Atlantis: What is it all about?

[El_Machinae]

This is not correct. Mammals evolved long before birds did.

You don't need to make this argument, even, because the definitions get weird that far back. And shoehorning 'birds' into 'flying creatures' can get someone into trouble (pterodactyl are oooold).
Day 5 was flying animals. Day 6 was land animals. That part is wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

To me, the biblical texts always felt like they were without literary value (apart from a few and far between, mostly known for metaphorical interpretations*), and when juxtaposed to something like the verses of (only a part of it survives; the On Nature) Parmenides, they are simply not refined nor philosophical.
Mentioned Parmenides since he pretty much presented a religious view himself, but was honest and explained that it cannot be proven to be correct (a more real world existing, and some elements of it described). What could be done, to a degree, was to show that the more common views are also full of paradoxes.

*Come, let us confuse them (as if we needed any help with that )

 

[El_Machinae]

Logically, a religious view can only 'not be proven' if it is both false and re-defined endlessly to be unprovable.

A true religious view isn't necessarily unprovable, it depends on its actual true nature.

 

[Kyriakos]

Logically, a religious view can only 'not be proven' if it is both false and re-defined endlessly to be unprovable.

A true religious view isn't necessarily unprovable, it depends on its actual true nature.

The positive trait of texts such as the Parmenides one is that they discuss the issue philosophically. You don't have to infer why the position is not to be proved, it is examined in the text itself so was always part of the text. Thus you have no room for projecting the core of the text (which happens with biblical texts, imo).
A higher/more real/real etc realm, tends to be one which itself is tied to a specific point of view (albeit, of course, the elevated point of view of something divine). Parmenides argued that the "real" world is a oneness.
There's a nice quote by Kafka: "truth is indivisible. In order to see it, you have to be a lie" (which isn't quite the same meaning, but at least has some tie to dialectics).
In very little words, Parmenides in his text claimed that regardless of how complicated a view or theory is, it is still false (since reality is outside the scope of the human observer). This is a nice example of a position which cannot be proven, but the elegant thing is that text itself admits so, unlike anti-intellectual works which get filled with projections.

edit: of course, from a practical standpoint, there are more crucial differences between something like the judaic/abrahamic religions, and a philosophy (even with religious elements). The former tend to present some type of "salvation mechanism", with a god which pretty much is reduced to a weird machine you have to trick with a deeper version of 1984 doublespeak, for long enough so that it allows you safe passage to a pleasant realm. And the easiest way to achieve that is argued to be tricking your own self into believing.

 

[Plotinus]

Logically, a religious view can only 'not be proven' if it is both false and re-defined endlessly to be unprovable.

A true religious view isn't necessarily unprovable, it depends on its actual true nature.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why couldn't something be both true and unprovable?

edit: of course, from a practical standpoint, there are more crucial differences between something like the judaic/abrahamic religions, and a philosophy (even with religious elements). The former tend to present some type of "salvation mechanism", with a god which pretty much is reduced to a weird machine you have to trick with a deeper version of 1984 doublespeak, for long enough so that it allows you safe passage to a pleasant realm. And the easiest way to achieve that is argued to be tricking your own self into believing.

That's obviously a caricature of religion. More fundamentally, though, I don't recognise your distinction between Abrahamic religion on the one hand and philosophy on the other, because there is such overlap between them. Doesn't Plotinus (the other one) have a "salvation mechanism"? Where does Aquinas say you have to trick God?

 

[Kyriakos]

That's obviously a caricature of religion. More fundamentally, though, I don't recognise your distinction between Abrahamic religion on the one hand and philosophy on the other, because there is such overlap between them. Doesn't Plotinus (the other one) have a "salvation mechanism"? Where does Aquinas say you have to trick God?

I wouldn't attempt to discuss religion with you - clearly you are in a far better position to refer elaborately to the matter; afaik you are a source on it too
That said, as you know a salvation mechanism is a very characteristic (and arguably, for those interested for less theoretical reasons, the core one) trait of a religion of the type discussed, while it's not there in most philosophy. I am familiar with a few exceptions (a more famous example would be Descartes), but it's not there in the major representatives of the theological idealism in pre-roman Greece (eleatic, platonic and - maybe? not as much is known there - pythagorean philosophy).
I mentioned Parmenides not just due to his prominence as (in practice) the founder of the eleatic school, but also the lack of any argument there for becoming part of a more real/real world of knowledge just because you believe in a core thesis (in his case, that everything in human thought is false). One can argue that in Plato this becomes more diluted, given Plato claimed that through the archetypes one can get at least infinitesimally tied to that higher reality.

 

[El_Machinae]

This doesn't make sense to me. Why couldn't something be both true and unprovable?

Something true can be either provable or unprovable. Or, to pull logic from it, the existence of something can either be provable or unprovable (er. in the colloquial sense, not logical sense, 'discoverable'?). Being discoverable is not a key component of 'existing'. There is nothing latent to the The Creators to insist that they're undiscoverable, because that information is not available regardless. To insist they are undiscoverable is to add features by re-defining away 'discoverable'

But, one cannot insist that something is both real and undiscoverable. It's only things that don't exist that can be undiscoverable by their very nature.
Being undiscoverable is a key component of 'not existing'.

Failing to find evidence of an undiscoverable entity isn't evidence that it exists, but it's evidence that the same entity isn't discoverable. But nothing about this provides insight as to whether it exists or not, you're just more sure that a discoverable variant conception doesn't exist.

 

[Kyriakos]

While in some systems (for example, types of formal logic systems) a statement can be "true but unprovable" (or unprovable if true), El Machinae is referring to scientific discovery, which by definition has to produce discoveries that already are within the scope and not affected by the restraints of the system (in other words: those discoveries are real, in so far as the system is real, which for human science means an anthropomorphic interpretation).
Maybe worth noting, moreover, that the notion of a god tends to negate restrains in systems - unless that god is only a god in relation to you, a non-god, and not some ultimate source of the true/correct point of view.
There's some discussion in Plato about the idea of there being gods with restraints of this nature - who are to be regarded as gods simply when compared to human limits, but are not a god to the system either. Plato (at least presenting Socrates) wasn't in favor of this idea. Iirc it is in the dialogue with Protagoras, but maybe it exists in some other one (perhaps the Theaetetos).

 

[Birdjaguar]

God told the author.

Tell us more about this God, please. Which one? Whose? When and how?

 

[Berzerker]

No, that doesn't follow at all. Marduk made the physical universe (including the Milky Way) out of Tiamat. It doesn't follow from this that Tiamat was a "planet" to begin with and it certainly doesn't follow that Marduk was one.

Tiamat was split in two forming Heaven (rakia/firmament) and Earth, one half cant be the universe and that leaves us with the problem of both Tiamat and Marduk before the universe if you're right.

This is not correct. Mammals evolved long before birds did.

Flight predates mammals, birds were just the obvious contemporary incarnation of that trait. The people with the story are talking about the animals they saw around them, what mammals were older than birds? If I were to complain about the chronology there are other critters older than birds, bugs/insects have been here longer, even before powered flight.

Is Genesis consistent with the cosmological theories you're describing? Yes, of course, if you interpret "Tehom" as the name for the primordial Earth and all the other interpretations you've been putting forward. But consistency is largely meaningless. What you need to do is not to show that you can interpret Genesis in a way that's consistent with these theories but to show that this interpretation is the correct one. You need to show that your interpretation explains why the text is the way it is better than alternative explanations do. What reason is there to think that Tehom refers to a planet (rather than a mythical creature or god), other than that you want it to? You haven't given any. All you've done is point to these myths and assert that they have the meanings you think they do. That's not evidence.

From Tehom came Earth, a dark water covered world gave way to one with a new sky, land and life.

Tell us more about this God, please. Which one? Whose? When and how?

Multiple gods... gods the fathers of the Israelites served in the olden days according to Joshua. Abraham lived in Ur, the main gods would have been Enlil and Enki - the former wanted to keep the impending flood secret so humans didn't know it was coming, Enki told the Sumerian Noah to get prepared. This Enki is the serpent in the Garden.

 

[Lexicus]

Cooling down from a molten state means it aint too hot for water, the water wins and the land came later.

The water "wins" in that the lava cools and turns to "land" and then the water starts accumulating on top of that "land"

 

[Berzerker]

the water is cooling the lava and the land in Genesis refers to dry land, not erupting magma under an ocean

our oldest evidence of the Earth's surface are zircon crystals that formed in water, not land

 

[Birdjaguar]

Multiple gods... gods the fathers of the Israelites served in the olden days according to Joshua. Abraham lived in Ur, the main gods would have been Enlil and Enki - the former wanted to keep the impending flood secret so humans didn't know it was coming, Enki told the Sumerian Noah to get prepared. This Enki is the serpent in the Garden.

so all those gods were real? So we are back to the Anunnaki being real and living in the ME?

 

[Berzerker]

thats what those people claimed

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thats what those people claimed

No, only you and Sitchin make such a claim.

So the story begins as below and as it begins there is no Marduk or anything but Apsu and Tiamat. That is all. Not what you said above. If you read the text there is no mention of planets or worlds. That is just made up.
You have reversed things. You/Sitchin have made up the planet metaphor for Tiamat and Apsu and dismissed the literal translation. The literal text fits perfectly the reality of where Sumer was founded. The Sumerians had it right; their actual creation story began in the salt marshes of the Persian Gulf. You are forced to create a fictitious metaphor of planets to make the story fit what you want it to say about aliens, gold mining, planets with 3600 year orbits that some how get off course as soon as people can record such events. But that is what you always do. You cherry pick bits and pieces of stuff and then twist them to fit your already set story. You then refuse to discuss any obvious flaws in the story.

• Failure of the Anunnaki planet to return on schedule
• No evidence of 400,000 years of gold mining in Africa
• No actual evidence of the spacefaring Anunnaki having been here
• How human life could evolve or even exist on a planet with a 3600 year orbit
• Present any genetic evidence of Anunnaki mating with humans

????

 

[Plotinus]

I wouldn't attempt to discuss religion with you - clearly you are in a far better position to refer elaborately to the matter; afaik you are a source on it too
That said, as you know a salvation mechanism is a very characteristic (and arguably, for those interested for less theoretical reasons, the core one) trait of a religion of the type discussed, while it's not there in most philosophy. I am familiar with a few exceptions (a more famous example would be Descartes), but it's not there in the major representatives of the theological idealism in pre-roman Greece (eleatic, platonic and - maybe? not as much is known there - pythagorean philosophy).
I mentioned Parmenides not just due to his prominence as (in practice) the founder of the eleatic school, but also the lack of any argument there for becoming part of a more real/real world of knowledge just because you believe in a core thesis (in his case, that everything in human thought is false). One can argue that in Plato this becomes more diluted, given Plato claimed that through the archetypes one can get at least infinitesimally tied to that higher reality.

I'm not saying that "salvation" is a central concept in all philosophy, but it's certainly an important concept in some philosophy. You mention Plato. What is the myth of the cave if not a story about salvation?

But, one cannot insist that something is both real and undiscoverable. It's only things that don't exist that can be undiscoverable by their very nature.
Being undiscoverable is a key component of 'not existing'.

This seems to me to make some pretty hefty empiricist assumptions of a Humean nature. What about the Kantian Ding-an-sich? or, for that matter, the Barthian God? Those thinkers may perhaps have been wrong but I don't see anything inconsistent in their claims that certain undiscoverable things exist.

Tiamat was split in two forming Heaven (rakia/firmament) and Earth, one half cant be the universe and that leaves us with the problem of both Tiamat and Marduk before the universe if you're right.

I don't understand what you mean. What problem? And how does what you've said here support the claim that these characters are supposed to be planets?

Really, all you're doing in this post is repeating the same assertions. You're not providing evidence that these assertions are correct.

Flight predates mammals, birds were just the obvious contemporary incarnation of that trait. The people with the story are talking about the animals they saw around them, what mammals were older than birds? If I were to complain about the chronology there are other critters older than birds, bugs/insects have been here longer, even before powered flight.

Mammals first appeared in roughly the late Triassic. It depends rather on exactly what one means by "mammal". If you use the term more loosely, there were mammal-like animals much earlier than that - all the very mammal-like synapsids in the Permian. Indeed one might say that what we're currently living in isn't the age of mammals, it's the second age of synapsids, with the Mesozoic as a reptilian aberration in the middle. Anyway, birds appeared in the late Jurassic.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm not saying that "salvation" is a central concept in all philosophy, but it's certainly an important concept in some philosophy. You mention Plato. What is the myth of the cave if not a story about salvation?

While Plato did express the view that you can infinitesimally get connected to a realm of actual truth, through philosophy, I don't see how this is about a salvation mechanism. If you are locked in a room, someone may argue that if you do so and so you may get some insight on what is happening outside the room. Another may claim that if you do so and so you will manage to exit the room. Someone else, still, that you will be saved.
That said, it was already a philosophical joke in the time of Diogenes Laertius, that no one could get what the Agathon of Plato is supposed to be. Even its name suggests it is similar to a benevolent deity, though it is just an archetype and Plato didn't argue that archetypes themselves are alive or agents - there is discussion in his dialogues about them being set by a deity.

On the allegory of the cave, specifically, I am sure you know that it was mentioned in the Politeia (also) to urge philosophically-inclined citizens to be interested in matters of the state and the common good; return to those in chains (unaware of philosophy) and help them also leave the cave. By leaving, they simply think philosophically; nothing is decided as to their existence after death or a deity favoring them.
It also presents the known position of Plato against science (and in favor of math), which may be reduced to science being even more tied to sensory input, while Plato considers only notions to be worth examining.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ding-an-sich

Granted

for that matter, the Barthian God

Okay, knowing that the Barthian god exists (I don't, because I've just found out about it, so haven't really thought about it), why do you describe yourself as an atheist? How does knowing that the Barthian god exists change your behaviour compared to other people?

Now, this seems to be the 'redefining of God until it's defined as undiscoverable' more than anything. I mean, heck, it seems to depend on the existence of Jesus as somewhat described in the Bible. I truly don't know why you think it exists, but obviously you're a longer philosopher than I am. But, given that you know it exists, what does this knowledge motivate?

My insight is for those who latently come from a tradition where (the Biblical) God was 'discoverable'. It's been dressed up philosophically, but it's just twisting into a variant Conspiracy Theory. In Conspiracy Thinking, the very lack of evidence is evidence for the Conspiracy. I dunno, it's the chiral form of 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

If I were to complain about the chronology there are other critters older than birds, bugs/insects have been here longer, even before powered flight.

Yes, the animals that appeared after the seas filled with life, not before.
Also, claiming it was about 'modern animals' is going to be wrong, given how often "after its kind" is used. "The people back then didn't know about evolution!" isn't much of a co-opt, if they were told that things were ex nihilo or spontaneous generation happened.


I'll point out again that sheer luck could have gotten the ordering correct. It didn't, but it could have.

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" itself a chiral form? (maybe that is what you meant in the first place; originally I thought you meant the conspiracy paradigm is the chiral form of the latter, but that one seems to be achiral since it works the other way around)

Also, while Plotinus may be taller than 1.72 metres, I reject the claim that he is (otherwise) a longer philosopher

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Why cant water cover lava?

I watched a documentary tonight on BBC Earth, presented by Brian Cox. The show was called "Wonders of Life" and he explained stuff about physics, chemistry, energy, where it's theorized that life first began on Earth (under what conditions), and so on. There were segments of the show that dealt with dragonflies, golden jellyfish, and orangutans (TIL that orangutans sometimes wear leaves as hats, and parents care for the young for 8 years before they're expected to fend for themselves).

Professor Cox said nothing about water covering lava or anything else you've been repeating for the last 19 pages.

Certain conditions are required for water... I hope you get an answer

'Scientists think Europa’s ice shell is 10 to 15 miles (15 to 25 kilometers) thick, floating on an ocean 40 to 100 miles (60 to 150 kilometers) deep. So while Europa is only one-fourth the diameter of Earth, its ocean may contain twice as much water as all of Earth’s oceans combined.'

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/jupiter-moons/europa/in-depth/#:~:text=Atmosphere-,Atmosphere,active in the present day.

If little old Europa can have that much water, why cant the Earth in Gen 1:2 before land and life appear < 4 bya?

I saw so many documentaries with simulations of a molten Earth getting hit with rocks its been hard to envision the early Earth covered by water.

I fail to see how this has any connection to water covering lava. It's Io that's got the seismic activity going on.