Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Ask a question

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Ask a question

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I read the pages where many seem to be in quandary over existance, evolution and the meanings in life. What I am about to say, may not be the whole truth, it may not be even what you can prove in belief.

One cannot deny evolution, in fact it can be believed whole heartedly but what if man was not on the evolutionary scale. A true definition of man may not be explained from the gatherings of fossils and remnants of artifacts. So assuming that man did not evolve, from whence does he come. The bible and many oral traditions claim that God gave the gift of life through mud (the Earth). We can take it for granted that this is reference to the very beginning of life forms but isn't this also what man is.

All life to date excluding man, for this point, was the result of eons of time spent in evolution, so at this juncture, man does not exist. Without the presence of man we can assume that the existance of God is moot. It serves no purpose to deny or confirm this but this being or entity has endeavoured to culminate the forms of all life into one shell, that is the body of God. Through reasoning of practicality, manouverability and reasonable ability , God exclaims this is the life that all this is for as no other life form is able to interact with all creation in some degree or another. We can gather that Gods creation resembles man as we are that image.

Adam, lets call him Adam for arguments sake, was the process of fertilization of what most cultures call Mother Earth, hence the Earth bore the life that is Adam and God is presumed to be a male. The fundamentals of this process are simple and obvious. God is not a human so impregnating an entire planet is simple and so man exists. Now I am not one to go along with the thirteen rib factor, all other human life though is a two prong factor. There is Eve and by no means do I believe that the two of them could procreate all our lives even with the belief that a son also intervened, that is to say joined in procreation of Eve and then there is the rest of our lifes.

Ok, I am reaching into the concept of far fetched but only to the point that I am offering no proof. Let's first deal with all other lifes. With clear vision of Adam, other life forms with whom of course God can communicate, the choice of changing, not evolving is offered and by some it is accepted. I do not claim to know what these lifes were before the choice, suffice to say they are now human. This did not take place prior to Eve.

For Eve, you are going to have to bare with me on this one. God as It was in the time of Adam, is also God as It will become through the lives that are created. It is at this time that God attracts Eve to be with Adam. Eve is a product of the future of Adam, she is brought from the time of her existance to the time of existence with Adam. It would seem relevant to assume that Adam could not procreate with the lifes of change that were to come, for to date there is no human nature and the lifes that were to change might still possess the nature of their beast.

Time without relevance, it is not for question but rather, a point to assure that we are all born as individuals. Pre conception we are lead to a table of faith, how do we wish to be is the same question all life following the firsts deal with and so our response is our life. It is not a question of fate but we are the growth chart of our response.

Just wish I didn't screw with my brain so I could remember this from memory. No silly I have already used my wish and it was a bike that I received. They who heard that wish did all they could to fulfill that request.
You can say this is completely ridiculous and in no way tells the truth of our existance. There are no proofs you might say to establish the fiction as fact and any question you think you could ask would only result in a further fictional or unprovable point. Any one question however, must have only one query.

Here is an example. What if it is.

@urangutan,

Your post sounds poetic and very philosophical, but I wonder if in doing so you have sacrificed some cogency with your argument. But first, let me address your post.

You acknowledge in the first paragraph that many people wonder about existence, evolution, and the meaning of life. I agree with this. In your second paragraph, you believe in evolution, but state what I think is a major premise for you thesis, which is that "what if man did not evolve in that way." You posit that man is "earth." Ok, that's fine as well. It's at this point that it gets hazy what you are trying to accomplish. As much as I can gather from the third paragraph, you state that all life has evolved except man. Without the presence of man, the existence of god is arguable. We will not talk about god's existence, just suffice to say that god has endeavored to "culminate the forms of all life into one shell, the body of God." You then gradually state that the form looks like man. You are seeding a lot of good topics but not really addressing them.

Paragraph 4 is where I have a question. You basically state that Adam is the birthed result of God (the male) and the earth (mother nature?the female). Eve isn't in the picture yet. If God is not a human like you say and can impregnate the earth, why would god need to impregnate the planet in the first place. In other words why would God procreate with a female when the notion of an alternate sex needed to procreate hasn't even been conceived yet? You are mixing the notion of God with the fundamentals of humanity which are yet to be established.

There are a few other things I think you need to clarify? such as "other life forms" that become human that are not really addressed and the last two paragraphs which deal with the event and causality of eve and pseudo-time/spacial relevancy.

This is not to be mean but to take you and your thoughts seriously and give constructive criticism and encourage debate which I think you are fully capable of delivering. Perhaps the main question is, why did you include the first six paragraphs when your question has nothing really to do with the content. You seemed more involved in just talking than actually conveying a point for others to address. This seems evident in you last paragraph. You may want to stick to developing your thesis, because you have quite a few topics that deviate from the main question? which I'm not sure what it is...

@VideCorSpoon,

Ah VideCorSpoon, I exclaim that 'for this point', man has not evolved. It is not a question of if he has or has not but rather to throw question to Eve and Eve alone. We can jumble Myth and Legend to any outcome we desire as all that I have mentioned to the point of Eve, can be found in most cultures. The Native American Indian belived of life changing from the form of animal to human, so did the Native Australians, theirs even included a great flood and a serpent as intrical indicies not deities, just to get that out.

With paragragh four I think you are missing the fact that life outside that of human does exist and procreation is not something that comes with humans alone. As you say as well, the fundamentals of "Humanity" have yet to be established, hence the need for an Eve.

If Eve is the only question here, this is where nothing other than the 'Thirteenth Rib Theory', has an explanation, to which I would assume that there is more to Gods creation than simple step by step procedure. I.E. Day one, I think there was light , Day two came form or whatever but hold on Eve must be, so let me go to day 12,345,678( screw writhing that in letters) and pick some sheila to take back for Adam who is at day twelve. My point is for both our sakes here, Eve is not a picture nor is she a parlor trick. For the creation of Adam to work Eve must be real.

I may well be just interested in a discussion and I do not take offence to your comments at all, by way I mean I don't think you are being mean. I am not the most coherant being you will ever meet of that I can assure you.

@urangutan,

So what I gather from your various explanations is that you are supporting a creationist backed cosmogony. Ok.

But still, I'm curious to get your response to the question in Post #2.

"You basically state that Adam is the birthed result of God (the male) and the earth (mother nature?the female). Eve isn't in the picture yet. If God is not a human like you say and can impregnate the earth, why would god need to impregnate the planet in the first place. In other words, why would God procreate with a female when the notion of an alternate sex needed to procreate hasn't even been conceived yet? You are mixing the notion of God with the fundamentals of humanity which are yet to be established." (Post #2)

@VideCorSpoon,

As you ask VideCorSpoon. You are correct in assuming that the fundamentals of humanity are yet to be established but that doesn't mean that procreation doesn't exist. I do not see how you tie the two together. There is definite life on Earth before man. Adam would be born so as to complete the building of Gods creation that is his own image.

As to whether I believe in a creationist form of existance isn't the point but that for the way you have questioned my points I have gathered where the concept falls down. That is with Eve. Eve cannot be a concoction of rubble, for the very basis that a sense of humanity, may never be acheived. Eve must be a human life or this doesn't work. How does one obtain a human life when there is none.

I would have to assume that God has used "Time", to fulfil his purpose of creation. That is our sense of time, which is tick tock.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Ask a question

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Ask a question

Quick Links

My Account

able2know