spamandham

As you properly stated, there was no "first human". This hypothetical is giving undo credence to his ridiculous game.

Pragmatista

Including two gods?

Pragmatista

I think that your apologetic is simply a form of the first cause problem. But even if the first cause problem is important, it doesn't apply to popcorns, bulldogs, or humans, because these things appeared in a universe that already had what you would call "duality." Similarly, the first car was assembled from pieces of bicycles, horse carriages, and so forth. The assembly of the first car poses no deep theological problem, and the "assembly" of the first human is no more of a problem.

IamJoseph

That's a brilliant observation. I say, any reasonable person would complete the sentence he quotes - specially he would not omit the juice bit. Genesis also says the talking snake is outside this physical realm, namely they were cast down to earth, and when on earth the snake did not talk but crawled.

Now we also have a talking donkey on earth - but again, this is presented as a para-norm, namely it is presented as a divine act. Now both the snake and the donket have no bearing on actual historicity, and are presented as a metaphor. I prefer you quote some historical factor in the same source, there's literally millions of them pervading every word and verse, and deny its veracity? :wave:

IamJoseph

At what point in science and math did a first become a ridiculous claim?

IamJoseph

The duality factor, and subsequently that there is no one - applies to the universe - not to a pre-uni. That is why no one can show us an example of an absolute ONE performing any action. Try it.

IamJoseph

It does pose a problem, and perhaps one of the most far reaching ones - in its context. If something is derived from a former point, and that former point is a duality - we cannot say the replication is not duality derived and that it appeared without the duality factor. Ultimately, this is about the positive/negative premise: however the universe began, it never happened as only a positive or a negative, then bumped into a counter of itself.

Examine the thing via a reductionism. Assume whatever you like as representing the BB point - which means there was just a singular entity [point] - nothing within it - nothing without it. What happens next? I'm listening? :constern01:

show_no_mercy

It's impossible to populate a planet with only one couple. In pre-medical societies, childbirth for women was almost a death sentence. If there were only one couple on the planet, you'd have to assume that the woman would be able to survive multiple pregnancies without any sort of complications at all. If she died, then there goes any chance for repopulating the planet. You'd also have to assume that all of the children that she bore were perfectly healthy, and there would be no other natural disasters or diseases spread.

Plus, women only have limited number of eggs that they produce in their lifetime. And then, any female children born you would have to wait 13 or so years for her to grow to childbearing age. This also assumes that nothing happens to the sole man on the planet, nothing happens to the children growing up, etc. This also doesn't take into account inbreeding, which will only reinforce any negative genetics found in this one couple.

See Genetic Bottleneck or Minimum Viable Population. There will never be a MVP of two. Most ideally, you only need one man and a couple dozen women to repopulate the planet, but then the human race would get all of this one man's shitty genetics.

Of course, if you believe in magic then all of this is irrelevant. I don't understand why you would appeal to science and math when all you're going to do is say that Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years with perfect childbirth, no famines, floods, or any other natural disasters that non-magic humans have to deal with.

Roger Pearse

Bad luck for those hoping to bring back the dinosaurs from dna, then.

Probably best not to state an opinion involving a very long list of unstated presumptions as a general rule.

This appears to be a complaint that, if it was possible, then it would be highly imprudent, in your opinion.

The value of your opinion -- or mine --, as advice to someone creating a world, might be arguable, tho.

Undoubtedly, presuming all sorts of things are true, at least some of which are stated as not being true in this case.

If you don't believe in magic, but do believe in God, as most people on earth do, it is likewise irrelevant. Perhaps this thought might have occurred to you first?

Quite how science and math work in your favour you have neglected to explain, tho. This appears to be an appeal to prejudice.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think we need to have rather better argumentation than this, whatever case is being made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Now, if you do not know how the universe began then it useless trying to convince people that you do. You are just contradicting yourself.

Even if you claim that there is a "duality factor", it is virtually impossible for you to explain how each single element of the duality was derived or when these elements existed or could have bumped each other.

The Hebrew Bible was written when people believed donkeys and serpents could talk and that natural disasters like earthquakes, floods and voclanic eruptions could determine if a person sinned.

The history found in the Hebrew Bible is extremely limited. There is virtually nothing in the Hebrew Bible to help in determing the beginning of the universe, except or unless you think serpents or donkeys can talk the truth.