IC please clarify for us

[Fairy]

Evolution, as a theory, is "known" through piecing together different experimental observations of the sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc.) and trying to come up with an explanation for how the biological world works and why it works the way it does.

Exactly, we’ll keep trying to come up with an explanation for the knowledge of the how the internal mechanisms of the biological world works. But no theory is absolute. All we can know is what we can measure with our finite limited knowledge which has no access to what’s actually going on in the absolute sense. We can know that standing on a piece of broken glass feels, we feel and know the ouch. But we don’t know how we know that.

"All we can know is what we can measure with our finite limited knowledge which has no access to what’s actually going on in the absolute sense."

We can know through implications based on rationality.
Verification via human limitations is another matter.

For example, based on the ideas you presented here ...

Einstein noted that time exists so that everything doesn’t happen at once.
- God is beyond all limitations.
- God is beyond the limitations of time that Einstein noted.
- For God, everything is at once.
- Limitations of time include duration and chronology.
- Human understanding and explanations are bound by time, duration, and chronology.

- Because God did not name each creature of his creation,
- And because for God everything is at once,

- Mans’ dominion over critters not specifically mentioned in The Holy Bible includes dominion over dinosaurs ...
- ... a relationship of man and beast that defies mans’ limited apprehension bound by time,
- but agrees with the rational implications of no limitations.

Very well put.

I agree, because I’m hearing the message. I recognise it’s truth. Well said.

And yes, time is what stops everything happening all at once.. a limited finite time bound human can only know so much, we are always under construction.

Inner Mastery and Self-Control is the dominion that must begin from within. It is the power to govern your own mind, emotions, and habits. Before you can command peace in your outward circumstances or relationships, you must have dominion over your own flesh (e.g., conquering fear, anger, or selfish desires)

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly is "spirituality"? Is it the belief in "spirits" and the "supernatural"? If so, then those are things that science cannot study. If anything can be known about such things, then it's not known through the means of the natural sciences.

Well, how is evolution "known," Gary? (Serious question: I'm not trying to reverse it on you. I'm asking you to think about the method by which you have come to believe in something you believe in.) For you will find it is exactly the same method by which the natural sciences also relate to the question of the existence of God.

Evolution, as a theory, is "known" through piecing together different experimental observations of the sciences (chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc.) and trying to come up with an explanation for how the biological world works and why it works the way it does.

I don't think you did this work, Gary. I haven't ever heard you claim to be a chemistry expert, or a physicist, or a biologist or even a lowly geologist. I think you believed in the theory of evolution because a man in a white coat told you it was how things worked. You were young, and he was considered a teacher, and he said it, and you believed him. If you're like most people, that's how it happened for you.

Maybe later you picked up some scraps from the disciplines you mentioned. And it was probably mostly those that fit with the theory, and none that went against it. Maybe you saw somebody on television who also reinforced your belief in it. And that's why you believed it.

But open your eyes, and a different belief is most obvious. The world around you is far too complex and purposeful to be a mere product of time plus chance. The ape theory, so fondly taught for about a century, has been disproved by its own proponents, the Evolutionists. Even they no longer believe in that theory -- though they'll never issue an apology to you for having misled you. They've just revised the theory and moved on, as if there was never a problem in the first place.

And open your eyes to yourself. What are you? A conscious, reasoning being. Do you feel like an accident? Does it look to you like the kind of being you are could have been put together by a giant, cosmic accident? What's really plausible here?

[Lacewing]

What are you? A conscious, reasoning being. Do you feel like an accident? Does it look to you like the kind of being you are could have been put together by a giant, cosmic accident? What's really plausible here?

What's PLAUSIBLE is MUCH MORE than some notion of a male god... or any god in any form. Only human beings limit the idea of how awareness can exist, and what that must look like.

[Immanuel Can]

What are you? A conscious, reasoning being. Do you feel like an accident? Does it look to you like the kind of being you are could have been put together by a giant, cosmic accident? What's really plausible here?

What's PLAUSIBLE is MUCH MORE than some notion of a male god... or any god in any form.

Every culture in the history of the world has had another impression, at one time. They all started out intuitively believing in some kind of metaphysical power...a concept of God or gods.

So what seems obvious to you has not seemed at all so obvious to everybody else. Even today, not more than 4% of the world's population agrees with you; and historically, you have even a much smaller proportion of agreement with mankind.

[Lacewing]

What are you? A conscious, reasoning being. Do you feel like an accident? Does it look to you like the kind of being you are could have been put together by a giant, cosmic accident? What's really plausible here?

What's PLAUSIBLE is MUCH MORE than some notion of a male god... or any god in any form.

Every culture in the history of the world has had another impression, at one time. They all started out intuitively believing in some kind of metaphysical power...a concept of God or gods.

So what seems obvious to you has not seemed at all so obvious to everybody else. Even today, not more than 4% of the world's population agrees with you; and historically, you have even a much smaller proportion of agreement with mankind.

So, most human beings thus far (in their short time on this planet) have been inclined to personify and deify their beliefs and ideas. So what? That doesn't conclude anything. People can do whatever works for them emotionally and spiritually -- and clearly, they do that in many, many ways.

[Fairy]

Immanuel, do you believe that God in the absolute sense is pansexual?
But in the finite sense known to the human understanding of God, God is known to be a “He” because God had to be the first original formless seed within all creation, that appeared as all manifest created formed things, known also as Mother Earth in form?

God didn’t need creation , God simply divided into a duality of both male and female, in this known conception? An illusory conception , appearing real?

[Janoah]

The ape theory, so fondly taught for about a century, has been disproved by its own proponents, the Evolutionists.

what science says,
"Homo sapiens is a distinct species of the hominid family of primates, which includes all the great apes. Over their evolutionary history, humans gradually developed traits such as bipedalism, dexterity, and complex language."
So, it's all good, Eve was a cute ancient monkey. And even more scientifically, Eve and Adam are a wonderfully wise parable.

[Immanuel Can]

What's PLAUSIBLE is MUCH MORE than some notion of a male god... or any god in any form.

Every culture in the history of the world has had another impression, at one time. They all started out intuitively believing in some kind of metaphysical power...a concept of God or gods.

So what seems obvious to you has not seemed at all so obvious to everybody else. Even today, not more than 4% of the world's population agrees with you; and historically, you have even a much smaller proportion of agreement with mankind.

So, most human beings thus far (in their short time on this planet) have been inclined to personify and deify their beliefs and ideas. So what?

So what's really obvious to others is apparently not obvious to you.

But about the truth of the matter, as you yourself note:

That doesn't conclude anything.

God will be God, regardless of all opinions...yours, mine, or anybody else's. Our choice is not to remake Him in any image we would like, but rather to come to grips with God as He is. And all religions, and in fact, even Atheism agree on that one fact: that God as He is is the only way to know about Him.

Reality is like that. It has no patience for wrong opinions.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, do you believe that God in the absolute sense is pansexual?

You've got the question backward. You're imagining that God has to have some sort of "sexuality" derived from the human model. God is the prototype, the original, the pattern from which the various aspects of man are derived; man is the mere image, reflection or (often palid) sub-pattern. He is the Creator, and the features we have can only partially reflect anything about Him. So we cannot deduce from the human to the divine; we have to think in the other direction.

Your question should be not about sexuality but about the nature of God Himself.

[Immanuel Can]

Eve and Adam are a wonderfully wise parable.

Really? Exactly where does Torah claim they are a "parable"?

[Janoah]

Eve and Adam are a wonderfully wise parable.

Really? Exactly where does Torah claim they are a "parable"?

Something that contradicts science can be taken literally and declared a lie, or it can be understood as an allegory, a parable.
Maimonides, the most authoritative Jewish theologian, advocates the second, and I agree with him on this.
Maimonides, by the way, calls those who adhere to the literal understanding of what is literally nonsense, the greatest offender against the Torah, for they defame the Torah, God forbid.
And I agree with him on this too.
It is clear that scientific opinion changes over time, but in any case, one should not insist on a literal understanding of what is unscientific at a given time.
After all, the Torah is not a scientific textbook, but a manual on upbringing.
And upbringing is more effective with parables than with textbooks.
Every nation is the fruit of its own fairy tales.

[Immanuel Can]

Eve and Adam are a wonderfully wise parable.

Really? Exactly where does Torah claim they are a "parable"?

Something that contradicts science

So the Torah treats it as real, and you think "science" is contradicting it? Just how does science do that?

[Gary Childress]

Reality is like that. It has no patience for wrong opinions.

Now, if we could only find out which opinion is wrong. Any idea on how we might go about that task?

[Immanuel Can]

Reality is like that. It has no patience for wrong opinions.

Now, if we could only find out which opinion is wrong. Any idea on how we might go about that task?

Hint: use reality.

[Gary Childress]

Reality is like that. It has no patience for wrong opinions.

Now, if we could only find out which opinion is wrong. Any idea on how we might go about that task?

Hint: use reality.

So God is a "he," and we know this because why? The story of Adam and Eve is scientifically factual, and we know this because?