Thursday, January 29, 2026

Commercial Break: Pre-Adamic Man: No Such Thing


While having literary, political and theological meaning, the myth of Adam, Eve and the Garden is not any actual account of human origins or "first parents", a mere 6000 years ago.

Theology? Yes.  Human origins? No. 

Human Evolution Photograph by Science Picture Co - Pixels

 

Homo habilis and the Dawn of Human Intelligence (2.4–1.5 Million Years Ago)

Around 2.4 million years ago, the first members of the genus Homo appeared. Homo habilis, or “handy man,” was named for the stone tools found near its fossils. These early humans had larger brains than Australopithecus and were likely more dependent on tools for survival.

They lived in complex social groups and may have scavenged or hunted small animals. Their teeth were smaller, suggesting a shift in diet. The use of tools allowed them to crack open bones for marrow—a rich source of calories that may have fueled further brain growth.

Although they still looked primitive by today’s standards, Homo habilis marked a turning point. The cognitive gap between them and earlier hominins was vast. The line between survival and innovation was beginning to blur.

Homo erectus: The First Global Wanderers (1.9 Million–140,000 Years Ago)

Around 1.9 million years ago, Homo erectus emerged in Africa. This species was larger, stronger, and more advanced than its predecessors. Its brain was about two-thirds the size of a modern human’s, and its body proportions were similar to ours. Homo erectus used more sophisticated stone tools, possibly controlled fire, and built shelters.

But perhaps the most remarkable trait of Homo erectus was its wanderlust. It was the first human species to leave Africa. Fossils have been found in Georgia (1.8 million years ago), Indonesia (1.6 million years ago), and China (1.2 million years ago). Homo erectus adapted to many environments, from tropical forests to dry grasslands.

Fire provided warmth and protection, allowing these early humans to settle in colder climates. Cooking may have made food more digestible, improving nutrition and supporting brain growth. Social bonds deepened. Cooperation became essential. The long human journey had gone global.

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the Branching Tree of Humanity (800,000–40,000 Years Ago)

From Homo erectus came a variety of species adapted to different environments. In Europe and western Asia, Homo neanderthalensis—the Neanderthals—evolved around 400,000 years ago. In eastern Asia, another group emerged: the Denisovans, known primarily through genetic evidence and a few fossil fragments.

Neanderthals were not brutish cavemen, as once believed. They had larger brains than modern humans, buried their dead, cared for the injured, and created art and tools. Their lives were hard, marked by cold climates and dangerous hunts, but they were intelligent survivors.

Meanwhile, early Homo sapiens were evolving in Africa. Fossils from Morocco, dated to around 300,000 years ago, show a mix of modern and archaic features. These early humans had high foreheads, smaller faces, and behavior increasingly shaped by culture.

Homo sapiens: The Emergence of Modern Humans (300,000 Years Ago–Present)

Modern humans, Homo sapiens, emerged in Africa roughly 300,000 years ago. They spread slowly at first moving into the Middle East around 100,000 years ago. and into Europe and Asia by 60,000 years ago..

Along the way , they encountered and interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovians, leaving traces of these ancient relatives in our own DNA. 

What set Homo sapiens apart was not just biology, but behavior. Around 50,000 years ago, a “cognitive revolution” occurred. Humans began to make intricate tools, jewelry, cave paintings, and musical instruments. They developed language, rituals, and myths. Culture became a survival tool as powerful as fire or stone.

As humans spread across the globe, they adapted to new environments, domesticated animals, and transformed landscapes. By 15,000 years ago, they had reached the Americas. By 4,000 years ago, they had colonized remote Pacific islands.

Agriculture, which began around 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, changed everything. People settled into villages, built cities, and formed civilizations. Writing was invented, and with it, history began.

From a historical perspective, literacy levels for the world population have risen drastically in the last couple of centuries. While only one in ten people in the world could read and write in 1820, today, only 1 in 10 remains illiterate. .

Humans became  personally conscious about 3300 BC to 2100BC, 5,300 to 4,100 years ago when writing was invented with reading came next.  It was at this time the personal "I" came into being .

From Homo Erectus, 2 million years ago, up until the last Neanderthal, the hand axe never changed. This personal Acheulean handaxe is about 800,000 years old
 
 
From 60,000 years ago to today, modern humans went to the moon and invented AI
 
AI beings may prove to be the next new species putting the existence of modern humans at risk if quardrails aren't enforced. 
 
Shaping Humanity: How Science, Art and Imagination Help Us Understand Our OriginsShaping Humanity: How Science, Art, and Imagination Help Us Understand Our Origins by John Gurche
 


 
 

68 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dennis, most of what you've presented is clear and iron-clad. But there are real problems with one assertion:

Humans became personally conscious about 3300 BC to 2100BC, 5,300 to 4,100 years ago when writing was invented with reading came next. It was at this time the personal "I" came into being .

There is cave artwork going back more than 20,000 years that makes absolutely no sense if there wasn't already a personal "I" in place. There's no doubt that the invention of writing changed homo sapiens' relationship with the past and the future, but even the speculative reconstructions offered by Jaynes ("Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind") are more plausible than the idea that the personal "I" is as recent as you've presented. Even some modern animals show evidence of self-awareness, and the time-scale of life on Earth is sufficiently long that the dubious Silurian Hypothesis is more likely to be correct than the idea that the personal "I" is less than 6,000 years old.

But thank you for giving us a nice break from the site's recent diet of ministerial mental illness and abuse.

nck said...

What a wonderful creation story of prototyping.......... Until God was happy with the resulting sustainable product and......... Start the narrative of his interaction........I mean what was God supposed to do....tell the truth that his first prototypes were vicious, murderous, cannibalistic animals and that traces of that barbarism are still in our make up....??

Of course not. The narrative is that it was perfect, that it was HUGE, that we carry the promise and potential of Making Animalistic Beasts.... GREAT Again.

Nck

Anonymous said...

AI is not something the human race should be proud of. It is drowning the world in lies and fake news.

Anonymous said...

AI is not a species. It has no brains. It merely plagiarizes what people have written. AI has no consciousness.

BP8 said...

Dennis scorns the idea of an Adam and Eve then presents this precise timeline for pre historic man like it is actually factual and provable. It's not-- pure guess work! Nice try though.

Anonymous said...

There were no years before Adam.

Anonymous said...

To the extent that it is factual, this is very interesting. Still, a paucity of fossils are, after all, relatively scant evidence. I could live quite a nice life without knowing anything about these eras. The most relevant details to life as I live it are concentrated in perhaps the last three millennia. Further, I really don't care a lot for history or lifestyles prior to the Industrial Revolution, and the later advent of Keynesian economics.

Guess my problem is that I like the information I carry in my memory bank to be relevant to what we do in real time. I dig on Makita power tools more than Egrogh's hand axe. But, that's just me.

DennisCDiehl said...

No offense NCK but...

DennisCDiehl said...

The AI of which I and others speak as evolving into it's own species is "Superintelligence" which is just around the corner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGAA59JTBtg

DennisCDiehl said...

It's not scorn. It is a fact that the story of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden is not literally true. Only devout Bible literalists and most Evangelicals deem it so. The timescale of human evolution is based on the actual fossil record which has blossomed the past 50 years to begin to tell the actual story of human evolution.

DennisCDiehl said...

No charge for the commercial break. I do see Jaynes point on the loss of the voice and presense of the gods in the human story. That is easily seen in the OT with all the laments about "why art thou so far from me" etc. Jaynes does a nice job on showing how humans, when writing came along heard from their gods less and less and thus casting bones, lots, oracles and drawing straws to determine the will of the mostly silent gods became more a part of religion and seeking god. Perhaps a personal "I" is not required for cave painting? None of them were signed :)

Anonymous said...

Untrue and not a bit of a strange idea. . The Earth has orbited the Sun for 4.5 billion years

BP8 said...

Neither The "theory" of evolution or the fossil record which is also open to interpretation are fact. Like the Bible, you have to have a certain amount of faith to believe either. It all hangs on who you trust!

Anonymous said...

Neither The "theory" of evolution or the fossil record which is also open to interpretation are fact. Like the Bible, you have to have a certain amount of faith to believe either. It all hangs on who you trust!

Science extrapolates from demonstrable and verifiable facts to derive its interpretations. Fundamentalist Christianity extrapolates from secondhand Canaanite folklore to derive its interpretations, but can only sustain those interpretations if it rejects the demonstrable scientific facts. Yes, it all hangs on which you trust.

Anonymous said...

A machine with intelligence would be like a genius psychopath with no conscience. Mankind's worst nightmare.

Anonymous said...

Denis is hard materialist. Such people think man is a mere machine. So they think that machines can think. It's an assumption that science cannot prove.

Anonymous said...

While not actually a "machine" that is part of the threat unchecked Superintelligence would bring upon humanity. Yet it seems unstoppably our not distant future.

DennisCDiehl said...

The evidence is not scant or at least "scant" is in the eye of the beholder and those who do the hard work of discovery. I'm more curious than you about origins and what's really so rather than the comforting tales we tell ourselves via religious belief for which evidence is actually scant. Hebrews 11:1.

Anonymous said...

5:39 You mean “science” like the science (falsely so called) that asserted cigarettes were healthy; eggs were unhealthy; lobotomies cured schizophrenia and depression; DDT was safe to humans and the environment; margarine was healthier than butter; ulcers were caused by stress not bacteria; eugenics was sound genetics; the covid vaccine prevented transmission and reduced duration of the virus etc

Anonymous said...

4:44 Of course it has and we've got the eyewitness records from back then to prove it.

Anonymous said...

>>The timescale of human evolution is based on the actual fossil record which has blossomed the past 50 years to begin to tell the actual story of human evolution.<<

Sorry but no, it is based in the **imagined** (John Lennon invocation) fossil record. Darwin was searching for it in his day and even identified it as a potential Achilles heel for his theory.

Every time evo-doers imagine that a new big, big find is *the* ( or "a"?) missing link ... it comes to naught. You want talk about faith! The sawdust trail for evodoers is now approaching 200 years of nonstop talking and pseudoscience. But evo is a Garden variety faith ... it's the same one the serpent was peddling to Eve.

Anonymous said...

Dennis - maybe you can provide what you would consider authoritative proof. There have been many fossil fairy tales before and after Darwin. Unsuspecting journalists publish nonsense headlines about missing links all the time. When you dig in, each and every claim has turned into sand between the fingers. Surely as hardcore as you are about HWA's "two trees", you could turn that eye of Sauron upon Darwin's "tree of life" and see it for the fairy tale that it is. I mean, it's only one tree with Darwin ... should be half the effort you've expended on HWA over the decades.

Tonto said...

Any truth to the rumor that Garner Ted was a HOMO ERECTUS! ??

Avoura said...

The Bible is true and a proper account of the creation of man. The article is based on completely false ideas and should be rejected in favour of the literal account of the Bible.
However, many have misunderstood things about creation and Adam and Eve. It was not 6000 years ago, because the Masoretic text had errors in the genealogies, which means we need to add about 800 years.
Bishop Usher thought Adam was created 4004 BC, but it was more like 4800 BC.
Even if Usher was right, it is now 6029 years since Adam was created.
There is evidence for the Earth being very old, but not mankind. Dating anything from before the Flood is impossible to get right, due to the change in atmosphere that caused all the water above the sky to come down and flood the Earth.
The Earth may well be 4.5 billion years old, or maybe just millions. Certainly more than 6800 years.
Also, humans did not evolve from apes or apemen. God created Adam from dirt and then Eve from one his bones.
If you reject what God did to refurbish the Earth and create man in 6 days, then you are not really following God at all.

Anonymous said...

If Dennis genuinely believed his own material, he would not be posting on this site. There are many other appropriate sites for his beliefs. But again, the rules don't apply to the (former) ministers.

Anonymous said...

When I was a a student in Pasadena we heard that one of the reasons Ted had to go into the military was because of those tendencies. Supposedly his father thought it would make him purely straight. He was erectus on both sides of the fence.

Anonymous said...

Actually we DO have eyewitness records in the stones that speak to us. This planet and the innumerable galaxies did not just pop into existence 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

Anonymous said...

Pathetically ill-informed of you

Anonymous said...

Exactly! This is why this place is overun with UCG ministers and employees badmouthing the church

Anonymous said...

Anonymous
Dennis - maybe you can provide what you would consider authoritative proof. There have been many fossil fairy tales before and after Darwin. Unsuspecting journalists publish nonsense headlines about missing links all the time. When you dig in, each and every claim has turned into sand between the fingers. Surely as hardcore as you are about HWA's "two trees", you could turn that eye of Sauron upon Darwin's "tree of life" and see it for the fairy tale that it is. I mean, it's only one tree with Darwin ... should be half the effort you've expended on HWA over the decades.
Friday, January 30, 2026 at 7:32:28 AM PST

Anonymous said...

AI is not a machine. You'll find out if you live long enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGAA59JTBtg

Anonymous said...

Raymond McNair displayed a curious affinity for the study of ancient Greek pedagogy, rife as it was with pederasty. It does seem that there were some likely closet cases among the earliest AC students. Homo erectus indeed!

Anonymous said...

When I was a a student in Pasadena we heard that one of the reasons Ted had to go into the military was because of those tendencies. Supposedly his father thought it would make him purely straight.

Apparently his father didn't think that one through very well. Putting Ted in an all-male environment full of testosterone and sea men can't have helped with his condition. Should have sent him to the Marines, not the Navy.

Anonymous said...

Braver or more foolish than demons...Jas_2:19  You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!. Cration, done in 6 days . But even if it was, 6000 years 6 million, or billion, God still made it. Check how great you or any so called scientist are. Try to make one hair, just one small one out of nothing. How did you do? We already know the answer. Rom_1:22  Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Anonymous said...

Science is and always has been based on repeatable observation. What is written about here is not science but theory. Theory based on observations and applying a priori meaning to them. There is just as much faith involved in these theories as there is in a Creator. Be skeptical of 'scientific' assumption, it is intellectually dishonest if you don't.

Anonymous said...

And you lot mock Rod Meredith as being sex obsessed.

Anonymous said...

The stones don’t speak for themselves— they’re interpreted through various worldviews. You see billions of years because you start with naturalism. I see God’s creation and the marks of a global Flood because I start with His Word. The evidence hasn’t changed—just the lens used to read it.

Anonymous said...

Says the person who is so “pathetically ill-informed” themselves.

Anonymous said...

Oh I meant the Gen 1:14 year didn't exist before Adam. Before Adam, what? The planet now called earth could have been orbiting around the sun...........

Anonymous said...

At one time, I believed that anyone who made a conscious decision to follow HWA as an adult was just plain stupid. I mean, IQ of a banana peel and a half stupid! This is from the perspective of one dragged into Herbie's hot mess by parents. I no longer see Armstrongites as being stupid. They are frequently, however, willfully ignorant. As such, I believe that Armstrongiites will eventually acknowledge that pre-Adamic humans did exist. True to form, however, they will invent evidence supporting the "fact" that pre-Adamic man tithed, and kept the sabbath!

Anonymous ` said...

I believe there were pe-adamic men. But they were not defined as Armstrongists define them. Armstrongists saw pre-adamic man as a separate creation from Adam. They were the experimental models God used to learn how to create Adamic man. This, of course, is a diminishment of God who creates reality as he sees fit. But it aligns well with the Arianist views of many Millerites.
I do not believe pre-adamic man was a separate creation but was the same creation as modern man. By modern man I mean people who looked like us. They go back 300,000 years. These people were not separate from Adam biologically. Adam bore one of their y chromosome haplogroups – y haplogoup J. He was separate from earlier modern humans in that he was spiritually different. He was capable, with spiritual development, of partaking of the divine nature. He has been called by some writers Homo divinus instead of Homo sapiens. It is speculative as to how this transformation occurred in the human population. I have my theory but it is only a theory. Adam was Homo divinus. I am not sure his human father was. I think Adam lived about 10,000 years ago, in the neolithic. I believe he pioneered agriculture. And in short, he was physically connected to pre-adamic men but not spiritually. Hence, the valid use of the term pre-adamic to reflect this change of state.

Scout


Anonymous said...

Well, 4:50, the "science" you cited was bought and paid for advertising hype, not real science. Those ideas became the oft-spouted cliches of another era. You see the same process in play these days with climate change denial.

In his duet with Waylon Jennings about his daddy, Hank Jr. said, "Waylon, most folks don't know a damned thing!" I've come to believe that is even more true today. Many people think they are performing research when all they do is to follow the click bait and allow their bias confirmation to take over. They wouldn't know university quality research if it bit them, and probably believe that primary sources are red, yellow, and blue.

What we think we know today will in many cases end up being just like Armstrongism. It will be belied by the passage of time.

Anonymous said...

Why did only simian-like creatures evolve to the point of intelligence, develop language, and begin to accumulate and record their thoughts? Whether through evolution, or creation, humans are the only creatures, who, like God, exercise dominion. Humans are history's most dangerous perdators, and the author of the Holocene Extinction.

Anonymous said...

It's the 21st century and we have poor Gary Leonard still believing we evolved from monkeys. Science itself says there's a calculation error in the radiocarbon dating method, ha ha ha, they've never found half an eye or a man without ears... evolution is the most absurd theory humans can conceive. I can't believe so much ignorance piled up in a single blog; it's the fruit of this webmaster Leonard and his pathetic hatred of the truth... I know you, Leonard, your depression and frustration are palpable.

Anonymous said...

What you just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever read on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Remember, somewhere out there, a tree worked hard to give 7:52 oxygen. He owes it an apology.

NO2HWA said...

7:52. You obviously do not have very good reading skills.

Anonymous said...

Or, very good thinking skills! You be jivin'' 7:52! Willfull ignorance is required to be an ACOG member, or a navel observatory!

By the way, you do know that eyes and ears are soft tissue, don't you? Let me know when you find a neanderthal skull with any soft tissue intact. It rots, or animal predators or insects eat it.

RSK said...

Ever seen a cetacean try to use a pen? :)

Anonymous said...

Thank you 7:52. Take no notice of the ten-faced bullies spewing mocking hatred at your comment.

BP8 said...

539
Follow the science? And I bet you wore the mask and followed the 6 foot rule, which Fauci admitted under oath was purely wishful thinking. What is really at work here when "man" is involved is FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Trusting God or trusting "man"? Easy decision (Jeremiah 17)!!!!!

RSK said...

Strictly trivia - if I recall my schooling correctly, you wouldnt likely use radiocarbon dating on really really old remains, carbon's halflife is too short for that.

Anonymous said...

Garner Ted used to say on TWT that if you took a caveman, got him a shave and a haircut, dressed him in a polo shirt and dress slacks, and a nice pair of shoes and socks, he'd look like a country club member. Now you can do that with the first guy on the left of the artwork, but the others? Not so much.

Amazing how continued education ruins the old Armstrong cliches.

Anonymous said...

Gary Leonard, the Earth and the universe are probably millions of years old; we don't know for sure. But we do know that humans have been on it for about 6,000 years. The existence of a world before the humans we know today cannot be denied; there is evidence such as fossils and dinosaur skeletons. Mammoths did not coexist with dinosaurs; this is key to understanding this. Traces of humans hunting this type of elephant have been found. Carbon-14 dating has formula errors. Scientifically, those remains are no more than 5,000 years old, and the Bible is not contradicted by true science. Neanderthals and Desivois are normal human beings; they are clearly not monkeys. They made tools, pottery, and jewelry, and they are nothing more than the remains of pre-flood humans, people who died in the flood. I can send you scientific information, Gary, so you can publish something true on your pathetic blog.

NO2HWA said...

Looks like someone is having a bad day. I have heard Midol helps with your symptoms.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:04, “Carbon-14 dating has formula errors.”

No, it does not have formula errors. It has some imprecision due to the fact that carbon-14 is absorbed from the environment and environmental factors fluctuates. For this reason, Armstrongists have wanted to discard carbon-14 dating. But there is no need to do that.

Carbon-14 measurements can be corrected. This is done by using a collection of alternative dating methodologies such as tree rings, varves and ice cores. This collection of cross-verifying methodologies extends back to 50,000 YA. Carbon-14 is not accurate beyond that point in time because there is so little of the isotope in the samples.

The idea that men have lived on earth for only 6,000 years was abandoned by the WCG back in the Seventies. At one time, the WCG advanced the idea that Neanderthal lived on earth after Adam and before The Flood. They believed Neanderthal was a descendent of Adam. This does not comport with true science. The “true science” you speak of is not true science but your own interpretation – a dog that won’t hunt.

Scout

Avoura said...

If you realise that the Masoretic text for the OT has errors in genealogies, and use the Septuagint and other sources, we could date the creation of Adam to c. 6800 years ago, and the Flood to c. 5000 years ago.
The Neanderthals were probably people who were very inbred who died out in the Flood.

Anonymous said...

Avoura wrote, “The Neanderthals were probably people who were very inbred who died out in the Flood.”

Some of these ideas are so antiquated that I don’t know if we are reading genuine viewpoint or if we are just being trolled.

Neanderthals died out about 40K years ago. If Neanderthal had existed with the historical period, which extends back further than the Biblical Flood, there would have been written records about their tribal groups. (Please don’t give me that poppycock about the Yeti.)

Neanderthal's external physical morphology gives no evidence of genetic inbreeding. They were a small population scattered across Eurasia but they were robust and well suited to their environment. The archaeological records shows that Neanderthal were long gone by the Biblical Bronze Age when the local flood happened.

You really need to do some reading.

Scout

Anonymous said...

Like Frank Turek so articulately put it recently (and I completely agree with him):

What is science?…[All] science [really] is, is a search for causes…we’re trying to find what particular cause caused a particular effect. And if [someone] says, “Well, science says this or science says that, you need to stop him and say, “No, science doesn’t say anything. Scientists say things, right? Because all data needs to be gathered and all data needs to be interpreted. And who does that? Scientists do that. And sometimes scientists allow their philosophical biases to control how they interpret the data. For example…if you’re a theist, if you believe that God might...or does exist, you’re open to two types of causes. You’re open to a natural cause or a non-natural, an intelligent, cause. Right? But if you’re an atheist you’ve ruled out intelligent [supernatural] causes before you look at the evidence. So no matter what effect you look at, the only game in town, the only possibility due to your philosophy to be that cause is a natural cause. You say it’s gotta be a natural cause. Is that a result of the evidence or a result of the philosophical presupposition that you have where you’ve ruled out the only alternative?

Byker Bob said...

I've mentioned before, on occasion, that I am a fervent believer in gestalt. The whole has many components. It is incumbent upon us to recognize or glean these components from various and diverse sources in order to arrive at the whole. One vital component of that whole, for me (and I am not Baha'i), is the depth provided by the Baha'i understanding of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are largely seen as symbolic, very much subject to interpretation, representing the first "God-conscious" beings. The education or progress of mankind occurs in incremental stages. Prehistoric man, pre-Adamic man, fits perfectly into this, the greater concept for which the literalist interpretation of Adam and Eve are chronically wanting and in search of.

I also tend towards panentheism, which explains more of the mysteries of the progressive changes undergone by planet Earth throughout its existence. Lots to ponder. My studies into these components were spawned by a few very brief comments made by readers here and on past Armstrong recovery sites. Those comments could have been very easily missed, but I have to admit that when investigated, they turned out to be really valuable nuggets. The beauty of it is, they are by no means antithetical to Christianity.

BB

Anonymous said...

Byker wrote, "Adam and Eve are largely seen as symbolic, very much subject to interpretation, representing the first "God-conscious" beings."

I agree. Adam was a human with a y chromosome haplogroup just like other humans and he passed this on to his descendants. If go backward in time from the ancient Jews and Canaanites, to Noah and then to Adam, Adam was y chromosome haplogroup J. This is a common haplogroup in the Middle East and exists within a phylogenetic tree with other y chromosome haplogroups. Haplogroup J does not have an isolated existence. Further, there no evidence that either Adam or Noah represented a genetic bottleneck that served to homogenize mankind as to DNA. Consequently, Adam may have existed as a human being, but his fatherhood of all mankind is symbolic and not biological. I believe he symbolized mankind as to spiritual awareness. He bore the Imago Dei.

As to panentheism, I believe there is a strong argument in favor of some form of this. Gary Deddo of GCI has written against panentheism but I am not sure what axe he has to grind. There are many forms of panentheism and I have not researched them. So, I don’t know if I am in agreement or disagreement with Deddo. I may be. An implication of my view is that the idea of Nothing is only logical. (As in the set of all positive numbers less than zero.) God does not float in a great ocean of nothing with the Cosmos at another location in this great ocean so that there is a distance between them. One does not come to the end of the Cosmos and find a boundary with Nothing on the other side. Such reasoning assumes a substantive, bounded existence of Nothing and there is no such thing. It implies that there is only God. And everything that exists, exists within him. I am still working on this. Any viewpoints appreciated.

Scout

nck said...

Yes Scout.

About 1987 WCG started publishing articles about Man being Energy and the distance between particles in the atom being of the same dimrnsions as Space itself.... and more of that same Indian stuff that was written in Sanskrit about matter and energy....

Nck

Byker Bob said...

There are some great frequently asked questions I've heard over the years. One is "How could God have created everything in the universe from nothing?"
At some point, I realized that God did not create it all from nothing. He used Himself as His building materials! This explains why He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

For those who have asked, "If evolution is true, how is it that there are so many parallel processes? Isn't it just a little too convenient that things which depend upon one another evolve simultaneously, always just in time for each others' survival? It's almost as if these things have the ability to communicate their dependencies with one another!" Of course, the answers become perfectly obvious if indeed God used elements of Himself as His building blocks, and evolution was simply the controlled process by which He created all things.

Panentheism provides plausible explanations that no other philosophy or school of thought can begin to offer! The polar nature of nearly every thing or concept. Why everything which exists is vibrating. The interrelationships amongst all forms of consciousness. The cohesive constants and laws of the universe. The power of music. Identifiable patterns and processes. Fractals. A creation which grows and is self-renewing. It all seems to run so deep, as one would expect of any part of God.

BB

Anonymous said...

Byker wrote, “He used Himself as His building materials!”

I would not go so far as to say that. I believe God is existence itself. And he gave existence to all things that are created. All things exist within God. The created realm exists within God. He is not only omni- but absolute.

But I do not know the modality of creation. I believe, maybe, God creates the reality that we know at every moment of time. This is Theory A of time. And Einstein, who followed Theory B, was wrong although Theory B is also logical. Under Theory A, the past does not exist any longer and the future has yet to come into existence. One must then fit the creation into this concept of time. So, only the present exists because God “makes” it continuously. Time itself is the successive creation of moments by God. There is no temporal “space” only a temporal “line” called the present.

God may not make things from himself as if he were a source of substance. He may cause the real-time representation of things to exist to our perception. It is real and substantive enough to us. But to God it is a rendering.

Scout

Byker Bob said...

Energy = mass x the speed of light squared, so, wouldn't a slowing or reversal of that relationship or process have caused the "big bang", arguably the initiation of the universe?

Anonymous said...

God is holy spirit your comment and conclusion of God using himself as building materials makes no sense when held up against scripture 11:39.

Even when befriending Moses in the burning bush God immediately told him to remove his sandals for he was stood on holy ground.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to physics I am, of course, writing out of my depth. But I think that equation captures the conversion relationship between mass and energy. As such, I don't think it can be slowed or reversed. The Big Bang, moreover, was pre-cosmos in its origin. When the Big Bang occurred, according to theory, the cosmos began to inflate. But also, all the laws of chemistry and physics came into existence including E=M x C**2. I think the laws that governed the hot, dense singularity prior to the Bang are not known.

(I may not have understood what you meant.)

Scout

nck said...

Finally Math.....
As a Cathedral builder the only thing I would expect at a religious site dedicated to the discussion of the Nature of God and Truth.....:-) -:) '-)

nck