghost is the spirit of something that at one point was alive, it could be argued that if ghosts do exist, then dead is not dead, but rather a transition from one state of being to another.
I will hold further comment on any of these topics until Abel is able to clarify his remarks.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 01:05 (4565 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance_Maintained: "Since by definition, a ghost is the spirit of something that at one point was alive, it could be argued that if ghosts do exist, then dead is not dead, but rather a transition from one state of being to another."
Balance_Maintained: "For example, he kind of catches the tail end of one of my own speculations that, should we dig deeper into the matter, we would find that EM is the core of our physical reality, and can probably be used to explain a whole host of otherwise unexplainable phenomena, such as a persons sensitivity to thoughts and events occurring outside of the range of their 5 acknowledged senses. But, for the sake of clarity, I am going to keep my own odd speculations out of this thread as it is already strange enough."
There are two biospheres upon this world, a dark matter biosphere and a matter biosphere. The dark matter biosphere was seeded here first to support the dark matter life forms that live here (there are many). Souls are born in the Cauldron of Souls and emerge unto this world by the Shepard's Path. Souls that emerge are somewhat like children, and like children they are hungry. A guide takes them to a fetus whose brain has become developed enough to support a soul. This in typically at the end of the fifth month of gestation. At the moment a soul is bestowed, the child is its' own and protected by the laws of heaven. Therefore to kill a fetus of six months or older is a sin.
The soul forges a relationship with the brain of the fetus, stimulating its' developing parasympathetic nervous system with its' own feeding rhythm. In this way, the soul is sustained with the energy it needs to survive. The soul is the source of some, but not all, psychic phenomenon. Its' time sense can sometimes supply useful premonitions, as well as potentially create the temporal distortion phenomena that some have experienced.
During the course of your life the soul becomes the person that it abides in, adapting their personality and retaining a perfect copy of their memories. It is in these perfect memories that souls too often get lost rather than walk the path of life again. It is very sad, but these poor souls slowly starve and loose their shape, becoming just a ball of sentient gas, until even that, fades away.
Souls currently have no natural predators on this world, but this was not always so. These E-matter predators are most commonly known as demons. There are two classes of these beasts. The most dangerous are those born in Hell. The gates of Hell were sealed in 76 AD and the last demon slain circa 1900. Humanity is currently safe from these vile beings.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by David Turell , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 01:29 (4565 days ago) @ Abel
Balance_Maintained: "Since by definition, a ghost is the spirit of something that at one point was alive, it could be argued that if ghosts do exist, then dead is not dead, but rather a transition from one state of being to another."
Souls currently have no natural predators on this world, but this was not always so. These E-matter predators are most commonly known as demons. There are two classes of these beasts. The most dangerous are those born in Hell. The gates of Hell were sealed in 76 AD and the last demon slain circa 1900. Humanity is currently safe from these vile beings.
Tony, serves you right: any argument or comment you bring up is easily countered by inventing more 'history" from Abel's nimble brain. Enough of this stuff and we can write a popular movie, demons and all!!
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, November 17, 2011, 03:35 (4565 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony, serves you right: any argument or comment you bring up is easily countered by inventing more 'history" from Abel's nimble brain. Enough of this stuff and we can write a popular movie, demons and all!!
At least the movie would be interesting. :) I'm not really knocking Abel's idea. It isn't my cup of tea, but neither is abiogenesis. All I really want is for him to answer the questions and clarify the inconsistencies. Well, that, and I think it would be very mature of him to apologize to DHW. Since I have been kind enough to point out several places where his story is 'incoherent', thus shedding some light onto the specific causes of David's well justified statement, I think an apology is in order for questioning David's English courtesy in such a rude manner. ;)
Besides, a good apology, a handshake, and a beer(or beverage of choice) is the proper way to set disputes in the past. :D
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
Once again, my thanks to Tony for his painstaking attempt to make sense of Abel’s Universe. (Incidentally, it’s best to call me dhw, as David = David Turell, and there’s enough confusion on this site as it is!) It’s clear from the swarm of posts that you’ve opened the gateway to a more targeted discussion of Abel’s ideas. I endorse all your comments and BBella’s concerning his mode of argument, but let’s hope we can now get on with learning from one another.
I’d like to focus on the abiogenesis/evolution theme here, which ultimately has interesting implications both for Abel’s universe and for other theologies. Abiogenesis requires a complex combination of materials that will lead not only to life but, if evolution is to take place, also to replication, adaptation and innovation. Low entropy will provide enormous advantages when it comes to survival (“entropy not tearing every macromolecule to shredsâ€). However, the same intricate engineering is required on both planets. I don’t care how many monkeys are bashing away on their typewriters, if I’m to believe in spontaneous generation on Planet X, I might just as well believe in the same thing on Planet Earth, and cut out the middle-gods. That is just the starting-point, though.
ABEL (28 Oct. at 23.22, describing evolution on Planet X): “It was the evolution of predators that created the intense selective pressure for greater intelligence. Not only did the predators have to become smarter to catch their prey, their prey had to become smarter to avoid their predators. The need for intelligence to survive in temporally saturated matter is MUCH greater than ours.â€
I see no difference whatsoever between this evolutionary process and our own (or between brane-angle “intelligence†and, say, camouflage “intelligenceâ€). However, on Planet X this led ultimately to the SPONTANEOUS evolution of the super-intelligent gods, whereas on Earth the gods had to DESIGN the evolution of us mere humans. I really can’t follow the logic here.
Now to my theological point. No matter whether you believe in Abel’s ET gods, David’s UI, Tony’s God, or George’s Chance, the evolutionary process – guided or unguided – led eventually to predators and then to humans. The need to kill or die, a pretty extreme form of self-interest, was therefore present long before us humans, although as any vegetarian will tell you, flesh-eating is not essential for survival. It was, however, deliberately introduced by the creator(s), unless the latter didn’t know what they were doing. In other words, self-interest as the key to survival was already established before we came on the scene, and if you believe as I do that self-interest is the root of evil (I’m open to other suggestions, of course), you are confronted with the question of why any creator(s) would invent predation in the first place. If Abel's theory is correct, and predatory self-interest is an essential precondition for greater intelligence, what does that tell us about the nature of the astonishingly intelligent being(s) that created us?
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 20:55 (4564 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Thursday, November 17, 2011, 21:05
dhw: "The need to kill or die, a pretty extreme form of self-interest, was therefore present long before us humans, although as any vegetarian will tell you, flesh-eating is not essential for survival. It was, however, deliberately introduced by the creator(s), unless the latter didn’t know what they were doing. In other words, self-interest as the key to survival was already established before we came on the scene, and if you believe as I do that self-interest is the root of evil (I’m open to other suggestions, of course), you are confronted with the question of why any creator(s) would invent predation in the first place. If Abel's theory is correct, and predatory self-interest is an essential precondition for greater intelligence, what does that tell us about the nature of the astonishingly intelligent being(s) that created us?"
To understand life, you must understand the concept of equilibrium. Life and death is part of this equilibrium as the suffering that is part of existence. They are not wanted, they are needed to balance an equation.
Not only does an individual organism exist in a state of dynamic equilbrium on a microscopic scale with its' environment trying to maintain homeostasis, but groups of them are in equilibrium with their macroscopic environment as well. Thus you cannot have oxygen producers for long without adding oxygen consumers. You cannot have just plants, without huge fires and potential extinction events, so you add herbivores. But the herbivores, without predators, soon overpopulate the world stripping it of its' vegetation, risking another extinction event due to massive starvation or oxygen depletion. So predators were added to balance the equation. In EM matter, life forms are long-lived by nature, eventually there became a need for predation to keep the population of herbivores in check.
Without predators, humanity needs to address overpopulation and its future needs itself to maintain this needed equilibrium or eventually it will suffer the consequences.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, November 17, 2011, 21:44 (4564 days ago) @ Abel
Abel
To understand life, you must understand the concept of equilibrium. Life and death is part of this equilibrium as the suffering that is part of existence. They are not wanted, they are needed to balance an equation.
Not only does an individual organism exist in a state of dynamic equilbrium on a microscopic scale with its' environment trying to maintain homeostasis, but groups of them are in equilibrium with their macroscopic environment as well. Thus you cannot have oxygen producers for long without adding oxygen consumers. You cannot have just plants, without huge fires and potential extinction events, so you add herbivores. But the herbivores, without predators, soon overpopulate the world stripping it of its' vegetation, risking another extinction event due to massive starvation or oxygen depletion. So predators were added to balance the equation. In EM matter, life forms are long-lived by nature, eventually there became a need for predation to keep the population of herbivores in check.
Without predators, humanity needs to address overpopulation and its future needs itself to maintain this needed equilibrium or eventually it will suffer the consequences.
Finally, something I can sink my teeth into, and it just so happens I completely agree with your basic premise(as my screen name implies..). There is a natural order of balance, of homeostasis that must be maintained. Humanity's ultimate failure is not that they must have some form of predation to control the population, it is that they have no sense of the nature of the natural balance.
Your example is flawed though. There is no need for predation to balance the number of herbivores to the number of plants. Supply and demand would take care or that in the long term. As herbivores stripped the country side of vegetation, they would move on allowing time for the plants in the area to regrow, fertilized by the waste of the passing herbivores. Any group that did not move on, would starve. Eventually, if the number of Herbivores were too large, they would die off in droves, and the plants would naturally repopulate while the number of herbivores was depleted. There is no need for predators in that simple simulation.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 22:36 (4564 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance_Maintained: Your example is flawed though. There is no need for predation to balance the number of herbivores to the number of plants. Supply and demand would take care or that in the long term. As herbivores stripped the country side of vegetation, they would move on allowing time for the plants in the area to regrow, fertilized by the waste of the passing herbivores. Any group that did not move on, would starve. Eventually, if the number of Herbivores were too large, they would die off in droves, and the plants would naturally repopulate while the number of herbivores was depleted. There is no need for predators in that simple simulation.
There is also the argument that predators strengthen a species by weeding out the old, the deformed, the weak and the diseased.
A good example of what happens when you introduce a species into an environment where it has no natural predators is Australia and its' rabbit problem. Without going into great detail, rabbits were so successful at being just herbivores that they were wiping out many native species because their presence alone upset the balance of nature.
How many plant and animal species might be extinct because of rabbits? I don't know. But rabbit extermination still costs Australia millions every year as they attempt to control this cute, harmless, little problem. This is but one example among many of how the introduction of one species destroyed another, and obviously, you don't have to be a predator to do it.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 18, 2011, 00:53 (4564 days ago) @ Abel
There is also the argument that predators strengthen a species by weeding out the old, the deformed, the weak and the diseased.
No doubt about it, they most certainly do, but that does not make them a necessity. It does make them a high demand luxury item though. :)
A good example of what happens when you introduce a species into an environment where it has no natural predators is Australia and its' rabbit problem. Without going into great detail, rabbits were so successful at being just herbivores that they were wiping out many native species because their presence alone upset the balance of nature.
How many plant and animal species might be extinct because of rabbits? I don't know. But rabbit extermination still costs Australia millions every year as they attempt to control this cute, harmless, little problem. This is but one example among many of how the introduction of one species destroyed another, and obviously, you don't have to be a predator to do it.
But what you are talking about here is ARTIFICIAL introduction of a non-native species into an environment. The rabbit was not a native to that environment. It was imported from Europe which boasts a much more accommodating landscape. Moreover, the rabbits that they introduced had been bred in captivity for some time, which would have produced a breed that, having had access to an abundance of food, would have encouraged larger litters of offspring. This would normally be considered a desirable trait in an animal bred in captivity as it would mean more food for the dinner table. When those animals were released into the wild however, there was still enough food to sustain their breeding rates, and until that level of sustenance decreases to the point where it can no longer sustain it, those breeding rates will not change. This is a prime example of what I meant when I said that humans have no concept of homeostasis. If humans were not interfering with the situation, nature would balance it out in her own time. However, we are interfering. Even if we didn't kill off the rabbits, by artificially planting crops and doing what we can to increase the greenery in the area we are supporting the food source of the rabbit population.
Now, suppose for a moment that we remove humanity from the equation entirely, and also remove any predatory creatures. That would leave us with only herbivores, insects, scavengers, and plants(Not counting microbial life forms). Even if there were multiple forms of flora, and multiple forms of fauna, they would in time reach a point of homeostasis if left to their own devices. This would happen, most likely in a number of ways. Plants would develop chemicals to either attract or repel creature that feed on them based on the needs of the plants, and the animals would adapt to either be able to eat those plants, or to survive off a different form of plant. And so evolution would go on. Birthrates would fluctuate over time to accommodate the supply of food, in turn generating a supply of food for the plants. Even in this scenario, there is no need for predation.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 18, 2011, 00:54 (4564 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As an afterthought, if you examine closely nearly every case of where humans have artificially altered the biosphere, you will find that it lead to some form of disaster.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
Dhw: Now to my theological point. No matter whether you believe in Abel’s ET gods, David’s UI, Tony’s God, or George’s Chance, the evolutionary process – guided or unguided – led eventually to predators and then to humans. The need to kill or die, a pretty extreme form of self-interest, was therefore present long before us humans, although as any vegetarian will tell you, flesh-eating is not essential for survival. It was, however, deliberately introduced by the creator(s), unless the latter didn’t know what they were doing. In other words, self-interest as the key to survival was already established before we came on the scene, and if you believe as I do that self-interest is the root of evil (I’m open to other suggestions, of course), you are confronted with the question of why any creator(s) would invent predation in the first place. If Abel’s theory is correct, and predatory self-interest is an essential precondition for greater intelligence, what does that tell us about the nature of the astonishingly intelligent being(s) that created us?
ABEL: To understand life, you must understand the concept of equilibrium. Life and death is part of this equilibrium as the suffering that is part of existence. They are not wanted, they are needed to balance an equation.
ABEL: A good example of what happens when you introduce a species into an environment where it has no predators is Australia and its rabbit problem.
There was me, kidding myself that I was raising an important theological issue concerning the origin of evil and the nature of god(s), and what follows? Abel and Tony start rabbiting on about the introduction of bunnies into Australia. This is what comes of not sticking to the subject. (Shame on you, Tony, for allowing yourself to be sidetracked.) Of course life and Nature are based on the concept of equilibrium, but you don’t need predation for equilibrium, for suffering, or for death. (Thank you, Tony, for proving the point.) Abel, in your history of evolution you drew attention to the fact that on Planet X, it was the spontaneous arrival of predation that advanced intelligence, leading ultimately to the spontaneous evolution of your super-intelligent gods. Earlier life on Planet X must have survived perfectly well without predation, just as it did here on Planet Earth, and besides if they’d really wanted to, I’m sure your superintelligent gods could have engineered faster growing plants and slower breeding herbivores. Predation on Earth is the invention of god(s) or of godless Nature. Since you do not believe in godless Nature on Planet Earth, (although you do believe in it on Planet X), what does the invention of predatory self-interest – in my view, the basis of evil – tell us about the nature of your god(s)? Let me start you off with a simpler question which should elicit a direct answer: are your gods meat-eaters or vegetarians?
Non-Abellian theologians are, of course, welcome to join in the discussion.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 18, 2011, 15:18 (4563 days ago) @ dhw
But I was answering your theological question, albeit indirectly. :) If there is no need for a predator to maintain homeostasis, then there is no need to attribute carnivorous self-interest to a creator. This is something that I pointed out back when I first joined the site. There was a theory out sometime back that the teeth and jaws of carnivorous dinosaurs were in fact suited for ripping and shredding the tough tissue of trees instead of flesh. Not certain how much data there is/was to back up that theory, as I was quite young when I read it and not overly concerned with proof at the time. Perhaps I should revisit it and see.
By the way, I do agree to a certain extent that self-interest is the root of evil. Though, I see it as a specific variety of self-interest rather than self-interest as a whole.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
TONY: But I was answering your theological question, albeit indirectly. :) If there is no need for a predator to maintain homeostasis, then there is no need to attribute carnivorous self-interest to a creator.
But there most certainly is a need to ask why a creator would introduce predation if it wasn’t necessary. Why wilfully produce callous carnivores to disrupt a world of happy herbivores cheerfully chewing a plenitude of plants? My theological question concerns the nature of a creator who invents killing as a means of survival (though I’m also interested in the diet of Abel’s mortal gods). We don’t hesitate to question the nature of humans who kill for the sake of killing, so why not extend our curiosity to god(s)?
TONY: By the way, I do agree to a certain extent that self-interest is the root of evil. Though, I see it as a specific variety of self-interest rather than self-interest as a whole.
By "predatory self-interest" I mean pursuing one’s own ends regardless of the effects on others. I find it difficult to think of any sort of evil that does not follow this pattern, as laid down long before humans brought it to such a fine art.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 18, 2011, 20:45 (4563 days ago) @ dhw
DHW:
But there most certainly is a need to ask why a creator would introduce predation if it wasn’t necessary. Why wilfully produce callous carnivores to disrupt a world of happy herbivores cheerfully chewing a plenitude of plants? My theological question concerns the nature of a creator who invents killing as a means of survival (though I’m also interested in the diet of Abel’s mortal gods). We don’t hesitate to question the nature of humans who kill for the sake of killing, so why not extend our curiosity to god(s)?
By "predatory self-interest" I mean pursuing one’s own ends regardless of the effects on others. I find it difficult to think of any sort of evil that does not follow this pattern, as laid down long before humans brought it to such a fine art.
Ok, so let's dig a little deeper here. Now, since we are discussing the topic in a religious context, I think it is fitting to examine the accounts of religions, whether we agree with them or not.
The second account in the Abrahamic faiths of 'predatory self-interest' is in Genesis' account of Cain and Abel. On the surface, it may seem like simple murder out of jealousy, but a little deeper what we see is that Cain wanted favor(i.e. glory) and was willing to kill to get it. The only other account of death in the bible prior to that was the sacrifice of a lamb to God. One of the interesting points in this is that Cain sacrificed vegetables. It may seem insignificant, but if you were going to make a sacrifice to whatever you believed to be the almighty Grand Poomba of the Universe, you would sacrifice something that MATTERS to you. So, why would Cain sacrifice something that he literally picked up off the ground? Why would Abel sacrifice a lamb? Remember that prior to this first sacrifice there was no instruction given as to what qualified as a good sacrifice. The only hint we have is that Genesis implies that one of mans primary functions was to be husbandry of all living things. So, sacrificing something that you are supposed to have caring relationship with held greater value than sacrificing your food. This gives insight into the nature of the mind of the Abrahamic god. Life was precious, and giving up life or taking a life was a matter of utmost gravity, a token worthy of being a gift to a God. Since sacrifice is defined as the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim, this gives a hierarchy of importance in the grand scheme. God>Human>Animal>Plant. Interestingly enough, this hierarchy also follows the level of intelligence from top to bottom.
Now, the other thing to consider when looking into the Abrahamic version of this, is that sacrifices weren't required prior to sin, and that all sin, including what is coined as 'original sin' is exactly what you described: predatory self-interest.
Now, my personal belief regarding the topic of WHY this function had to be designed into the system is simply that it was necessary. As I have often said, I believe that there is a balance to all things, and that all things must survive within that balance, and that anything that affects that balance will, in time, be corrected by some counter measure. The system was originally designed to be a self-righting system, what we refer to as Homeostasis. The original sin was, in it's simplest form, putting the wants of a single individual over the good of the entire system(thus the first account of predatory self-interest). That concept has propagated to the point now where humanity justifies any action as being for the betterment of mankind without any regard for the natural balance of things. And just like that original sin, it evolves out of a thirst for knowledge that we are not prepared for and a hunger for personal glory.
Predatory self-interest is a perversion of rational self interest. Rational self interest is required for life to sustain itself.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Saturday, November 19, 2011, 01:33 (4563 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Saturday, November 19, 2011, 01:49
dhw: Predation on Earth is the invention of god(s) or of godless Nature. Since you do not believe in godless Nature on Planet Earth, (although you do believe in it on Planet X), what does the invention of predatory self-interest – in my view, the basis of evil – tell us about the nature of your god(s)? Let me start you off with a simpler question which should elicit a direct answer: are your gods meat-eaters or vegetarians?
There is nothing evil in what animal predators do. They do not kill members of their own species unless there is a need just like herbivores. They eat what they kill and do not kill again unless they are hungry. They do not slaughter things just to wear their skins like men do. Buffalos know how greedy men can be.
It is men who kill each other because of desire and not a need to survive. And that is the difference between a necessary evil and evil. Evil is the invention of men. They will kill out of envy, greed, anger, pride, jealousy and the whole range of human emotion because their brains can violate any instinct though a "just us" system created by its' own self-interested reason. If I was a tiger I would feel much safer in a cage full of tigers, than as a human in a prison full of men.
The Elohim (angels) eat food processed from vegetable sources. So they are vegetarian.
dhw: "Of course life and Nature are based on the concept of equilibrium, but you don’t need predation for equilibrium, for suffering, or for death. (Thank you, Tony, for proving the point.)"
I have read Balance_Maintained's hypothesis and I disagree. The system you propose would not achieve homeostasis, but rather teeter-totter between extremes creating extinction events and reducing biodiversity to just a handful of species. Then one world-wide extinction event and the whole biosphere is lost. Since I have reams of empiric evidence on my side, the continued efforts of our ecologists and scientific communities as well as our governments to maintain our biodiversity, it seems you should take your hypothesis to them. Perhaps you can save us all a lot of time and money.
And dhw, if you ever saw what was left of a child who was born without the ability to suffer (feel pain), then you would not wonder why there was suffering. You would see that a child who feels no pain doesn't understand why he/she shouldn't gouge their eyes out, or put their hand into flame. Those who have lost the ability to feel pain because of Hanson's Disease (leprosy) understand their need to suffer. As now they must survey every inch of their body for injury every day.
Or perhaps you'd feel better if we felt no cold and did not seek warmth, or did not feel the heat so did not seek the shade. If we felt no hunger, would we not starve? There is a need for suffering or it would not exist.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 01:51 (4563 days ago) @ Abel
edited by unknown, Saturday, November 19, 2011, 02:02
What you are describing is exactly what DHW was calling predatory self-interest. i.e. satisfying your own interest regardless of the cost.
The Elohim (angels) eat food processed from vegetable sources. So they are vegetarian.
This is a direct contradiction to your entire theory, in which you state that your 'gods', angels or whatever you call them arose from a highly predatorial environment.
dhw: "Of course life and Nature are based on the concept of equilibrium, but you don’t need predation for equilibrium, for suffering, or for death. (Thank you, Tony, for proving the point.)"I have read Balance_Maintained's hypothesis and I disagree, the system you propose would not achieve homeostasis, but rather teeter-totter between extremes creating extinction events and reducing biodiversity to just a handful of species. Then one world-wide extinction event and the whole biosphere is lost. Since I have reams of empiric evidence on my side, the continued efforts of our ecologists and scientific communities as well as our governments to maintain our biodiversity, it seems you should take your hypothesis to them. Perhaps you can save us all a lot of time and money.
Ok. We have pointed this out in other posts, but I will reiterate it here. Do not simply say "I have reams of empirical evidence" and then not produce any. Secondly, current ecologist and scientist are working in a world that has already been thrown wildly out of balance by mankind. If Mankind was removed entirely out of the equation, the world would re-balance itself over time. Lastly, I did not say that things wouldn't teeter-totter. I said that the system is self-righting. Over the course of time it would eventually setting into a much more stable precession, but the process would involve gradualistic changes in birth rates etc.
And dhw, if you ever saw what was left of a child who was born without the ability to suffer (feel pain), then you would not wonder why there was suffering. You would see that a child who feels no pain doesn't understand why he/she shouldn't gouge their eyes out, or put their hand into flame. Those who have lost the ability to feel pain because of Hanson's Disease (leprosy) understand their need to suffer. As now they must survey every inch of their body for injury every day.
Or perhaps you'd feel better if we felt no cold and did not seek warmth, or did not feel the heat so did not seek the shade. If we felt no hunger, would we not starve? There is a need for suffering or it would not exist.
And this is exactly the point I was making in counter to your argument that the survival instinct was the root of evil, and DHWs refinement of your claim by saying that predatory self-interest(as defined above) was the root of all that is evil. So, if the survival instinct, of which pain, pleasure, hunger, and a myriad of other sensations are ancillary, is the root of all evil, then by your logic the only true pure souls would be those that felt nothing, including the desire to live. By extension, the only righteous thing is a dead thing.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 02:04 (4563 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
P.S. For a microcosm view of exactly what I have described, I welcome you to research the beta fish.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Saturday, November 19, 2011, 02:32 (4563 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Abel: "The Elohim (angels) eat food processed from vegetable sources. So they are vegetarian."
Balance_Maintained: "This is a direct contradiction to your entire theory, in which you state that your 'gods', angels or whatever you call them arose from a highly purgatorial environment."
This is not a contradiction. Men are omnivores, yet some choose to be vegetarian because of their philosophy. But men have not always had the choice. Until they became aware of the need to eat beans and rice/corn together, they did not have the option. The Elohim are probably the same. Now that they can be vegetarian, they are.
Balance_Maintained: "Ok. We have pointed this out in other posts, but I will reiterate it here. Do not simply say "I have reams of empirical evidence" and then not produce any. Secondly, current ecologist and scientist are working in a world that has already been thrown wildly out of balance by mankind. If Mankind was removed entirely out of the equation, the world would re-balance itself over time. Lastly, I did not say that things wouldn't teeter-totter. I said that the system is self-righting. Over the course of time it would eventually setting into a much more stable precession, but the process would involve gradualistic changes in birth rates etc."
I do not need to produce empiric evidence to support the position of the vast majority of the scientific community. It is you who presented a hypothesis without any evidence and dhw who believes it. Your argument is flawed and flies in the face of currently accepted and practiced theories. Theories that are accepted and practiced by millions. Yours is the burden of proof not mine.
Balance_Maintained: "So, if the survival instinct, of which pain, pleasure, hunger, and a myriad of other sensations are ancillary, is the root of all evil, then by your logic the only true pure souls would be those that felt nothing, including the desire to live. By extension, the only righteous thing is a dead thing."
Actually, my logic would never say such a thing. Righteous things are truthful, honest, innocent, loving and tolerant as well as alive. Whether in life, or in the afterlife what is cherished by heaven is the same.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by DragonsHeart , Saturday, November 19, 2011, 03:45 (4563 days ago) @ Abel
"I do not need to produce empiric evidence to support the position of the vast majority of the scientific community. "
I am not a member of the scientific community, but I enjoy learning new ideas. So, for me, you really do need to produce empirical evidence. It just solidifies your point.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 04:35 (4563 days ago) @ Abel
This is not a contradiction. Men are omnivores, yet some choose to be vegetarian because of their philosophy. But men have not always had the choice. Until they became aware of the need to eat beans and rice/corn together, they did not have the option. The Elohim are probably the same. Now that they can be vegetarian, they are.
B_M
You are changing your story. It's irritating. Your 'Elohim' started out as predators, according to you. Also, in your earlier writings you mentioned nothing about dark matter vegetation that they could feed on, and were quite insistent that the only reason they evolved was because of predation.
Abel
Without a hurricane of entropy tearing away at all your structures, there would be much less need to harness materials and energy to repair those structures. Multicellular organisms made of this kind of matter would not necessarily even require aerobic respiration to supply their energetic needs.
http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7502
...That motility required a cellular "intelligence" to actively direct that motion. We see this "intelligence" in motile cells that can "see" and hunt prey (a protozoa or killer T-cell e.g.)...
It was the evolution of predators that created the intense selective pressure for greater intelligence. Not only did the predators have to become smarter to catch their prey, their prey had to become smarter to avoid their predators. The need for intelligence to survive in temporally saturated matter is much greater than ours....
... On this dark matter planet stupidity was rapidly weeded out by evolution. The process was accelerated as one predator type began to feed on another. In dark matter, the fittest are defined by their greater intelligence.
So, what you have described here is a hierarchy of highly intelligent predators that you labeled Elohim. So, then all of your Elohim must be evil as they were/are, by your own description, highly intelligent predators and therefore supposedly aware that killing is morally wrong. .. .. Those are your words, not mine. I am just trying to make sense of the mass of contradictions.
Actually, my logic would never say such a thing. Righteous things are truthful, honest, innocent, loving and tolerant as well as alive. Whether in life, or in the afterlife what is cherished by heaven is the same.
I think "Alive" is definitely a precondition to the rest, but again you are contradicting yourself. You said, specifically, that the survival instinct is the root of all evil. Being ALIVE requires a set of intuitive guidelines designed to keep you in that state of being. We call this set of imperatives, the survival instinct. The instinctive drive not to be dead.
I do not need to produce empiric evidence to support the position of the vast majority of the scientific community. It is you who presented a hypothesis without any evidence and dhw who believes it. Your argument is flawed and flies in the face of currently accepted and practiced theories. Theories that are accepted and practiced by millions. Yours is the burden of proof not mine.
What vast majority? What millions? What accepted theories? Be specific. Provide reference material. Also, if you are poopooing the statement that mankind is the root of imbalance in the natural world, then by all means provide alternatives.
But, I am not afraid to rise to a challenge, and since the gauntlet has been cast, and shall gladly respond. The type of homeostasis that I proposed would function similarly to the one presented in this paper, on a larger scale, and with some subtle differences to account for scale and variety.
http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/loreau/pdfs/daufresneloreauecollett.pdf
Basically, animals would, over time, begin to cluster about plants with which they shared a natural mutually beneficial relationship. Now, as for things like exploding populations occurring naturally, I invite you to look at areas like Africa, where we can still see some semblance of wild life. While there are undoubtedly predators and prey, I am sure that someone as good with numbers as you are could quickly figure out that the number of overall victims is actually extremely low. Particularly when you consider that, on average, most mammalian predators only make 1 kill in 10 or less, give or take. That number is certainly not enough to thin out the heard to any meaningful extent numbers wise. Yet, despite the vast number of herbivores, the landscape was not barren of vegetation. Quite the opposite in fact. It was a thriving ecosystem.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 04:37 (4563 days ago) @ Abel
Also, I should point out that the homo genus always had a choice of what they ate. We, at least as far as we know, have always been omnivorous, and therefore always had a choice.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by David Turell , Saturday, November 19, 2011, 06:19 (4563 days ago) @ Abel
And dhw, if you ever saw what was left of a child who was born without the ability to suffer (feel pain), then you would not wonder why there was suffering. You would see that a child who feels no pain doesn't understand why he/she shouldn't gouge their eyes out, or put their hand into flame. Those who have lost the ability to feel pain because of Hanson's Disease (leprosy) understand their need to suffer. As now they must survey every inch of their body for injury every day.
Or perhaps you'd feel better if we felt no cold and did not seek warmth, or did not feel the heat so did not seek the shade. If we felt no hunger, would we not starve? There is a need for suffering or it would not exist.
Excellent position. I always told my patients that pain was a friend. It warned them often with good results. Pain is very necessary.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
dhw: Predation on Earth is the invention of god(s) or of godless Nature. Since you do not believe in godless Nature on Planet Earth, (although you do believe in it on Planet X), what does the invention of predatory self-interest – in my view, the basis of evil – tell us about the nature of your god(s)? Let me start you off with a simpler question which should elicit a direct answer: are your gods meat-eaters or vegetarians?
PART ONE
ABEL: There is nothing evil in what animal predators do.
Of course there isn’t. Evil is the invention of your gods (if they exist) or of humans (if they don't). You have missed the point, so let me spell it out to you. According to your theology, the gods created life on earth. They deliberately introduced predation, which entails killing in order to survive, and that means pursuing self-interest regardless of the cost to others. When your gods finally got round to making us humans, this same principle – which they had made a precondition for survival – became the root of evil. In your own words: human “brains can violate any instinct though a "just us" system created by its' own self-interested reasonâ€. Humans extended the principle of predatory self-interest, but they did not invent it. Your gods, who were themselves descended from predators, deliberately introduced it to life on Earth. What does this tell us about their nature? Or are you trying to say that when your gods created predators and then humans, they didn’t realize that predatory self-interest would result in evil? Indeed, I wonder how they themselves escaped the ill effects of the selfsame principle they had inherited on Planet X. Were they all 100% pure? (Perhaps we’re slowly heading towards the origin of Satan, whom you introduced to us a few posts ago.)
PART TWO
ABEL: The Elohim (angels) eat food processed from vegetable sources. So they are vegetarian.
I share Tony's confusion. I asked about the gods, so are angels the same as the gods who evolved spontaneously from the predators on Planet X and came down to Earth to create us? If so, does this place you, an archangel, above the gods in the divine hierarchy? Please answer yes or no, as we have too many other things to discuss.
PART THREE
ABEL: And dhw, if you ever saw what was left of a child who was born without the ability to suffer (feel pain), then you would not wonder why there was suffering etc. […] There is a need for suffering or it would not exist.
Not long ago, Abel, you accused me of distorting your ideas – though like Tony I have reproduced your exact words in support of what I’ve written. Please tell me where I have wondered “why there was suffering†or said that there was no need for the ability to feel pain. The subject was the need for predation, and in the post to which you’re replying, I wrote: “Of course life and Nature are based on the concept of equilibrium, but you don’t need predation for equilibrium, for suffering, or for death.†You have quoted this yourself, and you then ignore it! Once more you’ve delivered a message which I’m sure none of us would disagree with (like your lengthy sermon on human stupidity), in order to knock down ideas that you yourself have erected. Straw men generally get short shrift on this forum.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Saturday, November 19, 2011, 20:15 (4562 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: "Of course there isn’t. Evil is the invention of your gods (if they exist) or of humans (if they don't). You have missed the point, so let me spell it out to you. According to your theology, the gods created life on earth. They deliberately introduced predation, which entails killing in order to survive, and that means pursuing self-interest regardless of the cost to others. When your gods finally got round to making us humans, this same principle – pursuing self-interest regardless of the cost to others – became the root of evil. In your own words: human “brains can violate any instinct though a "just us" system created by its' own self-interested reasonâ€. Humans extended the principle of predatory self-interest, but they did not invent it. Your gods, who were themselves descended from predators, deliberately introduced it to life on Earth. What does this tell us about their nature? Or are you trying to say that when your gods created predators and then humans, they didn’t realize that predatory self-interest would result in evil? Indeed, I wonder how they themselves escaped the ill effects of the selfsame principle they had inherited on Planet X. Were they all 100% pure? (Perhaps we’re slowly heading towards the origin of Satan, whom you introduced to us a few posts ago."
As I have tried to explain before, men have become divorced from their instincts. This is a flaw in primate's nervous system that was introduced along with their higher brain function. Instincts can now be subverted by desire rather than only need. Survival now has to be rationalized by a higher brain when it is often not logical at all. The brain constantly lies and rationalizes as it tries to provide for its' emotional and physical needs. And there is no one brain type. There are altruists and sociopaths born everyday. If the design could be controlled tightly enough perhaps there would just be altruists, but it currently cannot be.
Humanity exists and is given freedom by the benevolence of the nature of the Elohim. They have given you teachers to guide you. Teachers that you fools have routinely slaughtered as heretics.
dhw: "Not long ago, Abel, you accused me of distorting your ideas – though like Tony I have reproduced your exact words in support of what I’ve written. Please tell me where I have wondered “why there was suffering†or said that there was no need for the ability to feel pain."
In the quote that I responded to you said:
dhw: "Of course life and Nature are based on the concept of equilibrium, but you don’t need predation for equilibrium, for suffering, or for death. (Thank you, Tony, for proving the point.)"
I, of course, took this to be you complaining again.
dhw: "I share Tony's confusion. I asked about the gods, so are angels the same as the gods who evolved spontaneously from the predators on Planet X and came down to Earth to create us? If so, does this place you, an archangel, above the gods in the divine hierarchy? Please answer yes or no, as we have too many other things to discuss."
How many times have I told you that archangels are slaves? The answer is no.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 20:25 (4562 days ago) @ Abel
Humanity exists and is given freedom by the benevolence of the nature of the Elohim. They have given you teachers to guide you. Teachers that you fools have routinely slaughtered as heretics.
I love the connotation behind 'you fools'. I have never slaughtered anyone in my life, thank you very much, much less for such a laughable offense as heresy.
In the quote that I responded to you said:dhw: "Of course life and Nature are based on the concept of equilibrium, but you don’t need predation for equilibrium, for suffering, or for death. (Thank you, Tony, for proving the point.)"
I, of course, took this to be you complaining again.
Complaining? We haven't been complaining, we have been trying to make sense of your mass of contradictions and constantly changing stories.
dhw: "I share Tony's confusion. I asked about the gods, so are angels the same as the gods who evolved spontaneously from the predators on Planet X and came down to Earth to create us? If so, does this place you, an archangel, above the gods in the divine hierarchy? Please answer yes or no, as we have too many other things to discuss."
How many times have I told you that archangels are slaves? The answer is no.
Err... At my last count, that would be 0. Just sayin'.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Sunday, November 20, 2011, 00:00 (4562 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Sunday, November 20, 2011, 00:13
dhw: "I share Tony's confusion. I asked about the gods, so are angels the same as the gods who evolved spontaneously from the predators on Planet X and came down to Earth to create us? If so, does this place you, an archangel, above the gods in the divine hierarchy? Please answer yes or no, as we have too many other things to discuss."
Abel: How many times have I told you that archangels are slaves? The answer is no.
Balance_Maintained: Err... At my last count, that would be 0. Just sayin'.
Here are a few of the times that I tried to make it clear that archangels are created beings that are the property of heaven. That is, they are not citizens of the worlds that they serve, nor shall they ever be.
Abel: "The Watchers had been corrupted by pride. Pride that was, in part, created when they began to believe the line of crap they were feeding primitive people so they would follow them. They began to believe that they were gods when they are slaves."
"There are two Metatrons. The primal Metatron is the first of the 10 sentinels made."
"The last sentinel made to walk this world (a.k.a. the seventh sentinel) is the feminine aspect of the Primal Metatron."
"There are many who claim to be archangels, because they foolishly believe they want to be an archangel. What fool would claim that they will never be a citizen of heaven. That they shall never be as great as the least of you that leaves this place. All archangels envy humans because they have souls and a very few hate you for it.
The Seven are not supposed to know in life that they are archangels. There is less to be gained from the knowledge then what is lost, and that is hope."
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 20, 2011, 00:38 (4562 days ago) @ Abel
Abel
Here are a few of the times that I tried to make it clear that archangels are created beings that are the property of heaven. That is, they are not citizens of the worlds that they serve, nor shall they ever be.
1.
Abel: "The Watchers had been corrupted by pride. Pride that was, in part, created when they began to believe the line of crap they were feeding primitive people so they would follow them. They began to believe that they were gods when they are slaves."
2
"There are two Metatrons. The primal Metatron is the first of the 10 sentinels made."
3
"The last sentinel made to walk this world (a.k.a. the seventh sentinel) is the feminine aspect of the Primal Metatron."
"There are many who claim to be archangels, because they foolishly believe they want to be an archangel. What fool would claim that they will never be a citizen of heaven. That they shall never be as great as the least of you that leaves this place. All archangels envy humans because they have souls and a very few hate you for it.
4
The Seven are not supposed to know in life that they are archangels. There is less to be gained from the knowledge then what is lost, and that is hope."[/color]
Ok, so a little math and grammar lesson at the same time. The number of quotes here in which the phrase archangel is used 2:4=50%
The number of times the word slave 1:4=25%
The number of times the word Archangel and Slave appear in the same quote 0:4 = 0.0%
I.E. Until the post where you directly answered DHW, you never said, Archangels are slaves. You said the Watchers were slaves. Now, repeatedly, Bella and I have asked that you please refrain from adding/changing words and stories. This is a prime example of why. If you had used the phrase Watchers consistantly, or Archangels consistantly, or Metatrons consistantly, we might have been able to follow your story. But when you use all of these phrases interchangably it becomes impossible to follow you.
WE DO NOT USE THE SAME VOCABULARY TO EXPRESS THE SAME IDEAS THAT YOU DO. PICK A WORD AND STICK TO IT, BETTER YET, DEFINE IT, THEN STICK TO IT.
Hopefully that statement now stands out enough that you will finally pay attention to it. How can you reasonably expect anyone to follow you. Abel, I say this with the utmost sincerity: I do not have the time, nor the patience, to continuously cross-reference the things you post. You need to get your work in to a single, coherent format, with a standardized vocabulary, with a standardized chronology, and a comprehensive list of major players, and get it organized before you present it. When you first posted on here you expressed some complaints about how your views have been received elsewhere, and aside from how hard the are to swallow in the first place, I would say that this is probably the single dominant reason.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Sunday, November 20, 2011, 03:24 (4562 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance_Maintained: "WE DO NOT USE THE SAME VOCABULARY TO EXPRESS THE SAME IDEAS THAT YOU DO. PICK A WORD AND STICK TO IT, BETTER YET, DEFINE IT, THEN STICK TO IT."
The language that I am using to express my ideas is called English. Dictionaries and Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) are excellent sources to understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watcher_(angel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
Balance_Maintained: "If you had used the phrase Watchers consistantly, or Archangels consistantly, or Metatrons consistantly, we might have been able to follow your story. But when you use all of these phrases interchangably it becomes impossible to follow you."
I do not use these phrases interchangeably, I use them appropriately to avoid confusion. The archangels that are here on earth are either Sentinels or fallen Watchers. Metatron (YHWH) and Satan are archangels too. Metatron is the new Master Gardener and Satan is the fallen old Master Gardener. I hope this is clear.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by DragonsHeart , Sunday, November 20, 2011, 04:19 (4562 days ago) @ Abel
We understand that you are speaking English, Abel, however, you DO keep using terms interchangeably when they are not designed that way. I looked up Metatron, and you are saying it as Metatron(YHWH), but that is not the case...Metatron was known as LESSER YHWH, and should be annotated as such.
Archangels are NOT slaves, either. Michael is the warrior, Gabriel is the messenger, Raphael is the healer. As I was raised Roman Catholic, I have only ever been familiar with these three. I am aware that Eastern Orthodox religion has 4 more, Uriel, Selaphiel, Jegudiel, and Barachiel.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 20, 2011, 05:50 (4562 days ago) @ Abel
Abel: "The Watchers had been corrupted by pride. Pride that was, in part, created when they began to believe the line of crap they were feeding primitive people so they would follow them. They began to believe that they were gods when they are slaves."
Case 1: Watchers, according to the article you linked, are angels, not Archangels. As this was the only reference you made to slaves, you can clearly understand why we can say now, with 100% certainty, that you never said archangels were slaves. Also, they were not corrupted by pride, they were corrupted by lust.
Case 2: Metatron is never described as an Archangel. Nor is he on the 'roster' of archangels in your other link.
"There are many who claim to be archangels, because they foolishly believe they want to be an archangel. What fool would claim that they will never be a citizen of heaven. That they shall never be as great as the least of you that leaves this place. All archangels envy humans because they have souls and a very few hate you for it.
Case 3: Archangels are always described of being the head of the angelic host, call them generals of heaven's supposed army, not slaves, never, ever, anywhere are they called slaves. Servants, yes. Slaves, no. But servant is an adequate descriptor since they, obviously, supposedly serve God.
No where in any of those links did it mention sentinels, or anything of the sort, so not sure where you are pulling that description from.
So lets recap. Watchers are not Archangels, and Archangels are not Sentinels, and YHWH is not Metatron(lesser YHWH). There is only one Metatron, as it is a name, a proper noun, not a title. Oh, and Archangels are not slaves. That is all according to the links that you posted. So, now, when I say that you are using words interchangeably that are not interchangeable, you have proven it with your own hand.
By the way, It seems like you are trying to mix Judeo-Christianity, Judaism, Quabalistic teachings, and Aliens. Is that about right? Your references to tens and sevens is very reminiscent of the 10 Sephirothic spheres and seven chakras and such.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by David Turell , Sunday, November 20, 2011, 15:32 (4561 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
By the way, It seems like you are trying to mix Judeo-Christianity, Judaism, Quabalistic teachings, and Aliens. Is that about right? Your references to tens and sevens is very reminiscent of the 10 Sephirothic spheres and seven chakras and such.
This whole series of comments seems to come from a Waring Blender. Abel's entry here has created a lot of fun, some odd-ball facts and tid-bits of information I'd never have learned otherwise. I can't wait for those slides!
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Sunday, November 20, 2011, 19:18 (4561 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance_Maintained: Archangels are always described of being the head of the angelic host, call them generals of heaven's supposed army, not slaves, never, ever, anywhere are they called slaves. Servants, yes. Slaves, no. But servant is an adequate descriptor since they, obviously, supposedly serve God.
And if I broke out a dictionary of devils, demons and witches I could list a lot of fanciful facts about them too. Much of what men know about angels and archangels is myth. I believe that I have made it quite clear on this forum about their relationship. I will attempt do so one more time.
Archangels are not born, they are manufactured. Though they are the soldiers of heaven, not all are generals. These living machines are the property of their creators, much like your car is your property. And if your car was sentient, how much free will would you give it? Now imagine if your car was the most advanced fighting machine in the military's inventory. Perhaps now you understand why we are slaves: we are too dangerous not to be.
Angels (Elohim) are the Creators. Elohim are a race of beings that procreate, unlike archangels who do not.
Balance_Maintained: "So lets recap. Watchers are not Archangels, and Archangels are not Sentinels, and YHWH is not Metatron(lesser YHWH). There is only one Metatron, as it is a name, a proper noun, not a title. Oh, and Archangels are not slaves. That is all according to the links that you posted."
This is a quote from Wikipedea:
"Metatron is the Hebrew version of Shekinah - which is from the Jewish scripture - it means the "The Divine Presence of God"."
Hugo Odeberg,[13] Adolf Jellinek[14] and Marcus Jastrow[15] suggest the name may originate from either Mattara (מטר×) "keeper of the watch" or the verb MMTR (ממטר) "to guard, to protect". An early derivation of this can be seen in Shimmusha Rabbah, where Enoch is clothed in light and is the guardian of the souls ascending to heaven." (a sentinel is a keeper of the watch)
"Odeberg also suggests that the name Metatron might be taken from the Persian name Mithras.[13] He lays out a number of parallels between Mithras and Metatron based on their positions in heaven and duties.
The lesser YHWH' in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, 'my name is in him.'" (12:5, Alexander's translation). The narrator of this book, supposedly Rabbi Ishmael, tells how Metatron guided him through Heaven and explained its wonders. Here Metatron is described in two ways: as a primordial angel (9:2–13:2) and as the transformation of Enoch after he was assumed into Heaven.[6][7]
"While this identification of Metatron with Enoch is not to be found in the Talmud itself, the connection is assumed by some of the earliest kabbalists. There also seem to be two Metatrons, one spelled with six letters (מטטרון), and one spelled with seven (מיטטרון). The former may be the transformed Enoch, Prince of the Countenance within the divine palace; the latter, the Primordial Metatron, an emanation of the "Cause of Causes," specifically the tenth and last emanation, identified with the earthly Divine Presence***.
On the other hand, extra-talmudic mystical texts (see below regarding Sefer Hekhalot) do speak of a "lesser YHWH," apparently deriving the concept from Exodus 23:21, which mentions an angel of whom God says "my name [understood as YHWH, the usual divine Proper Name] is in him."
The Zohar calls Metatron "the Youth", a title previously used in 3 Enoch, where it appears to mean "servant".[7] It identifies him as the angel that led the people of Israel through the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt (again referring to Exodus 23:21, see above), and describes him as a heavenly priest."
Wikipedia definition:
***divine presence: "Schechinah, ×©×›×™× ×”) is the English spelling of a grammatically feminine Hebrew language word that means the dwelling or settling, and is used to denote the dwelling or settling presence of God (cf. divine presence), especially in the Temple in Jerusalem......The Shekhinah is held by some to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud.[2]"
(continued next post)
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Sunday, November 20, 2011, 19:34 (4561 days ago) @ Abel
(continued from previous post)
According to this site:
http://www.thechristianrabbi.org/whoismetatron.htm
Who is Metatron? He is the highest archangel, esteemed more than any other of God’s hosts. The letters [of his name] are the great mystery. You may translate the letters vav, hay which is [part of] the name of God… He rules over all, the living things below and the living things above. This is hidden in them and taken from them.
Readings from the Zohar
The above quotation is from the Jewish mystical book, the Zohar, in its comment on Genesis 1:1, which introduces Metatron as being present in this very first verse of the Torah. The writer, Simeon ben Yochai, continues his comment, stating that Metatron is the very first [kadmoni], as well as the highest. He also states that Metatron is eternal.
…He [Metraton] is the very first. Nobody can understand anything higher than this. Why? Because it is closed for the mind. God’s mind is a closed mystery from above. The mind of man can be connected with things, but no one can connect God’s mind from above, the more His thoughts. He is without end.
The Zohar gives the above definition, but the origin of the name Metatron remains a mystery. According to Jewish scholars’ statements, it could come from the Hebrew matara, which means "keeper of the watch;" from the Hebrew cabalistic term metator, which means "guide or messenger" or from two Greek words, meta thronos, which mean "one who serves behind the throne." The Jewish sages do not present a unified opinion regarding the etymology of the name Metatron.
Another Talmudic passage, Yebamoth 16b, also refers to Psalm 37:25, "I was young and was old," as Simeon ben Yochai does in his comment on Genesis 24:2 previously quoted, and comes to the same conclusion that the person mentioned is Metatron. Some believe that Metatron is Enoch, but Yebamoth 16b refutes this conclusion:
Who said it? If God said it, can old age be applied to God? But David said it. Was he so old? But from this we learn that the prince of the world said it. [Tosefos said this prince is young. He is Metatron, the glorified and the fearful. Metatron is the prince of the world. He is called "the youth."]
In the poem Yesod Tokeh, [Strong Foundation], Metatron is a prince turned to fire from the flesh. In this poem it seems to mean that Enoch is Metatron, but he cannot be. He cannot be the prince of the world because in [the Talmudic book] Chulin 60:1 it says that in the first six days the prince of the world [Metatron] said, "God is rejoicing in his work," and Enoch was not yet born…[Tosefos Yebamoth 16b.]"
You can see from these and previous passages, that there are two Metatrons. One that existed at the beginning of creation and one that was made later (the youth). God (YHWH) has been described as the first and the last. The alpha and the omega, just like Metatron is. He was made first and then His shadow was made to walk the earth last. That shadow is the last of the seven sentinels (seven thunders***, aka the "voices" of God) made to walk the path of life to teach and lead humanity.
According to a Wikipedia summary of Revelations:
***The angel cries out and seven thunders utter their voices.
The apostle John is commanded to seal up what the thunders uttered in the little book, and is told not to write about what was said.
The angel declares that the mystery of God would be revealed on the sounding of the seventh trumpet.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
Dhw: Your gods, who were themselves descended from predators, deliberately introduced it [predation] to life on Earth. What does this tell us about their nature?
A selection of quotes from Abel’s reply: “...men have become divorced from their instincts.†“The brain constantly lies and rationalizes as it tries to provide for its emotional and physical needs.†“They [the Elohim] have given you teachers to guide you. Teachers that you fools have routinely slaughtered as heretics.â€
What does any of this have to do with the question? I’m not sure what you hope to prove by calling us fools (and like Tony, I’ve never slaughtered anyone), but if you genuinely wish to teach us something yourself, please take a tip from someone who spent over 30 years working with high calibre university students as well as with some renowned professors. First, learn to answer questions; second, pay attention when your students and colleagues complain that your arguments are sometimes impossible to follow; third, try to be consistent and clear in your use of terminology; fourth, show them some respect, not just because respect is integral to good relations, but also because it may well be that they know more than you do about certain things.
Dhw: Please tell me where I have wondered “why was there suffering†or said that there was no need for the ability to feel pain. The subject was the need for predation, and in the post to which you are replying I wrote: “Of course life and Nature are based on the concept of equilibrium, but you don’t need predation for equilibrium, for suffering, or for death.â€
In your reply, Abel, you repeat the above quote, and your comment is: “I, of course, took this to be you complaining again.â€
You, “of courseâ€, have found no material to support the straw man you built, and your reply is yet another not very polite evasion.
In your post of 02 November at 21.21: under Intelligent Design you wrote: “I am a great believer in the truth and logic and perfection.†Amid the chaos of your posts there’s no doubt much to learn and ponder, and initially your unusual ideas were given a warm welcome, but now it seems that all of us independently are having trouble finding much truth, logic and perfection in your responses to us. Dismiss us as fools if that helps you.
Le monde est plein de fous, et qui n’en veut pas voir
Doit se tenir tout seul, et casser son miroir.
(If you don’t speak French, this will help you to understand why some of us get so frustrated by your recondite terminology. If you do, I hope it will make you laugh.)
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by DragonsHeart , Sunday, November 20, 2011, 20:56 (4561 days ago) @ dhw
I loved the Thomas Love Peacock quote from Crochet Castle. Nicely put, dhw.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 01:59 (4561 days ago) @ dhw
Le monde est plein de fous, et qui n’en veut pas voir
Doit se tenir tout seul, et casser son miroir.(If you don’t speak French, this will help you to understand why some of us get so frustrated by your recondite terminology. If you do, I hope it will make you laugh.)
Please translate for us uni-language folks. (my pidgeon Spanish doesn't count)
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by DragonsHeart , Monday, November 21, 2011, 02:20 (4561 days ago) @ David Turell
"The world is full of fools,
And he who wishes not to see any,
Must keep entirely to himself,
And break his mirror."
Thomas Love Peacock
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 02:41 (4561 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
"The world is full of fools,
And he who wishes not to see any,
Must keep entirely to himself,
And break his mirror."Thomas Love Peacock
Thank you. I am richer for it.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
DRAGONSHEART:
"The world is full of fools,
And he who wishes not to see any,
Must keep entirely to himself,
And break his mirror."
Thomas Love Peacock
David: Thank you. I am richer for it.
I didn’t know Thomas Love Peacock had translated it, and am most impressed by your erudition, Casey! I had in fact planned to translate it if and when Abel replied, as I was curious to see his response to something he might not understand. The original French (origin unknown) is much pithier, because it rhymes. My own version is:
The world is full of fools, and not to see them, Sirrah,
You need to stay alone, and you need to break your mirror.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by DragonsHeart , Monday, November 21, 2011, 17:38 (4560 days ago) @ dhw
Peacock didn't translate it. He used the French directly in his novel, Crochet Castle, published originally in 1831.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by DragonsHeart , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 03:19 (4565 days ago) @ Abel
"Souls currently have no natural predators on this world, but this was not always so. These E-matter predators are most commonly known as demons. There are two classes of these beasts. The most dangerous are those born in Hell. The gates of Hell were sealed in 76 AD and the last demon slain circa 1900. Humanity is currently safe from these vile beings."
I am unaware, in all my years of research and study, of the gates of Hell being sealed in 76 CE, and of the last demon slain. Humanity certainly is not safe. Otherwise, we wouldn't hear of demonic possessions of humans AFTER 1900.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, November 17, 2011, 03:24 (4565 days ago) @ Abel
Abel.. I am a younger man, and do not have the saintly patience that DHW and David have thus far demonstrated. You are dodging the questions and slipping further into delusional ramblings. Please, do yourself, and all of us a favor and answer the questions directly. There should be no more need to invent anything. If you do not have evidence to support a claim, just say so. You would not be the first person to believe something without evidence.
If your 'idea'( and yes, it is an idea, not a theory, or a hypothesis) is to be taken as anything more than half mad ravings, then you must present them as such. And if you expect or hope to be taken seriously by...well..anyone...ever.. then you really really really really (do I need to keep saying 'really' for emphasis?) need to keep your answers to the point and stay away from topics like demonology unless, and I can not stress this enough, unless you have EVIDENCE.(Even weak evidence is better than nothing) I took the time to try and extrapolate some sembalence of order out of your chaotic ramblings, and out of all of it, you decided to comment on a off remark about ghosts. Except that you didn't talk about ghost really, you talked about demons and possessing babies. Here is a good example of a clear, succinct answer:
In Abel's universe, creatures ordinarily relegated to the 'spiritual' realm such as angels, demons, and ghosts are actually creatures that exist in dark matter/energy. They are not the consciousness of a previously living creature that has since died.
See, no need to invent anything more than your theory. Ghosts, angels and demons are aliens? Why not, it fits with your concept that God(s) is(are) alien(s). At least at that point you are being consistent and we can ask the follow up question of, do you have any evidence, scientific observations, or historical data to back up your proposal? And in this way, we can have a useful, productive , conversation where everyone can learn from everyone else's ideas.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 05:19 (4565 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Thursday, November 17, 2011, 06:03
Balance_Maintained: "See, no need to invent anything more than your theory. Ghosts, angels and demons are aliens? Why not, it fits with your concept that God(s) is(are) alien(s). At least at that point you are being consistent and we can ask the follow up question of, do you have any evidence, scientific observations, or historical data to back up your proposal? And in this way, we can have a useful, productive , conversation where everyone can learn from everyone else's ideas."
As I stipulated in my previous post, the earth has a dark matter biosphere. Dark matter being only slightly affected by our gravity forms a larger, less dense atmosphere around this planet. In the upper atmosphere there are photosynthetic organisms that convert light into energy and oxygen. Sometimes these simple things can be "lured" into examining something new, thus various unexplained observations by astronauts when these creatures subjected themselves to "chaotic" light to better "see" them. Some of these are very large. In the following tape the broken lanyard is miles long giving some perspective to the size of these organisms. The incident starts about two minutes in:
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by David Turell , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 14:44 (4564 days ago) @ Abel
Sometimes these simple things can be "lured" into examining something new, thus various unexplained observations by astronauts when these creatures subjected themselves to "chaotic" light to better "see" them. Some of these are very large. In the following tape the broken lanyard is miles long giving some perspective to the size of these organisms. The incident starts about two minutes in:
The human astronauts watching tghe event call the UFO's debris. Reasonable
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by BBella , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 06:08 (4565 days ago) @ Abel
Balance_Maintained: "Since by definition, a ghost is the spirit of something that at one point was alive, it could be argued that if ghosts do exist, then dead is not dead, but rather a transition from one state of being to another."
Balance_Maintained: "For example, he kind of catches the tail end of one of my own speculations that, should we dig deeper into the matter, we would find that EM is the core of our physical reality, and can probably be used to explain a whole host of otherwise unexplainable phenomena, such as a persons sensitivity to thoughts and events occurring outside of the range of their 5 acknowledged senses. But, for the sake of clarity, I am going to keep my own odd speculations out of this thread as it is already strange enough."
There are two biospheres upon this world, a dark matter biosphere and a matter biosphere. The dark matter biosphere was seeded here first to support the dark matter life forms that live here (there are many). Souls are born in the Cauldron of Souls and emerge unto this world by the Shepard's Path.
This is my problem with the above: First, you begin with scientific terms that I can picture in my mind, even if I sometimes have to look up the terms. But then you use words like "the Cauldron of Souls" and " the Shepard's Path." Why change from scientific terms that some of us may possibly follow and wrap our minds around to terms that we, of course, cannot possibly relate with, because we are not only unfamiliar with these terms, they sound as if they came from a movie or book (some of us would like to read...me in particular)? Even if you or anyone can prove the truth of any idea, when you use terms that no one but you are familiar with, we naturally get lost, and it may as well be a movie or a book.
The soul forges a relationship with the brain of the fetus, stimulating its' developing parasympathetic nervous system with its' own feeding rhythm. In this way, the soul is sustained with the energy it needs to survive.
That makes sense... to me.
The soul is the source of some, but not all, psychic phenomenon. Its' time sense can sometimes supply useful premonitions, as well as potentially create the temporal distortion phenomena that some have experienced.
What do you mean by "temporal distortion phenomena?"
During the course of your life the soul becomes the person that it abides in, adapting their personality and retaining a perfect copy of their memories. It is in these perfect memories that souls too often get lost rather than walk the path of life again.
By "walk the path of life again" do you mean reincarnation?
It is very sad, but these poor souls slowly starve and loose their shape, becoming just a ball of sentient gas, until even that, fades away.
This really makes sense to me, the reason being, people never claim to see ghost from thousands of years ago. Usually it is just recent decades.
Matt's question was about your phrase "dead is dead." So you are then saying that does not apply to ghost or it does apply? Once these souls disappear completely then would they then be considered dead?
Souls currently have no natural predators on this world, but this was not always so. These E-matter predators are most commonly known as demons. There are two classes of these beasts. The most dangerous are those born in Hell. The gates of Hell were sealed in 76 AD and the last demon slain circa 1900. Humanity is currently safe from these vile beings.
Instead of going into the information about demons as predators and the whole hell thing and the last demon slain, I'd rather heard about how souls were absorbed or eaten by E-matter...because that could be something scientifically we may could wrap our minds around.
Abel, the problem I am having with you is no more different than the problem I have with anyone that sees or hears something and begins to try and get me to see it or hear it but leaves me in the dust when they use terms and names I can not relate with. I personally think it would be helpful if you could stick with words that you know at least some of us here can relate with. No matter what the real story is behind why we are here and how we got here or where we are all heading, for now, all any of us here really want is to have a fruitful and interesting discussion that keeps our interest. So unless you use our language so we can relate with what you say, we can't possibly keep any interest.
Oh, and one more thing. For all I know you are telling the truth. Many savants and other gifted people see and hear things that we can never hear or see. Maybe there is a whole life of aliens out there that we can't see or hear and you can see and hear it perfectly well. Maybe they have shown and told you these many things and you remember many of these experiences you've related. That is not beyond my belief, as it may be for some others here. You may have gifts we humans may never have, that is not unheard of here on Earth. But, remember, it is near impossible, if not impossible, for those who hear to explain to those who cannot what it is like to exist as a hearing person. This may be what you are facing here with us. So in that light, if possible, remember we have not and cannot see or hear what you have, so just relate to us with what we have seen and heard and maybe we'll be able to move further into our discussions.
bb
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by BBella , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 06:28 (4565 days ago) @ BBella
Abel, one more thing. I am a sci-fi buff and always have been. I watch a lot of science fiction movies and have read many sci-fi books... and, as stated before, I'm an Ancient Alien fan and never miss an episode. That being said, altho I really would love to read the book or watch the movie that you could definitely write with your experiences, I would hope, that unlike our situation in this forum, to be able to relate with the main character (you) and understand the beginning of his story and how he came to be aware of the situation he found himself in. There would be a thread that I could follow from point A to B to Z, the end. As I begin to watch a movie or get into a book, I have to relate to the characters pretty quick. I think that's where we all kind of got lost here with you...we didn't have time to relate with you before we were thrown into the stories that we definitely were unable to relate with.
Just coming from one view of the readers here...
bb
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 07:23 (4565 days ago) @ BBella
edited by unknown, Thursday, November 17, 2011, 08:08
Abel: "The soul is the source of some, but not all, psychic phenomenon. Its' time sense can sometimes supply useful premonitions, as well as potentially create the temporal distortion phenomena that some have experienced."
BBella: "What do you mean by 'temporal distortion phenomena?'"
I should have mentioned that those who can "see" and "hear" ghosts (souls) are "seeing" and "hearing" those souls with their own. Temporal distortion phenomena are those events experienced by a few in their lifetimes at a point of heightened excitement or awareness. Time will seem to slow, sometimes almost to a stop before it reverses direction, speeding up again. Subjective time gained in this state is then lost to a temporal "snap back" as time accelerates, making the world blur around you before it slows back to normal subjective time.
BBella: "By 'walk the path of life again' do you mean reincarnation?
Yes, a soul that is not civilized enough to dwell in heaven is given the chance to live again and be forgiven. Past lives are reduced to mere memories and the soul is given the new personality of the person in which it dwells.
BBella: "Matt's question was about your phrase "dead is dead." So you are then saying that does not apply to ghost or it does apply? Once these souls disappear completely then would they then be considered dead?"
Souls can die both by starvation and old age. In heaven, there are ways that a that a damaged genome may be restored on a cell-by-cell basis. Souls restored in such a way will grow young again.
BBella: "Instead of going into the information about demons as predators and the whole hell thing and the last demon slain, I'd rather heard about how souls were absorbed or eaten by E-matter...because that could be something scientifically we may could wrap our minds around."
As I mentioned before, to be a predator in dark matter you must be smarter than your prey. During the last Ice Age, there were too few humans to support the number of souls that were walking the path of life (being reincarnated) and many starved. Souls that have walked the path can only be sustained by brain energy or mana (food available in heaven), so these were the ones that starved before rations arrived. Souls that had just emerged from the Cauldron of Souls (the birthplace of souls), finding no human host to inhabit returned to the Cauldron hoping to sustain themselves with its' radiance. But once weaned, they could not feed, so they ate the young souls to sustain themselves and became demons. Once changed, they could no longer sustain themselves with a host alone, so they didn't even bother. They grew and grew into great gluttonous beasts that were too large for even an archangel to slay. This is why we made Hell. It was a weapon to destroy these beasts once the Shepard's Path was installed to to conceal the Cauldron's radiance and bar entry to it from the outside.
Hell was a trap that we made for demons. It was a place that looked like the Cauldron of Souls, but the radiance inside was destructive. Demons that were held in this radiation became confused enough to be torn apart and destroyed by teams of archangels. The last of this demon type was slain before I came to this world.
When Satan (the previous Master Gardener) rebelled and refused to return to heaven, he lost the loyalty of the beings that he had used to possess his hosts, so he improvised and used Hell as a weapon against us. He corrupted souls and convinced them to go to that place where they would set upon the weakest, holding them in the radiation until they were confused enough to be devoured. This created a second, intelligent class of demon that Satan used as an interface for the Watcher's dominations. In this way, the six who rebelled against us created an army of demons to wage their war.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, November 17, 2011, 18:47 (4564 days ago) @ Abel
I should have mentioned that those who can "see" and "hear" ghosts (souls) are "seeing" and "hearing" those souls with their own. Temporal distortion phenomena are those events experienced by a few in their lifetimes at a point of heightened excitement or awareness. Time will seem to slow, sometimes almost to a stop before it reverses direction, speeding up again. Subjective time gained in this state is then lost to a temporal "snap back" as time accelerates, making the world blur around you before it slows back to normal subjective time.
Ok, I *THINK* what you are trying to describe here is the subjective perception of time. This is something I can relate to. In the military, when the proverbial poo hit the fan, I definitely had moments where time seemed to slow down. However, that can just as easily(and perhaps more easily) be explained, by the rush of adrenaline flooding my body and mind forcing it to function like an overclocked CPU, processing data at many times the normal rate. This would have the inverse property of making all the data my senses gather appearing to be slower. For programmers, a program written for a Commodore 64 way back when processors where slow and memory was limited would run at 'normal' speed on that hardware. The same program run on a modern machine will run so fast that the user often will not even be able to interact with it. (The best analogy I could think of, sorry). To continue the analogy, a brain during normal operation is comparable to the Commodore 64, a brain flooded with adrenaline, endorphins and other juicy goodness is like the Quad quad-core server with a top of the line graphics card and 32 Gigs of Ram. This would produce the same 'temporal distortion' effects.
Yes, a soul that is not civilized enough to dwell in heaven is given the chance to live again and be forgiven. Past lives are reduced to mere memories and the soul is given the new personality of the person in which it dwells.
So why not just say 'reincarnation'? That is something we are all familiar with, and a belief that is nearly universal throughout the religious community so as not to seem so ....... strange.
Souls can die both by starvation and old age. In heaven, there are ways that a that a damaged genome may be restored on a cell-by-cell basis. Souls restored in such a way will grow young again.
So your version of a 'soul' or spirit being is not only mortal, but also subject to all the needs of normal organism. i.e. Eating, reproduction, etc. Fair enough.
As to the rest of the post..
Abel,
You are getting off track again :) For the sake of discussion, let us (PLEASE!!) roll this conversation backwards. You keep piling more on top, without ever solidifying the foundation of your argument, which leaves it looking like a teetering pile of Jinga blocks swaying dangerously from side to side in preparation for a collapse.
From the sound of it, this could be related in quite simplistic terms if we get away from the whole "Angels and Demons" talk.
The entities(souls) need food. Food was scarce. Entities started starving. Survival instinct kicked in and they went to raid their parents house.(well of souls). Mom and Dad got pissed and put a padlock on the fridge. The entities, now starving, decided to eat their smaller siblings, and everyone knows cannibalism is bad juju. So, mom and dad labeled them bad kids and tried to kick them out. Unfortunately, the kids were too big to kick out by force, so mom and dad set up a furnished apartment and stocked the fridge with what appeared to be free food, which was in fact poison. The kids flocked to the new apartment where they were promptly locked in by their folks until they were too weak to fight back, where upon the parents tried to kill them. One enterprising youngster figured out that he could coerce other kids to come in, let them suck down the poison, and eat them without suffering the ill effects, and did so, thereby strengthening those living in the apartment and allowing them to survive. Now, they are healthy and pissed at mom and dad and they want revenge.
See, no need for angels and demons, though it does make for an interesting and entertaining story. Now, please, pretty please with little cannibal demons on top, could you go back and answer the questions that make up the foundation of your argument. Forget about hell baby eating demons and all of the other stuff for now. We can come back to it later. For now, just focus on ironing out the discrepencies in your posts that have been pointed out numerous times by myself and DHW. As Bella said, we are not here to criticize you for your beliefs, but at the moment we can not even hold a conversation with you because you are talking using terms that have no foundation and, more importantly, using terms that have DIFFERENT MEANINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. If you say Angel to a Judeo Christian, they will think something completely different than what you are talking about.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Abel , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 20:15 (4564 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance_Maintained: Oh Ye of little research. The proof is in the pudding, or in this case, the concrete. The Egyptians, as it has been discovered, did not have to haul these megalithic stones at all. Instead, they did what we would do.... they used concrete.
http://www.geopolymer.org/fichiers_pdf/pyramid_chapt1.pdf
http://digg.com/news/story/Pyramid_Stones_Were_Poured_Not_Quarried
This is a quote from the first two sentences of the reference that you provided:
"Times Online is reporting that French and American researchers have discovered that the stones on the higher levels of the great pyramids of Egypt were built with concrete. From the article: 'Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.' Dec 1, 2006"
It seems that scientists still agree that the vast majority of the pyramids stones were quarried, and not poured. That would explain those large quarries relatively near the pyramids quite well I would think.
Balance_Maintained: Ok, I *THINK* what you are trying to describe here is the subjective perception of time.
The subjective perception of time varies with circadian rhythms and brain chemistry. What I am talking about is much more profound. According to The Harper's Dictionary of Mystical and Paranormal Experience, "Baseball and basketball players and golfers cite changes in time, in which time becomes compressed or seems to stop." Many have experienced this, as have I while in my 20's. A description and depiction of one of these events is even given in the movie "Big Fish" where the author describes it as something that has happened to others.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by BBella , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 20:51 (4564 days ago) @ Abel
edited by unknown, Thursday, November 17, 2011, 21:14
The subjective perception of time varies with circadian rhythms and brain chemistry. What I am talking about is much more profound. According to The Harper's Dictionary of Mystical and Paranormal Experience,
I had no idea Harper had a dictionary of Mystical and Paranormal Experience!!! Thanks for the info!
"Baseball and basketball players and golfers cite changes in time, in which time becomes compressed or seems to stop." Many have experienced this, as have I while in my 20's.
I've had some amazing experiences with time standing still, as well as going missing. My husband and I were headed to town one afternoon and as we began to enter the long drive on the freeway (we are quite a ways from town) and talking about nothing in particular, we suddenly realized we were already at our destination, seemingly in a split second. Neither of us knew how it happened and both of us were equally astonished at the same time. A very weird feeling.
[EDIT] A description and depiction of one of these events is even given in the movie "Big Fish" where the author describes it as something that has happened to others.
Forgot to mention, I love the movie, Big Fish. It reminds me of my 84 year old dad. He is a great storyteller! I am writing his memoir for the family of all of his amazing "tall tales." Our times together in this endeavor has been priceless.
bb
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, November 17, 2011, 21:29 (4564 days ago) @ Abel
You have not been around long enough to know when I am being sarcastic. I should have been more clear in my post about geo-polymers. It was meant as an example of another wild theory that has evidence to support it, but no proof as such due to the constant bickering and backbiting in the academic community. While I personally do not think that geo-polymer technology was beyond the technology of ancient civilizations, it is one of those things that we simply need more evidence of, much like your theory on using catapults to move the boulders. Also, I should point out that your main counter argument to the geo-polymer idea is flawed. Even if they were using geo-polymers, they still would have needed to quarry the base components from somewhere, which is just as good of an explanation for the quarries as any.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by BBella , Thursday, November 17, 2011, 20:35 (4564 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The entities(souls) need food. Food was scarce. Entities started starving. Survival instinct kicked in and they went to raid their parents house.(well of souls). Mom and Dad got pissed and put a padlock on the fridge. The entities, now starving, decided to eat their smaller siblings, and everyone knows cannibalism is bad juju. So, mom and dad labeled them bad kids and tried to kick them out. Unfortunately, the kids were too big to kick out by force, so mom and dad set up a furnished apartment and stocked the fridge with what appeared to be free food, which was in fact poison. The kids flocked to the new apartment where they were promptly locked in by their folks until they were too weak to fight back, where upon the parents tried to kill them. One enterprising youngster figured out that he could coerce other kids to come in, let them suck down the poison, and eat them without suffering the ill effects, and did so, thereby strengthening those living in the apartment and allowing them to survive. Now, they are healthy and pissed at mom and dad and they want revenge.
Oh my goodness!!! I love it and am still laughing. As a parent, I think I can relate completely with this whole scenario above! I also pictured birds whose grown children have yet to leave the nest! When it's time to go it's time to go! "Straighten up and fly right" a term we use here in the south a lot, I think came from the very scenario above. Because if you don't...to hell with ya!!! Of course I still have my 23 year old daughter and grandson living in my house, so I personally do not cotton to that kind of treatment. But, if food was scarce, we know things could get ugly. My 2 year old mixed grandson has chocolate colored skin...please don't tempt me with the scarcity of food..I'm addicted to chocolate.
See, no need for angels and demons, though it does make for an interesting and entertaining story....we are not here to criticize you for your beliefs, but at the moment we can not even hold a conversation with you because you are talking using terms that have no foundation and, more importantly, using terms that have DIFFERENT MEANINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. If you say Angel to a Judeo Christian, they will think something completely different than what you are talking about.
So very true Matt! It would be one thing if we were all sitting in the same pews at the same church. We'd have the same pictures in our minds for these labels. But when I hear them I am turned off, having a negative religious experience from the past. Even though I believe there could be lower energy entities/spirits, etc...I just don't know or understand their matter state. Using these terms and labels confuse me and thwart my understanding so that I can't follow the message Abel is trying to relate, even though I do continue to try and look over or around them to eek out what I can from what he is relating. If Abel does understand these entities and can explain them in a way I can understand... and relate to, it would be most helpful.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, November 17, 2011, 21:34 (4564 days ago) @ BBella
B_M is Tony :)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by BBella , Friday, November 18, 2011, 06:29 (4564 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
B_M is Tony :)
Oops!!! Sooo sorry Tony...I do know that! Thanks for the correction!
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 16:44 (4565 days ago) @ dhw
People, humanity, aliens, and other troubling things
1. People believe what people want to believe.
2. People perceive what they believe.
3. People are blinded by their own 'I's. (pride)
4. People see the world through social and moral circles of their own design, exacting "just us" rather than justice.
5. Men are primarily beasts of nature not logic.
6. Logic is like math. It is only as accurate and precise as its' least accurate and precise premise. A blemished premise (an imperfect truth) will lead to a flawed conclusion even when perfect logic is used.
7. Men let charismatic fools play upon their emotions to erode truthful laws and convictions. Over the ages, knowledge and civilization is thus lost.
8. The left brain conserves the survival drive by lying to itself and others routinely.
At this point you must think that I am insane (I know I would). (So why get upset when the sanity of your claims is questioned?)
Since I cannot trust strangers, I cannot love them (their children and pets are another story).
Firstly I should explain these were the Nazi's "friends from the stars" and this was a lie. They are no one's friend but their own. They have betrayed their creators and are desecrating sacred technologies by using them to wage an unsanctioned war against humanity. Thus they are the enemies of humanity and as a race they are walking very thin ice with their creators. But any one of them that has left the relative sterility of the Ark of heaven, may never go home. This world is under quarantine. The viruses that are here exist nowhere else in the galaxy and the creators (as well as these aliens) plan to keep it that way.
The aliens that are here now consist of the race of aliens themselves, the race of human-looking telepathic morons they made and those humans they currently possess as "puppets" of their (heaven's) technology. These aliens cannot directly breed with humans making unwanted hybrids (that problem was resolved long ago). They make these human-looking telepaths using restriction enzymes to transplant the genes coding for telepathy into human DNA. The DNA that they had to excise to make room for this structure inside the skull was not extraneous. Loosing that much brain matter left these telepathic hybrids stupid. But with spirit craft, these "morons" can still be given an eidetic memory.
If it was up to me how and when this world is saved, it would have happened already. But it is not up to me. It is up to God (He has made that clear to me).
These aliens are trying to kill me for several reasons. The first, is that they want their technology back. The second is to shut me up. The third is because they know that I have the motive and means to kill them all.
There are many examples of things that I and these aliens disagree about. They are genocidal, while I am not. They "possess" their own children at the age of three years, rather than at the age of three months as commanded by heaven. They have betrayed their creators, while I would die rather than do such a thing. They have desecrated sacred technologies in using them as unsanctioned weapons. They intend to save the world from humanity, by killing humanity while that is not my way. They are also pathological liars, while I am quite the opposite. These are just a few of our differences in opinion.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 18:07 (4565 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
1-7 I agree with, to a certain extent, though for the most part they consist of simple cliches. However, I do not view all of these things as necessarily negative. Number 8 makes little to no sense.
At this point you must think that I am insane (I know I would). (So why get upset when the sanity of your claims is questioned?)
That depends on what you mean by insane, which implies first having a baseline for sanity, which we do not. So, I do not think you are any more insane than I am. A little weird compared to the folks I normally interact with, but I would imagine that if I ran in your circles that you would seem quite rational comparatively.
Since I cannot trust strangers, I cannot love them (their children and pets are another story).
This is a logical contradiction. If someone is a stranger, and their children and pets are also strangers, then it follows that if you can not trust a stranger, then you can not trust children or pets that are strangers.
and the disturbing stuff....
Firstly I should explain these were the Nazi's "friends from the stars" and this was a lie. They are no one's friend but their own. They have betrayed their creators and are desecrating sacred technologies by using them to wage an unsanctioned war against humanity. Thus they are the enemies of humanity and as a race they are walking very thin ice with their creators. But any one of them that has left the relative sterility of the Ark of heaven, may never go home. This world is under quarantine. The viruses that are here exist nowhere else in the galaxy and the creators (as well as these aliens) plan to keep it that way.
The aliens that are here now consist of the race of aliens themselves, the race of human-looking telepathic morons they made and those humans they currently possess as "puppets" of their (heaven's) technology. These aliens cannot directly breed with humans making unwanted hybrids (that problem was resolved long ago). They make these human-looking telepaths using restriction enzymes to transplant the genes coding for telepathy into human DNA. The DNA that they had to excise to make room for this structure inside the skull was not extraneous. Loosing that much brain matter left these telepathic hybrids stupid. But with spirit craft, these "morons" can still be given an eidetic memory.
If it was up to me how and when this world is saved, it would have happened already. But it is not up to me. It is up to God (He has made that clear to me).
These aliens are trying to kill me for several reasons. The first, is that they want their technology back. The second is to shut me up. The third is because they know that I have the motive and means to kill them all.
There are many examples of things that I and these aliens disagree about. They are genocidal, while I am not. They "possess" their own children at the age of three years, rather than at the age of three months as commanded by heaven. They have betrayed their creators, while I would die rather than do such a thing. They have desecrated sacred technologies in using them as unsanctioned weapons. They intend to save the world from humanity, by killing humanity while that is not my way. They are also pathological liars, while I am quite the opposite. These are just a few of our differences in opinion.
See.. this is where I have to draw a line in the sand and ask you not to cross it again. When you start claiming that you have the means and motive to kill those that you perceive as aliens, you are entering dangerous territory and I would ask that you not involve myself or anyone else on this website either directly or implicitly. Take some of your own 'wisdom' and apply it to yourself:
1. People believe what people want to believe.
2. People perceive what they believe.
3. People are blinded by their own 'I's. (pride)
4. People see the world through social and moral circles of their own design, exacting "just us" rather than justice.
6. Logic is like math. It is only as accurate and precise as its' least accurate and precise premise. A blemished premise (an imperfect truth) will lead to a flawed conclusion even when perfect logic is used.
From my current perspective, you are working with a severely blemished premise. If it were pristine, and I do mean VERY pristine, you might have a point with some of this. However, considering all the wholes, gaps, and contradictions in your arguments thus far, your statements here make you sound like a danger to yourself and everyone around you. Not crazy, not insane, but certainly dangerous.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 18:23 (4565 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
From my current perspective, you are working with a severely blemished premise. If it were pristine, and I do mean VERY pristine, you might have a point with some of this. However, considering all the wholes, gaps, and contradictions in your arguments thus far, your statements here make you sound like a danger to yourself and everyone around you. Not crazy, not insane, but certainly dangerous.
Thank you for all the work you've done. I don't have the time for it or the patience. What Abel has done is try to overwhelm us with endless scientific- sounding verbiage, substantiating nothing. My opinion is that he is not dangerous, but mildly psychotic. I'm a Cardiologist, but I did have three months training in a psych ward in my internal medicine residency, by way of offering some legitimate credentials, which is more than Abel does. Will he reappear? I doubt it.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 20:53 (4565 days ago) @ David Turell
Thank you for all the work you've done. I don't have the time for it or the patience. What Abel has done is try to overwhelm us with endless scientific- sounding verbiage, substantiating nothing. My opinion is that he is not dangerous, but mildly psychotic. I'm a Cardiologist, but I did have three months training in a psych ward in my internal medicine residency, by way of offering some legitimate credentials, which is more than Abel does. Will he reappear? I doubt it.
You're welcome. Personally, I don't know one way or another if he is psychotic, and I am certainly not qualified to make any sort of prognosis. However, should he return, I hope that the effort I put into sorting out his arguments will at least help get the conversation to some form of normality. At the very least, if nothing else, we all can say that we honestly gave him the opportunity to explain himself that he claimed he was seeking.
The most irritating part to me is that not ALL of his claims are complete non-sense. Some of them do in fact of merit and warrant investigation, but those points are so wrapped up in all the other that it is hard to disentangle them.
For example, he kind of catches the tail end of one of my own speculations that, should we dig deeper into the matter, we would find that EM is the core of our physical reality, and can probably be used to explain a whole host of otherwise unexplainable phenomena, such as a persons sensitivity to thoughts and events occurring outside of the range of their 5 acknowledged senses. But, for the sake of clarity, I am going to keep my own odd speculations out of this thread as it is already strange enough.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
ABEL\'S UNIVERSE
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 21:18 (4565 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
For example, he kind of catches the tail end of one of my own speculations that, should we dig deeper into the matter, we would find that EM is the core of our physical reality, and can probably be used to explain a whole host of otherwise unexplainable phenomena, such as a persons sensitivity to thoughts and events occurring outside of the range of their 5 acknowledged senses. But, for the sake of clarity, I am going to keep my own odd speculations out of this thread as it is already strange enough.
We know that magnets around the brain create all sorts of changes in sensorium. Matt noted this awhile ago. As ions speed along axons, there has to be an electromagnetic field created.