Fundamental Freedoms First

[kingdomwithin]

The Jude scripture is a well documented allusion to Enoch. The Assumption of Moses was pseudepigraphical despite it's popularity. The Origin of Evil continues to evolve constrained within anthropomorphic context, while the personalities transcend this material realm. - kingdomwithin

1955 Urantia Book | 60124 | 53:1.2 Lucifer was a magnificent being, a brilliant personality; he stood next to the Most High Fathers of the constellations in the direct line of universe authority. Notwithstanding Lucifer's transgression, subordinate intelligences refrained from showing him disrespect and disdain prior to Michael's bestowal on Urantia. Even the archangel of Michael, at the time of Moses' resurrection, "did not bring against him an accusing judgment but simply said, 'the Judge rebuke you.'" Judgment in such matters belongs to the Ancients of Days, the rulers of the superuniverse.

1901 ASV | Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

1st Century B.C. | 1 Enoch 1:9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones, To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh, Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

1st Century A.D. | Assumption of Moses 10 And then His Kingdom shall appear throughout all His creation, And then Satan shall be no more, And sorrow shall depart with him. Then the hands of the angel shall be filled Who has been appointed chief, And he shall forthwith avenge them of their enemies. For the Heavenly One will arise from His royal throne, And He will go forth from His holy habitation With indignation and wrath on account of His sons. And the earth shall tremble: to its confines shall it be shaken: And the high mountains shall be made low And the hills shall be shaken and fall. And the horns of the sun shall be broken and he shall be turned into darkness; And the moon shall not give her light, and be turned wholly into blood. And the circle of the stars shall be disturbed. And the sea shall retire into the abyss, And the fountains of waters shall fail, And the rivers shall dry up. For the Most High will arise, the Eternal God alone, And He will appear to punish the Gentiles, And He will destroy all their idols. Then you, O Israel, shall be happy, And you shall mount upon the necks and wings of the eagle, And they shall be ended. And God will exalt you, And He will cause you to approach to the heaven of the stars, In the place of their habitation. And you will look from on high and see your enemies in Ge(henna) And you shall recognize them and rejoice, And you shall give thanks and confess thy Creator. And do you; Joshua (the son of) Nun, keep these words and this book; For from my death [assumption] until His advent there shall be 250 times [= year-weeks = 1750 years]. And this is the course of the times which they shall pursue till they are consummated. And I shall go to sleep with my fathers. Wherefore, Joshua you (son of) Nun, (be strong and) be of good courage; (for) God has chosen (you) to be minister in the same covenant.

Can anyone else agree that Scriptures from the religion of Your choice primarily address the Origin of Evil?

Or this primeval Origin prerequisite must be anthropomorphic to assimilate Humankind's origin?

Science concedes that roughly 40,000 years ago Humankind's evolution accelerated. However, if this is not accepted widely enough, then let's simply address the absence of any cultural equivalent.

I'm not advocating for any specific explanation, if you don't believe in the Unqualified, then substitute Alien intervention, or the Anomalous explanation of your choice.

I'm suggesting the Fall of Man (Genesis), or the Mark of the Beast (Revelation), is the same genetic Survival inheritance. Somehow we've been complimented Spiritually within to overcome ancestral Fight or Flight mechansims or baser Animal tendencies.

What is the scientific explantation for one evolutionary Super species or race and the failure of any others to remotely Close that Gap?

My religion is Freedom from Belief, and my Church is as separate as possible from State, so I would like to join that associated usergroup or request it's creation, please support your AU local whatever your beliefs.

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest - Denis Diderot (1713-1784)

[McCulloch]

Can anyone else agree that Scriptures from the religion of Your choice primarily address the Origin of Evil?

As far as I know, each religion addresses the origin of evil. It is all conjecture.

Or this primeval Origin prerequisite must be anthropomorphic to assimilate Humankind's origin?

???

Science concedes that roughly 40,000 years ago Humankind's evolution accelerated. However, if this is not accepted widely enough, then let's simply address the absence of any cultural equivalent.

I'm not advocating for any specific explanation, if you don't believe in the Unqualified, then substitute Alien intervention, or the Anomalous explanation of your choice.

I'm suggesting the Fall of Man (Genesis), or the Mark of the Beast (Revelation), is the same genetic Survival inheritance. Somehow we've been complimented Spiritually within to overcome ancestral Fight or Flight mechansims or baser Animal tendencies.

I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that some other-worldly intervention caused evil in human society?

What is the scientific explantation for one evolutionary Super species or race and the failure of any others to remotely Close that Gap?

Not that I know of. Perhaps the emergence and dominance of one species would prevent the emergence of any other. Do you really think that humans would tolerate another species advancing to our level?

My religion is Freedom from Belief, and my Church is as separate as possible from State, so I would like to join that associated usergroup or request it's creation, please support your AU local whatever your beliefs.

When you have enough tokens, you may form such a group. I myself would join except that I don't qualify. I am entirely for the separation of church and state but am not American. Perhaps if we made a group that specified support for the separation of religion and governments and not limit it to church or to the United States.

[kingdomwithin]

I apologize for my lack of clarity.

Although the focus quickly shifts to Humankind's fall or sin, following the First Source and Center archetype, Evil assimilates Human origins.

My citations demonstrated Evil's transcendent Origin has always been anthropomorphically Reverse engineered to reflect Human ethics.

So I was suggesting Intervention meets Occam's Razor for one Super species or race.

And Humankind's evil has never been more than selfish Animal survival inheritance.

But I enjoyed your statistically absurd suggestion that Evolution has been subject to Humankind's guidance for any measurable Time period.

You'd be welcome in any Separation group, I certainly didn't mean to imply any Church or American limits, but the United States remains continually at risk from encroaching Christian dominionism, or westernized Islamic Sharia Theocracy, so please (americans) support your AU local.

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest - Denis Diderot (1713-1784)

[McCulloch]

But I enjoyed your statistically absurd suggestion that Evolution has been subject to Humankind's guidance for any measurable Time period.

I miscommunicated. I do not believe that once humans became the dominant species, we would tolerate another species rising to our level. They would be considered a threat.

[kingdomwithin]

No Problem McCulloch,

Despite practically immeasurable Statistical deviation between Humankind's advancement and all other species, I'll concede the situation has Evolved into one Super species at the Expense of all others.

Once again, you conveniently avoid my point, that all other things being equal, some Intervention is the best and simplest solution. (Occam's Razor)

My Freedom from Belief and Separation agenda allow me to entertain any Intervention theory. But I am expecting Believers and Non alike to acknowledge the vast Gap between Humankind and the next most Advanced species. Although it won't surprise me, when Non Believers attempt to minimize this Gap, while Science fails to address such Obvious questions.

So I completely agree with you, that we've implemented the least Progressive interpretation of Subduing and Dominion over Creepy things. Maybe if we were made in the Unqualified's image, we would embrace Animal development and Environmental welfare. But suggesting Humankind is a product of pure Evolution alone, omits all Older species, and remains inconsistent with current Science that Humankind accelerated roughly 40,000 years ago.

1901 ASV | Genesis 1:25: And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27: And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28: And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

[Furrowed Brow]

Science concedes that roughly 40,000 years ago Humankind's evolution accelerated. However, if this is not accepted widely enough, then let's simply address the absence of any cultural equivalent
Humankinds evolution? Im guessing you mean the development of modern human culture.

But this is no overnight job. it seems fire use started around at least 790,000 years ago . So to get from fire use to, say steam power, took nearly all that 790, 000 years. Tool use 1.5 million years ago Earliest symbolic behavior 1.4 1.2 million years ago.Human burial 350,000 years ago. Earliest jewelry 75, 000 years ago. The use of the word "accelerated" whilst evocative, betrays the length of time the many various strands of human culture have been established.

What is the scientific explanation for one evolutionary Super species or race and the failure of any others to remotely Close that Gap?

There is no scientific principle that says the gap should be closed or closing. There is no principle that says a "super race" must emerge. But it is all relative. Bacteria have been around longer and in all likelihood will stay around longer than our "super race". If the criteria for a species is long lived then the dinosaurs dominated the planet for a millions of years, modern humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years maybe.

Are you suggestion that uniqueness of human culture suggests/demonstrates intervention? If so the inference is invalid. If you are suggestion a concept of evil is universal to human culture and this too suggests/demonstrates intervention, then this too is an invalid inference. If you are saying that uniqueness of our culture or the concept of evil are congruent with the idea of intervention, then so to is the idea of a planet with no human like culture. The interventionist intervening to prevent a super race. The idea of intervention so self fulfilling it cannot be falsified and thus is not a scientific hypothesis. If you are imposing the idea that the interventionist is a creator/originator of humankind then what does this explain without adding massively to our ontological commitments?

So I was suggesting Intervention meets Occam's Razor for one Super species or race.

O dear. Please dont suggest that. The simplest answer is the one that explains more observed data with the least number of assumptions, and the least number of ontological commitments. We can explain the data without intervention. Correct application of Occams razor does injury to your proposal.

[kingdomwithin]

Science concedes that roughly 40,000 years ago Humankind's evolution accelerated. However, if this is not accepted widely enough, then let's simply address the absence of any cultural equivalent.

Humankinds evolution? Im guessing you mean the development of modern human culture.

But this is no overnight job. it seems fire use started around at least 790,000 years ago . So to get from fire use to, say steam power, took nearly all that 790, 000 years. Tool use 1.5 million years ago Earliest symbolic behavior 1.4 1.2 million years ago.Human burial 350,000 years ago. Earliest jewelry 75, 000 years ago. The use of the word "accelerated" whilst evocative, betrays the length of time the many various strands of human culture have been established.

I don't dispute any of the above, but how long do you think it will take me to find contradictory dating?

What is the scientific explanation for one evolutionary Super species or race and the failure of any others to remotely Close that Gap?

There is no scientific principle that says the gap should be closed or closing. There is no principle that says a "super race" must emerge. But it is all relative. Bacteria have been around longer and in all likelihood will stay around longer than our "super race". If the criteria for a species is long lived then the dinosaurs dominated the planet for a millions of years, modern humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years maybe.

So you're argument is that Dinosaurs were more advanced than Humankind? Or you're agreeing our degree of Human development remains largely unaccountable? Either way, I appreciate your support that, 'There is no principle that says a "super race" must emerge.'

Clearly something Intervened along the way, by your own suggestion.

Are you suggestion that uniqueness of human culture suggests/demonstrates intervention? If so the inference is invalid.

Opinions are like Belly buttons, usually in Contrast to mine. So your Inference is no more Valid than mine, unless there's some danger of your's being Published and Peer Reviewed by Current science.

Much like McCulloch's initial response, you Misrepresent arguments with the remainder of Your post. So please don't expect me to address your Straw misrepresentations. Once again, I've been suggesting the Opposite of Your presumptions.

If you are suggestion a concept of evil is universal to human culture and this too suggests/demonstrates intervention, then this too is an invalid inference. If you are saying that uniqueness of our culture or the concept of evil are congruent with the idea of intervention, then so to is the idea of a planet with no human like culture. The interventionist intervening to prevent a super race. The idea of intervention so self fulfilling it cannot be falsified and thus is not a scientific hypothesis. If you are imposing the idea that the interventionist is a creator/originator of humankind then what does this explain without adding massively to our ontological commitments?

So I was suggesting Intervention meets Occam's Razor for one Super species or race.

O dear. Please dont suggest that. The simplest answer is the one that explains more observed data with the least number of assumptions, and the least number of ontological commitments. We can explain the data without intervention. Correct application of Occams razor does injury to your proposal.

Strong conclusions require Strong evidence, so it's on You to present any simpler yet More convincing explanations, for the vast Gulf between Humankind and the next most Advanced species.

[Furrowed Brow]

I don't dispute any of the above, but how long do you think it will take me to find contradictory dating?

As soon as someone digs up still earlier evidence.

So you're argument is that Dinosaurs were more advanced than Humankind?

Nope.

Or you're agreeing our degree of Human development remains largely unaccountable?

Unparalleled yes. Unaccountable nope.

Either way, I appreciate your support that, 'There is no principle that says a "super race" must emerge.'

Its nice to be appreciated.

Clearly something intervened along the way, by your own suggestion.

Nope. That is an invalid inference. If there is no rule against something occurring, then the fact it then occurs gives no license to conclude that intervention was required.

Opinions are like Belly buttons, usually in Contrast to mine.

A simile full of fluff.

So your Inference is no more valid than mine,

No. Your inference is logically invalid if you mean to say it is safe to conclude intervention based on the uniqueness of human culture. My inference is that there is no need to invoke interference to explain the data. Which there is not. The argument against that stance is you invalid argument.

Much like McCulloch's initial response, you Misrepresent arguments with the remainder of your post. So please don't expect me to address your Straw misrepresentations.

I apologies for any misrepresentation of your argument. Which, as I think I covered all the obvious bases, is now beginning to elude me.

Unless there's some danger of your's being Published and Peer Reviewed by Current science.

This is a twist on appeal to authority. You will not accept criticism unless it is from a professional authority.

Much like McCulloch's initial response, you Misrepresent arguments with the remainder of Your post. So please don't expect me to address your Straw misrepresentations

I happy to accept Ive got you wrong. But Im guessing this means you accept that at least Ive managed to rip up the straw man, and that you will shortly be presenting much more powerful arguments than those to show how I was wasting my time.

Strong conclusions require Strong evidence, so it's on You to present any simpler yet More convincing explanations, for the vast Gulf between Humankind and the next most Advanced species.

I think youve got this back to front. As pointed out there is no principle that says creatures with intelligence on the order of human intelligence must emerge. Similarly there is no principle that says that intelligence and the signs of culture must be handed out to all species on a softly sloping curve. If your point is that humans are the first and only species to reach a level of technology and culture, and the only ones to get anywherenear it, then again there is no scientific principle or logical rule or point of reason being transgressed here. If there is I think you need to clearly define them. Otherwise there is no gap that needs filling. This is not a strong conclusion. It would be if some principle or point of reason was threatened by the appearance of a dominant technological culture. But none is.

So to stop me flailing at anymore straw men I think we need to get a clear look at the principles you feel the unparalleled emergence of human culture transgresses? It might also be helpful if you were explicit as to what data cannot be explained by the normal naturalistic theories and so require invoking intervention.

[kingdomwithin]

Hi Furrowed Brow,

So the Sum total of your argument is that Science is Unaccountable to explain Unparalleled evolution. Conveniently, you offer no explanation for the data, only your certainty that Interference has never been a factor. Your inference is that there is no need to invoke interference to explain the data.

I appreciate all your fancy arguments. And I would negate your ontological commitments and inferences. But I am much more interested in correlating ancient texts to understand what earlier cultures thought and why. So for the sake of Your debate, just flip all Your prefabricated boxes to my position and exercise the Law Of Diminishing Returns with them.

Everyone knows there's two sides to every debate, and one side is assigned the losing argument, but they both compete with the same clever tools.

You and all your fancy calculus are my argument. My question is simple, when will the next Advanced species, solve Dynamic equations within Diminishing limits? You have the Data, now just Explain it.

While you're free to wager your Eternal potential within comforting Tiny boxes. You should reconsider the responsibility of Misleading others. Unless it's Scientific fact that no Spiritually eternal component is associated with Unqualified evolution.

The topic is Right and Wrong. I'm questioning the Motivation for Evil beyond animal Survival techniques of Material realms. Apparently, unparalleled Human development, personally or culturally, may reveal clues.

The Current science concedes the Acceleration of Human evolution, with Neanderthal obsolescence, roughly 40,000 years ago.

But your welcome to, 'dig[s] up still earlier evidence', of Opposable Thumb dominance.

Remove all Possibilities and the Truth remains.

I think youve got this back to front.

Strong conclusions require Strong evidence, so it's on You to present any simpler yet More convincing explanations, for the vast Gulf between Humankind and the next most Advanced species.

O dear. Please dont suggest that.

So I was suggesting Intervention meets Occam's Razor for one Super species or race.

[Furrowed Brow]

So the Sum total of your argument is that Science is Unaccountable to explain unparalleled evolution.

Nope. You name the principle, rule, or at least plausible piece of reasoning that says we really should expect to find a softer slope between human advancements and other species. Science is accountable; but you need to form an argument that that says what it must be accountable for. So if you want to hold science to account you have to put forward a solid criticism.

Conveniently, you offer no explanation for the data, only your certainty that Interference has never been a factor.

Nope. Not conveniently. Quite deliberately. The argument was that that the gap between humans and other animals is not in need of a special explanation, because no principles or rules or point of reason is being transgressed. The data is explained quite adequately without the need to invoke intervention. I am certain that it is invalid to draw the conclusion that interference is needed based on the points you have so far made.

Your inference is that there is no need to invoke interference to explain the data.

Nope. That is the heart of argument, not an inference. And because there is no need to invoke interference, I infer (by use of Occam's razor) interference is not a factor. So you have me back to front sir.

I appreciate all your fancy arguments.

Nothing fancy. Just straight thinking.

My question is simple, when will the next Advanced species, solve Dynamic equations within Diminishing limits?

Dunno. Maybe never, or at least whilst humans fill that niche. One noticeable effect of human success has been the diminishing numbers of the other major primates. There is no principle that says this has to be so, but human culture means deforestation and hunting. It could well be self fulfilling that the presence of one advanced species limits the opportunities of another arising in the same time period. But that thought whilst evocative is just a thought. So Im sorry I cannot provide an accurate answer to your question. But that the answer is to be true a tad waffly, it does not give any support to your stance that intervention is required.

While you're free to wager your Eternal potential within comforting Tiny boxes.

I am free. And you too you are free to believe what you wish. However invalid arguments cannot be made valid. Neither of us have that freedom.

You should reconsider the responsibility of Misleading others.

Actually kingdomwithin I am always keenly aware of that. I struggle to keep my arguments valid, and my presentation accurate. So if you will kindly point to anything I have said, and show why it is invalid, I will readily retract it.so long as it really is invalid and you can clearly show how. Likewise for "misleading".

Unless it's Scientific fact that no Spiritually eternal component is associated with Unqualified evolution.

But that is not the argument I have put to you. As I have said. Put on the table for discussion a principle, rule, piece of reasoning, that says the appearance of humans is not adequately explainable by standard evolutionary theory, and we can get our teeth into the problem you pose. But that is as I see not the form of your argument. You are pointing to a gulf, and saying that the gulf needs explaining because it is a gulf and an unparalleled gulf no less. But it is a fallaciousness piece of reasoning to invoke intervention on the back of an argument for uniqueness, unparalleled or not.

I'm questioning the Motivation for Evil beyond animal Survival techniques of Material realms. Apparently, unparalleled Human development, personally or culturally, may reveal clues.

Okay. Humans do bad, and the more intelligent they are the more imaginative the means they find for doing bad. Interesting avenue to pursue.but whats it got to do with intervention? (An intervention which you have not established the need for).

The Current science concedes the Acceleration of Human evolution, with Neanderthal obsolescence, roughly 40,000 years ago.

I think at this point we are going to need hard example of what is encompassed by "accelerated human evolution". I have already supplied information regarding the introduction of fire, symbolism, burial, jewelry. The point being that these facets of human culture were already established. An example of what you mean would be helpful.