₦airaland Forum

Wow, Uyi, your compliments are too kind for me. . .many people on this Forum would tell you I am the spawn of satan itself, lol.

Interesting thread. I've always obsessed with seeing inside, or into things. For this reason I have a brand name called Inc'is, which is a slightly corrupted version of the latin form for incision, incisive. . . I like incision because it connotes a cut - when you can cut into something, and see its inside parts. For these reasons I was going to register as "Insight" or something of the sort, as I thought the mission for me on such a forum should be to pursue that inner and elusive truth which seems sometimes hidden from the surface. When we commit ourselves to going beneath the surface, the prayer would be that as we proceed deeper and deeper, we would have deep sight.

So this is a pursuit, a prayer, a thirst for the elusive.

For truth.

@ Justcool -

I thank you for your very insightful surmise, which I agree with almost completely.

I would only like us to note very carefully that the so-called "scientific" definition of time does not exist at all - or more precisely, time as defined by teh scientist does not exist, and I am most careful when i state this.

Just stop a moment and ask yourself - the "time" that supposedly "commences" and supposedly "moves" - supposedly proceeding in a forward manner - just where has this time ever been observed - and so observed to "move"?

The reality is that it is events that occur, it is objects that move, objects cover distance - these things happen. Time, by itself, is not observed by anybody to move anywhere - rather events occur, things happen, objects move within the constant that is time.

To be succint about this point - the tardy and lazy thinker may look at a watch or a clock, a timepiece - and conclude that that is evidence of time "moving." He does not realize that the only thing that is moving is the tick-tock of the time piece. It keeps ticking endlessly, and for all we care it may tick and tick and tick. That is an event occurring - the thing that the time-piece is supposed to measure is not itself observed by anybody because it is intangible and cannot be seen. IT SIMPLY REMAINS THERE. A PERMANENT CONSTANT.

Nothing [i]happens to it: rather things happen within it.

If time were in fact what scientists make it out to be, then people would be able to move freely in either direction in time - forwards or backwards as they choose - for time would be a fabric within which people and objects may freely move in any direction.

However calm thinking should reveal that we only proceed forwards for one reason: namely that it is events that are occuring, succeeding one another - and not time that is "moving" - not time that is a fabric of a sort.

When time "passes" - we should realize that what has really happened is that it is we, and objects about us that have moved within the constant that is time. And you cannot return to where you have moved from for the simple reason that the constant is intangible: and as such there is nowhere to return to.

thehomer:
By saying commenced, that is to indicate that I have not assumed a mind deciding to create.

This frankly has nothing to do with a mind of any sort deciding to create anything. I doubt that you would have seen me make any such reference in this thread as yet. The contradiction I set out to you was simple, and you continue to evade and side-step it, as obvious as it remains -

1. You state, and have stated again here that time commenced at the moment of the big bang

2. You state that prior to the big bang all that existed was a singularity

3. You state that the singularity was physical.

Q: How could that singularity, being physical, exist without time?

Are physical things known to exist outside of, or without time?

Simple. Address that.

You're using the singularity and the Big Bang interchangeably, I am not.

No I am not. From where did you derive such a queer idea? The big bang refers to the expansion - that is clear. What I have said, and what i still repeat is that YOU averred that PRIOR to the expansion, there was a singularity. If time had not "commenced' prior to the expansion, then please produce your timeline for the existence of that singularity! Simple!

In the same way as you demand of me a timeline for things outside this universe no?

Produce your timeline for that singularity, simple.

If you cannot do this; then you perforce concede and accept that time already existed: and could not be said to be produced or commenced by or at the moment of the big bang.

Which part is the special pleading? You may need to understand that while the universe is physical, it is not like other physical objects that we do know about which is why I introduced the concept of the universe-like object.

You are really a funny chap. You accede that physical things exist in time and space. You accede that the universe is physical. And you wish to run away from showing in what time and space the universe itself must exist. Come on. I wish this to be a serious discourse and I am not prepared to countenance such blatant escapism.

The fact that the statement is simply stated does not mean it is actually an appropriate or meaningful question. e.g based on what we know about the geography of the earth, do you think a question such as "What is north of the north pole?" a meaningful question?
Contrast this to the fact that we have no information outside this universe, we even lack information about what the furthest reaches of the universe currently look like, we're not even sure of the shape of the universe whether it is open or closed etc, then how do we know that asking about what is outside of the universe is a meaningful question?

This remains nothing but further escapism. The fact is indeed that we are aware that the universe is expanding. This certain knowledge makes the question as to what it is expanding into a very apt and necessary question.

Unless of course you believe in magic, and you believe that things may just expand when there is nothing and no space or void to expand into.

If you reflect on that sir: you will recognise how unseemly and illogical your approach in this regard is.

The fact is that YOUR science has affirmed that the universe is expanding. Thus the question i posed logically follows as an apt question: into WHAT is it expanding.

It is painfully obvious that you only resile from this question for the obvious fact that it shows that space (as i defined it in post #2) pre-existed the big bang. Otherwise there would be nothing to expand into. Simple.

You considered this God as a disembodied mind. This mind had to change from what it was before the singularity to what it was from the singularity onwards.

No - it did not have to change. My position is that creation is nothing but the eternal outward radiation of the God-factor. As such there is no "change" involved for the God-factor itself. It simply remains what it ever is and ever will be.

I still did not notice the contradiction. The y part in the OP was just me not cosmologists and the x part, you attempted to address with the same question you raised above.

The contradiction is simple and obvious -

- If time commenced at the moment of the big bang, in what timeline was the singularity existing prior to that expansion?

- If space was created by the big bang into what is space expanding.

These are simple posers, please do not let it become obvious that your insupportable "scientific" presumptions are just the same as the blind dogma of the religionist.

Pastor AIO:
Please sir, present the scientific evidence. Or reference the study (currently viable) that states this.

PROVIDED extensively already. Sir if you are too lazy or too arrogant to read links, simply state so. Some of the links i provided were studies and research work by Harvard and Yale Scientists.

I found the rest of this hard to read. I couldn't really make sense of it.

Don't worry i will find time to translate it into Yoruba. Maybe that will help you.

Dear Mr. Homer;

Really I hope you understand that you have not addressed the suppositions that I set out to you. I am all too familiar with your one-line riposte style which gives nothing in terms of value for that which it receives: and i am of the view that such an approach will serve us for nothing regarding the posers that this thread seeks to address. For this reason I am of the view that it will not serve us rich to begin to exchange witty and extensive ripostes on the subject at hand and thereby become lost in a labyrinth of definitions, suppositions and extensive averrments.

For this reason I propose to ignore any temptation to extensive discourse: perhaps almost be as brief as you are yourself in your general responses: and this with one intent and one intent only: namely to deliberately and forcefully restrict the discourse to the very specifics of the lamentable contradictions that I did set out in the OP. And in this regard let me say as follows concerning your responses -

thehomer:
I prefer to say commenced.

This says exactly nothing: and addresses in no degree the problem raised - for you will recall that you demanded from me what timeline i would base the existence of anything outside this universe on: accordingly you yourself cannot posit the existence of anything without shewing a timeline therefore and thereof - and I state to you most simply that since you say time had not "commenced" prior to the big bang, then you cannot evince the existence of anything  prior to the bang - and this includes your contradictory pre-bang singularity.

Indeed, the very words "pre" and "prior" and "before" are all prohibited to you in this respect: since there is no timeline to evince a concept of before and after, given that in your words, "time had not commenced."

Not quite. What I'm saying is that time commenced with the expansion of the universe. I have not referred to any time prior to the the singularity.

Do not be disingenious. You have repeatedly referred to the the existence of a singularity "PRIOR" to the big bang. Where is your timeline for its existence?

Physical objects within the universe exist within space and time but, does this also apply to the entire universe? To say it does means that one refers to another space and time outside this universe for which we currently have no evidence of. This was why I said it may just be that universe-like objects may just exist.

Respectfully: gibberish. For the universe is a physical thing. This is the worst form of special pleading.

That is an interesting question but, we do not even have enough information to know if that is even an appropriate question.

Respectfully: escapist. The question is simple. Space is stated to be expanding. INTO WHAT IS IT EXPANDING? ? ?

Querrying the propriety of the question is escapist, cowardly, and most unbecoming of you: for you know that the question is very simply and concisely stated.

What objects are self existent? The God that you claim as being a self existent mind that changes simply cannot be self existent because this mind changes. So again, what objects are self-existent?

I never said that God changes.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how the big bang theory is contradictory. Also, could you please present your idea that explains the cosmological discoveries?

I already did. Your first question is addressed in my OP and your second question in my Post #2 on this thread.

Thanks.

Uyi Iredia:
the following is a skit in reply to Mudley's post

Do Nothing About World Hunger >>> "the poor you will have with you always". do read your bible

Blow up cities to show who's boss >>> dunce! what's a boss who can't fire

i need the attention >>> i ain't forcing ya !

ban homosexuality >>> last time I checked my Holy See approved of it (and more recently condoms)

JEALOUS >>> WHY NOT ?

70 % salt water >>> my son ! you said you evolved from the ocean. *hands Mudley a copy of Darwin's 'The Descent of Man'* read this !

ignore some of it >>> after over 5 centuries of despoiling it

my book was written by me >>> take or leave it man

unconditional love >>> bloke ! don't forget that 'unconditional' is a condition in itself

i hate you because of it >>> actually i hate you becuase of 'itk' (i too know)

wait 14 billion years and tell some people in the desert what to do >>> okay

conveniently leave out the first 10 billion years >>> not that you could ever read it

doomed >>> then do something about it ! whaddya have a brain for

, >>> typical human trash talk

prevent nothing >>> correction. prevent some things

judge them >>> feel free to fall into anarchy

no condoms >>> and what have your condoms done?

Lol! Funny and brilliant ripostes!

Caveats & Personal Definitions:

I state it clearly that i subscribe to the idea of the occurence of the initial expansion that is called the big bang. What I dispute herein is the averrment that time and space were thereby created.

I see time as an intangible constant that cannot be created. The experience of time may however differ from place to place and from state to state. This is my view of time.

I see space as the infinite continuum of void into which things may be endlessly interpolated. This is different from the space which is merely an energized bubble in which our universe exists. This energized bubble, is in my view interpolated in the infinite continuum of void into which things may be interpolated. This space is not creatable in my view. It is self-existent. This is my view of space.

Dear Sir;

A merry chritmas to you and yours and the best wishes for the new year.

Recall that within this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.32.html

- You had made the statement that critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God, a statement which I consider at odds with critical thinking itself.

Nonetheless you may recall that within that thread you had made made statements which I have traditionally contested with many scientists over and over again. Basically these statements are to the effect that -

(x) time and space were created by or at the moment of the big bang and  -

(y) the physical singularity existing prior to the big bang could be self-existent - or in your own words - "could simply be the default state of universe-like objects."

I feel that (x) contradicts (y) lamentably, and I am also severely at odds with the fundamental presupposition contained in each of (x) and (y) as separate statements. I did indicate in that thread that I would open a new thread to discuss these, and you did indicate your acceptance of that proposition.

So here goes.

Premise 1

If time was created by or at the moment of the big bang, then it is not possible to speak about a period "prior to " or "before" the big bang. Accordingly it is not possible to speak of anything existing prior to that instant - and this includes the pre-bang singularity that you spoke about.

Premise 2

Physical things exist in space and time. You stated that the pre bang singularity was physical. You then stated that there was no space or time at the point of the existence of the pre-bang singularity. How is it possible for a physical thing or state to exist without space and time.

Premises 1 & 2 evince the contradiction between (x) and (y).

Premise 3 - the problem with statement (x)

The problem with statement (x) is that if space was created by the big bang, please tell me what space is expanding into?

Premsie 4 - the problem with statement (y)

The problem with statement (y) is that it presumes a physical singularity to be self-existent. Aside from the fact that you have yet to properly articulate what that singularity is, the fundamental problem is that it is an illogicality to define any physical thing as self-existent because physical things are changeable whereas self-existence connotes immutability.

Conclusion: Your belief, and the assertion of the scientific community that time and space were ignited by or at the moment of the big bang, is insupportable, and delivers more contradictions than answers.

Pls did Bros Obams really kick that door in? Is it real? Pls somebody confirm, I need to know.

Krayola:
To summarize  Justcool's claims --> Countries with more dangers of natural disasters are the most technologically advanced. Nature is gentle to Nigeria hence the people are lazy and don't have good work ethic. i.e Nigerians are lazy because nature is kind to us and we don't have natural disasters.

That is not a good summary, because he did not make mention of natural disasters only. He has talked about climatic conditions as a whole. A better summary would be to state that a the more challenging the environment, the more innovative men are compelled to be in order to survive therein. I am sure even you will be hard pressed to dispute this.

Where is this link between Natural disasters and technological advancement? Let's leave that for now.

Earthquakes are rare sporadic occurences and as such it is most superficial to attempt to build an entire climatic argument based on such. Rather you must look to constant climatic factors that affect the way of life of a people and as such govern their culture. . .such as temperature.

Now. . . .  about climate and work ethic. My opponents have suggested a direct link between climate and character.

It beats me how you can even attempt to deny this. Take one year off and go unclothed to a tropical island in the carribean and attempt to survive there. Then take another one year off and go unclothed again to the woods in switzerland or the Alps, and try to survive there.

No be long tori dem go take tell you whish one hard pass. There is no doubt that one environment is more challenging and will compel you to build and innovate more if you will survive, whereas the other environment has virtually all the creature comforts already laid on by nature. I beats me silly that you can fail to see the simple and obvious fact that the nature of an environment determines the work that must be done in order to live successfully therein. This is soooo elementary and sooo damn obvious I am shamed to be bothered to waste precious time on the point.

Some 18th century  French philosopher,  by the name of Montesquieu came up with a theory, variations of which have appeared in all types of places. Just to give u some insight into his belief system
https://www.msu.edu/course/atl/125/fernandez/smedley.htm 

^^ I'm sure that kinda stuff sounds familiar to some of us. Laws govern everything, even human behavior. . . I beg to differ. Anyways, moving on

This is his theory.
From lecture notes of an economics prof at MIT  http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1064


For the record Montesquieu argued against slavery, except in some cases where he thought it was ok. .  (I suspect it was sarcasm tho. . .don't know his writing style well enough to be sure)

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s4.html

Now. . . besides these quotes and comments on montesquieu, a philosopher, not a biologist, nor anthropologist, I can't find any academic sources linking  climate to work ethics. I am not convinced. My experience of Africa does not agree with that. You guys can decide for yourselves if you are convinced or not.

Hate him if you like. He is stating some home truths. People are forced to work harder to survive in harsher environments. That is indisputable.

Moving on to the most contentious of the issues being discussed, climate and technological ingenuity.

By technological ingenuity I mean an impulse to invent new stuff.

And where was the impulse to invent new stuff in Sub-Saharan Africa of the sort that would tend towards heat based technologies? Please joo.

The point I'm trying to make is that without a change in climate, this impulse appears and disappears in cultures. I think it's obvious there are other factors at play besides climate.

For the zillionth time Krayola, please stop deliberately and repeatedly trying to read absurdity into what is being said. Simply note as follows -

1. NOBODY has denied the existence of myriad other factors at play: that would be absurd - in the same way as you also said you do not deny climate plays a role.

2. What has been made clear is that Climate creates environments that challenge people and over-time prod them to develop innovative tendencies and approaches to survival.

3. Accordingly it is wrong for you to imagine that anybody is positing a situation whereby once it is cold, the suddenly innovation and industry magically appear instantly: these things take long and varied periods of time: and the nature of the environment etches itself into the approach that the people tend towards in their overall culture and technical imperatives.

4. This explains the ebb and flow of innovation: that it does not appear as a given constant at all times in all temperate regions. Many ancient innovations for example may suffice for the needs of a people for centuries even in such a zone: thus leading to a lull in innovation, whereas other factors may also play their hand in requiring them to innovate other things - war, being an example of such a factor.

5. Notwithstanding all of this the evidence remains that virtually all the innovative tendencies have arisen within the temperate regions.

At some point after the dark ages, Europe comes to life. they just start pumping out all kinds of stuff.

This statement is a failed internal inconsistency in itself. You cannot just state "after the dark ages" without ruminating on the factors that caused that period to recede, and the factors that led towards innovations. What caused the "after the dark ages". Why was there a different period following that period.

As I said, there is a natural ebb and flow to these things anyway, and it is absurd for you to seek a mechanical instanta sort of result based on the elements that we have outlined: rather over time a more challenging environment will still result in greater tendencies to innovation because challenges and necessities, like we all know, are the mothers of invention and innovation. Do you dispute this?

Further you cannot expect that even people in challenging environments would not have periods of depression?

This is all too mathematical and mechanical of you then: whereas you accuse others of being so!

My opponents say it was necessity, like the need for heat. OK. If this necessity was present in western europe, it was present in the east, north, china and everywhere else with cold climate. they all need heat, they all need food, they all need to get work done more efficiently, the all want to excel, i imagine, and they all have the same climate. We do not see the same technological creative impulse across the board. Why are these spurts of creativity seen only at certain locations at certain times, while climate is a constant. Until you can answer that, all you have is an abstract theory with no empirical data to back it up. And like I said without the specifics, I'm deaf.

1. Do you deny that a challenging environment forces people to innovate more than a less challenging environment?

2. Do you expect that such innovative people will live in a constant and fixed mindstate after that, never suffering social depressions, etc?

That answers your question. There will be an ebb and flow based on many factors, but overall greater innovation will still reside in more challenging environments. Indubitable fact.

I think Europe saw technology as something that could be exploited in a way that no one else did, whether for profit, for conquest, or just for creativity's sake. . . But i just don't see how one can put it on climate.

Take up my challenge: spend one year in the carribean and one year in the Alps.

No be by mouth: you sef go confess whish place you go work tire pass.

Pastor AIO:
This is a very deep comment that ties in neatly with the topic of this thread.  The formulas of which you speak are not just any mathematical formulas but specifically LINEAR Formulas. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equation

Good grief. Where does one start to correct your misapprehensions? The element of climate plays a leading role in the development of culture in an environment. This does nothing to exclude the many other elements and factors at play. There is however scientific evidence for the pre-eminence of the climatic factor in this regard.

The current discourse on climatic effects on technology arose not from any "mathematical" or "linear" attempt to constrict things, but from the simple point that climatic change fits with a designed universe: the title in the OP is a snide inference querying the likelihood of linear patterns suited to functionalities emerging from a process of chance - this is a different point from the specific analysis of climate as a leading factor in the development of technological inclinations historically: the only link being that which justcool pointed out - namely that climatic conditions fit with the idea of a universe so designed for purpose. Contrary to both your and Krayola's insinuations, that derivative is neither a mathematical nor strict - linear formulation of any sort that attempts to cage or restrict the varied influences at play in human development: this point has been made on this thread to the point of being hoarse, for God's sake.

So nobody is attempting to compress diverse human imperatives into a singular mathematical or linear construct. The OP had a purpose for deploying the word "linear": and that was clearly with reference to patterns of design. So again, it seems to me that you do not take this discourse seriously for you are repeatedly trying to read absurdity into what is clearly and succintly expressed.

Hmm. Dont deceive yourself, OP O. There are millions of fantastically kind and good natured Nigerians. Born Agains inclusive. So many of them, I tell you.

I dont have the energy to go into details now, but i will never forget about 15 years ago i was stranded in Abuja. It was a perfect stranger called Benjamin - who was poor as a rat who gave me a home to sleep in and transport money the next day back to lagos.

I made a commitment to name my first son Benjamin, after him.

It was another perfect stranger in the bus back to Lagos that took care of me and after I had nothing else, personally delivered me to my home in Lagos.

I took my family the next day to go and thank him, only to be told he passed away that night.

justcool:
Whether it is the principle factor or not, the bottom line is that my point is made; "that such climatic changes are not purposeless but fit in well in a universe designed for life to thrive." And I rest my case.

The case is very well rested on that point alone.

From the types of arguments I see in this thread, I won’t be surprised if somebody tries to deny that climate has an effect on the color of the skin of humans.

That will be the next thing that somebody will be gearing up to claim, I am sure. Perhaps the mode of government and political disposition were greater determinants of skin color as well!

The point that posters are not seeing is that cultures in the equatorial regions developed the technology that they needed to survive too; but their climate did not require as much technological protection as was required by those in the temperate regions. Hence cultures in the temperate regions developed more technologically.

So simple, it is a wonder that this could be disputed.

Somebody made mention about the need to shelter from heat; he forgot that our forefathers invented the mud house architecture. The mud house was enough to combat the need to keep from heat; it keeps you cool in the day and warm(to a certain degree) in the night. Such technology would not suffice to deal with climatic demands of Europe; the mud house wouldn’t handle the have weight of snow deposits on it roof during winter. The mud house wouldn’t shelter you from coldness of winter.

The African had no need to think about supplying his mud house with running water because there was always a river not too far away, and the weather always allowed water to be in liquid form. The European had to think about how to keep the water liquid during winter; he had to think on how to make the water run in his house so that he wouldn’t have to go out in the cold during winter to fetch water; he even had to look for a way to bath and relive his bowls within the warmth of his house. You see his climate demanded a more sophisticated technology than the mud house.

Maybe still this exact and undeniable analogy will not suffice to show Pastor AIO an effect on the mind and technology of a people by their climate!

Krayola:
There is nothing simple about explaining human behavior. We are very complex and dynamic and besides the basic need to eat, drink, be happy and stuff like that, one size fits all theories usually fail to explain human behavior. There are too many factors that shape human life and experience.

Nobody denies this. This does not mean that we can not observe factors that are more pre-eminent and more influential than others. And as far as the evidence goes, Climate is the biggest factor so far.

Two countries can have similar geography, similar climate, but different types of government and different policies and ideologies etc, and as a result turn out to be different over time. Imagine we were having this debate in the European dark ages. How would you explain the innovation of the Muslims living right beside them, and the European's own stagnation. Climate? Geography? I doubt it. One will need to understand the religion, the type of government and what their priorities were, the response of the people, etc. Any theory that does not go that deep, is just playing games.

How does this change the glaring fact that virtually all technological impetus has derived from the temperate regions of the world?

It is amazing to see people speak about the most extraenous things whilst ignoring the most simple and obvious pointers.

Think Ghana and Nigeria. Think 20-30 years ago, and think about 2010. Ghana now on the upswing, Naija spiraling into the bottomless abyss. . . Climate? Geography? How can you explain this? Now think about the debate we have been having and try to put these things in context. Can you honestly say one can narrow down the differences amongst all these civilizations over such extended periods of time to their climate?

It is most annoying when something is said repeatedly and yet repeated attempts are made to misrepresent what is said. Stop it. Nobody here attempted to state that there is no factor other than climate.

Pastor AIO:
Yes I was wrong about the use of coal in pre-industrial societies. However that doesn't change the main thrust of my point.

It does. And aside this, the main point you make is altogether misfooted and betrays a failure to grasp the pith of the discourse.

The coal that was used is OutCrop coal. You know what that is. That is not coal that is mined, but a coal seam that is exposed to the surface of the earth. There is no difference between using this coal and foraging for sticks and bits of wood to burn.

Again you did not read my post. You did not read the extract. There was outcrop coal, but there has also been mined coal well before the Industrial Revolution -

These easily accessible sources had largely become exhausted (or could not meet the growing demand) by the 13th century, when underground mining from shafts or adits was developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

You are not concentrating.

But having said that too, mining was common the world over.  It seems even Neanderthal man mined.  So mining is not dependent on climate.

This is mildly irritating. You are not reading before responding. I have said TWICE now that nobody has said mining is limited to temperate regions. What I said  - and this is the second time I am repeating it - is that historically there was not much mining in the warmer regions as compared with the other regions. Dispute this if you will, but for heaven's sake read and digest the statement before responding.

Now frankly this is altogether beside the point, and this is why i said you have not grasped the pith of the discourse at all. Because the analogy drawn was not regarding the fact of mining by itself in the first place. If you had actually read my post you would see that what i discussed was the vareigated ripple effects that arise from the very fact of a society requiring constant and ever new sources of heat. That requirement is what i described as an impetus, a spur that invariably gravitates towards the development of systems that lead to industralization. So mining was only mentioned in that it is but one means that men have used to acquire fuels. The main point is not the fact of mining. The main point is the fact of having to constantly procure ever more sources of heat. This is a huge impetus.

Accordingly your response was irrelevant and off-tangent to the point made.

I am yet to hear of a technology that developed due to the effect of the climate on the mind of the people that developed it.

Obviously you did not bother to open any of the links i provided or even skim through Huntington's book on Climate and Civilization. It is starkly puzzling that you could write this and in another breath deny not appreciating the relationship between climate and culture. The truth is that you do not have a grasp of that relationship, because if you did you would not say this: because what is culture if not a manifestation of the mind in its environment? ? ? -: it is indeed the first expression of the mind on its environment.

When you juxtapose the above against the sheer quantity of gospels that existed, then you can better appreciate my point.

Here is an extract of gospels -

[edit] Completely preserved Gospels

1.Gospel of Mark (canonical)
2.Gospel of Matthew (canonical)
3.Gospel of Luke (canonical)
4.Gospel of John (canonical)
5.Gospel of Thomas
6.Gospel of Truth
7.Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians
8.Gospel of Nicodemus (also known as the "Acts of Pilate"
9.Gospel of Barnabas
10.Gospel of Gamaliel[1]

[edit] Infancy Gospels
1.Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
2.Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
3.Infancy Gospel of Thomas
4.Infancy Gospel of James
5.Arabic Infancy Gospel
6.Syriac Gospel of the Boyhood of our Lord Jesus[2]

The Nag Hammadi Library, among which the Gospel of Thomas & the Gospel of Truth were rediscovered[edit]

Partially preserved Gospels
1.Gospel of Judas
2.Gospel of Peter
3.Gospel of Mary
4.Gospel of Philip
[edit]

Fragmentary preserved Gospels[α]
1.Dialogue of the Saviour
2.Papyrus Egerton 2
3.Gospel of Eve
4.Fayyum Fragment
5.Gospel of Mani
6.Oxyrhynchus Gospels
7.Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel)
8.Gospel of the Twelve
[edit]

Reconstructed Gospels[β]
1.Gospel of the Ebionites
2.Gospel of the Egyptians
3.Gospel of the Hebrews
4.Secret Gospel of Mark
5.Gospel of Matthias
6.Gospel of the Nazoraeans
7.Gospel of Q (also known as the "Q document"
8.Signs Gospel
9.Cross Gospel

[edit]

Lost Gospels
1.Gospel of Bartholomew
2.Gospel of the Seventy
3.Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms
4.Gospel of Perfection
5.Gospel of Marcion
6.Gospel of Basilides
7.Gospel of Andrew
8.Gospel of Apelles
9.Gospel of Cerinthus
10.Gospel of Bardesanes
11.Gospel of the Encratites[3]
12.Gospel of the Gnostics[4]
13.Gospel of Hesychius[5]
14.Gospel of Lucius[5]
15.Gospel of Longinus
16.Gospel of Manes
17.Gospel of Merinthus[6]
18.Gospel of Scythianus
19.Gospel of Simonides
20.Gospel of Tatian
21.Gospel of Thaddaeus[7]
22.Gospel of Valentinus[8]

These are a great deal of writings, which your logical construct must perforce consider so long as you are seeking to set out "Proof" and "Accuracy" regarding that which is contained in the canonical ones. You need corroboration and external validation.

Okay, now in a spirit gentle and cordial, let us return to the question -

Can any person derive a logical construct of the veracity of the NT gospels without taking into consideration the corroborative or contradictory value of other writings about the life of Jesus? I don't think so, especially in light of these extracts such as about the Gospel of Thomas -

The Gospel of Thomas is regarded by some scholars as one of the most important texts in understanding early Christianity outside the New Testament. It is one of the earliest accounts of the teaching of Jesus outside of the canonical gospels, according to a few scholars, and so is considered a valuable text.[63] It is further unique in that the gospel is no more than a collection of Jesus' sayings and parables, and contains no narrative account of his life, which is something that all four canonical gospels include.

Stevan L. Davies argues that the apparent independence of the ordering of sayings in Thomas from that of their parallels in the synoptics shows that Thomas was most likely not reliant upon the canonical Gospels and probably predated them.[33] A number of authors argue that when the logia in Thomas do have parallels in the synoptics the version in Thomas often seems closer to the source.

Another argument for an early date is what some scholars have suggested is an interplay between the Gospel of John and the logia of Thomas. Parallels between the two have been taken to suggest that Thomas' logia preceded John's work, and that the latter was making a point-by-point riposte to Thomas, either in real or mock conflict. This seeming dialectic has been pointed out by several New Testament scholars, notably Gregory J. Riley,[35] April DeConick,[36] and Elaine Pagels.[37] Though differing in approach, they argue that several verses in the Gospel of John are best understood as responses to a Thomasine community and its beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

So the foregoing simply helps to set out the context that there is definite value in non-canonical writings.

Accordingly we need to ask ourself what the basis is or what the basis was for excluding some of these writings. In some cases could it be that some of these writings did not fit with the notions that the Church preferred regarding Jesus?

For example a gospel with suggestions of Jesus' sexual / marital life may have been deliberately discountenanced. The Gospel of Phillip, patchy and lost of parts when found, would have been a document likely still in circulation in the early days. Its faint suggestions of a more intense relationship between Jesus and Mary of Magdala may not have been best pleasing to early exclusionists -

The Gospel of Philip is one of the Gnostic Gospels, a text of New Testament apocrypha, dating back to around the third century but lost to modern researchers until an Egyptian peasant rediscovered it by accident, buried in a cave near Nag Hammadi, in 1945.[1] Although this gospel may at first appear similar to the Gospel of Thomas, it is not a sayings gospel, but a collection of gnostic teachings and reflections, a "gnostic anthology", as Marvin Meyer has called it.[2] Sacraments, in particular the sacrament of marriage, are a major theme. The text is perhaps most famous as a very early source for the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Though this is never explicitly stated in the document itself, she is described as Jesus' "lover" in some translations. Although the original text is missing from the papyrus scriptures discovered, some translations 'fill in' the gap, suggesting; “Jesus loved Mary Magdalene more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.”[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip

Similarly the ideas circulated within the Gospel of Judas certainly would not have met with that which exclusionists would have deemed appropriate -

The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel that purportedly documents conversations between the Apostle Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ. It is believed to have been written by Gnostic followers of Jesus, rather than by Judas himself, and probably dates from no earlier than the 2nd century since it contains late 2nd century theology.

In contrast to the Canonical gospels which paint Judas as a betrayer of Christ who delivered him up to the authorities for crucifixion, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. The document also suggests that Christ planned the course of events which led to his death. A notion then-current in some forms of Gnosticism was that the human form is a spiritual prison, that Judas thus served Christ by helping to release Christ's soul from its physical constraints, and that two kinds of human beings exist: the men furnished with the immortal soul which is "from the eternal realms" and "will abide there always" ("the strong and holy generation, with no ruler over it", to whom Judas belongs), and the other ones, the majority of mankind, who are mortal and therefore unable to reach the salvation. The Gospel of Judas does not claim that the other disciples knew gnostic teachings. On the contrary, it asserts that they had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, the sole follower belonging to the "holy generation" among the disciples.

The only copy of the Gospel of Judas known to exist is a Coptic language text that has been carbon dated to AD 280, plus or minus 60 years. It has been suggested that the text derives from an earlier Greek version. A translation of the text was first published in early 2006 by the National Geographic Society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

I think that the summary of what I am trying to say is that your logical construct reaches to bias and self-validation, which is un-heard-of in terms of any proper logical sequence. It is natural that there should be external validation when we are speaking about deriving a correct history of the life of Jesus: and for this reason it becomes most critical and indispensable to review the non-canonical writings. This is exactly what you must do before your logical construct can have any credibility. Now that is as regards corroboration. On the other hand, I urge you to recognise that it in the first place amounts to grave bias to base the construct on canon selected by christians. What do we expect christians to have selected - writings that would cast Jesus in an unpalatable light? That clearly would not have happened. This is why it is key to hear all the available witnesses out so long as you are looking for "proof and accuracy" as your title states. You cannot in such a process arbitrarily select only the witnesses that say the things you want to hear. That is neither logical or fair.

This is all the more important to consider when you consider the fact that the canonical gospels are by no means taken as complete and inerrant historical fact by scholars -

Historicity of the canonical gospels
Main article: Historicity of the canonical Gospels

The historicity of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate authentic, reliable information from what they judge to be inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.[6]

Many prominent mainstream historians consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about the historical Jesus as a Galilean teacher [9][10] and of the religious movement he founded, but not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

The baptism of Jesus, his preaching, and the crucifixion of Jesus are deemed to be historically authentic. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection.[18][19][20][21][22][23] The fourth gospel, John, includes a number of historically reliable details, but it differs greatly from the first three gospels, and historians largely discount it. The canonical gospels, overall, are considered to have more historically authentic content than the various non-canonical gospels.

On one extreme, some Christian scholars maintain that the gospels are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus.[24] On the other extreme, some scholars have concluded that the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus life.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels

Your logical construct thus should not reach to bias and self-validation in the way that it does.

Pastor AIO:
Coal and other fossil fuels such as Crude Oil etc only came into use during the industrial age. I could be wrong in which case I'll take it back.

You are definitely wrong, so please do take it back:

Outcrop coal was used in Britain during the Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC), where it has been detected as forming part of the composition of funeral pyres.[5][6] In Roman Britain, with the exception of two modern fields, "the Romans were exploiting coals in all the major coalfields in England and Wales by the end of the second century AD".[7] Evidence of trade in coal (dated to about AD 200) has been found at the inland port of Heronbridge, near Chester, and in the Fenlands of East Anglia, where coal from the Midlands was transported via the Car Dyke for use in drying grain.[8] Coal cinders have been found in the hearths of villas and military forts, particularly in Northumberland, dated to around AD 400. In the west of England contemporary writers described the wonder of a permanent brazier of coal on the altar of Minerva at Aquae Sulis (modern day Bath) although in fact easily accessible surface coal from what became the Somerset coalfield was in common use in quite lowly dwellings locally.[9] Evidence of coal's use for iron-working in the city during the Roman period has been found.[10] In Eschweiler, Rhineland, deposits of bituminous coal were used by the Romans for the smelting of iron ore.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

The Industrial Revolution only signified large scale use of coal on a massive industrial scale. Coal was already in use hundreds of years prior. It was already being used in hearths to keep warm as far back as AD 400 in Northumberland! Maybe that is when you imagine the Industrial revolution started. Please joo.

Pastor AIO:
Menh, I never said that climate has nothing to do with culture etc. Why are you twisting things? We are talking about technological advances.

You did not read my post. I strung it all together. These things are interlinked. A certain elusive friend of mine once wrote on this forum "Everything is everything." I wonder who that friend is?

To jump from culture is influenced by climate to climate is what drives invention is ridiculous. I don't even know where to start with that.

I did not jump. I drew a careful causative chain, one factor building into another. You did not read my post.

Coal and other fossil fuels such as Crude Oil etc only came into use during the industrial age. I could be wrong in which case I'll take it back. But from what I know before the discovery of Coal the europeans burnt wood to keep themselves warm.
So digging for Coal is not due to needing to keep warm but rather due to needing to fuel an industrial revolution.

Maybe they said to themselves - "O, remember that coal we left beneath the ground, let go get it to help build our industries!"

Now you are the one making leaps in thin air. Where is your causative chain?

Africans mine too. And so did native american injuns. And so did Cave men as a matter of fact. They mined for tin and copper to make bronze and other alloys.
I remember reading a book about Ogun practice and coming across a section about mining in ancient yoruba. I was surprised that we actually mined. Then I thought, of course we did. What did the Alagbedes work with? how did we make hoes and swords etc. Then I wondered why I had such a daft notion of my ancestors abilities when it is something that even cave men did. Then it was obvious that I had been brainwashed to think a certain way about Africa.

So mining is not an exclusively european activity.

You did not read my post. If i said anything about mining being exclusively european, please show me.

My words were simple: I said such mining did not thrive as much in warmer climes. Is this a lie?

oh yeah, btw, North america is a very temperate zone where the native american tribes lived. However they were not technologically advanced.

You have to contextualize their presence on that continent with history. I said already that these things do not happen over night. There is a long causative chain. So its not like one moment its cold and - PING! - the Industrial revolution starts.

It seems to me you are deliberately reading absurdity into my post.

The bottom line is why is it that within the same temperate zone, over the course of history we can find both technological advancement and technological backwardness. I would conclude from that that the climate is not the crucial factor but something else which came into that zone.

Nobody denies the existence of other factors. However the evidence is legion that climate leads the pack.

Mudley313:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/ras_rbg/Vesti/12923592852045675752.gif[/center]

Did this really happen? Impossible, surely.

Kay 17:
I actually had in mind a desert. Nevertheless. . .

And what thrives in the desert? Go there today, it remains desolate. Even the North African civilizations developed around the Nile Delta and other Oases. The very simple imperative to settle in a habitable environment alone is enough to settle this discussion. It is clear that the nature of the habitable environment will determine what must be developed in order to dwell successfully therein.

I mean, this this is indeed very very simple and straigh forward!

Kay 17:
Demands such as need for shelter from heat . . .

Him go siddon under tree, get better breeze.

But the man wey dey run from cold no fit do like that. Him go gas no choice other than to construct beta beta house wey thick well well.

I mean, even the very limited use of proper stone construction in the generality of warmer climes should be suggestive. We see the Zimbabwe ruins and we are so excited exactly because such is rare in pre-colonial sub-saharan africa!

Why the rarity of stone buildings? Stone is afterall, widely available, no?

Does it seem a wild coincidence that the man living in colder parts had an imperative to build thicker dwellings? Is it not obvious that the very act of having to do such necessitates myriad other innovations in the process?

This thing is really so simple.

Pastor AIO:
Personally I do not see the link between climate and technology, or the ability to think, or laziness etc.

This thing does not happen over-night. It is an influence that moulds the direction of imperative needs over generations. The influence of climate in this regard is simply and utterly undeniable. Climate is the first determinant of most cultural practices, certainly determines the diet available in an environment and accordingly influences even the health of a community and its susceptibility to specific dieseases. All of these factors are directly relevant to what needs, what imperative necessities any given community will have and imperative necessities are the clear and certain drivers of invention. Through this obvious causative chain each people will be driven over the course of time towards the developments of the improvements which have been made imperative by the limitations or abundance of their environment.

In colder parts of the world the imperative for heat and warmth is a great motivating factor that leads to such activities as set the tone and the pace for later industrial development. You are very unlikely for example to find a hot part of the world where coal mining historically thrived: it is most natural that people seek natural fuels such as coal more ardently when they live in a punishingly cold climate and have greater need to burn such fuels more consistently.

Now you need to understand that each of these needs and its fulfillment has a ripple effect. In particular the pursuit of mining and such other activities is a great industrial spur: people will develop blacksmithing furnaces at a greater pace: that will in turn lead to ironworks in larger numbers: these would trigger developments in armaments, utensils, the list is endless: and you will find that the spur for a society that becomes increasingly driven by original heat-based technologies is very very great indeed: such societies cannot but be impelled gradually over time to industrial development in a fashion that nature would simply not impel a society that has been living in a hot part of the world, who have very little need to explore ever new and continuous sources of heat generation.

This is so simple, and can be observed in such diverse and manifold instances that I am still surprised that the point could be contested. I could cite a zillion different manifestations of this obvious fact, but I hope you catch my drift. If you look again at that map in post #229, the fact is glaring and undeniable: the richer cultural and technological advancements in the world have occured within the temperate zones, and virtually to an inch, the non-temperate warmer climes have been so significantly behind in this respect that the co-relation between climate and development should not be missed.

I already provided many links to scientific stuidies in this regard in my posts above. I emphasize again particularly that the imperative of heat-generation is a huge spur for the gradual development of industrial tendencies.

^^^ So the map in Justcool's Post #229 above speaks nothing to you?

^^^ Wow, I am really curious. Can you share some of these with me by email? You have my email addy. Cheers.

P.S - Check your email, I have a word for you there.

Pastor AIO:
The North Pole is the most technologically advanced place in the world.

Ur sarcasm rebounds on you and you alone as it is trite that extreme environments are not conducive for survival ab initio

These your conspiracy theories sha. Do you think i could be what you suggested in that email and yet adopt the stance i do on this board. Would that not be damaging to my own convictions if that was the case? Surely you must understand that that could not be the case.

InesQor:
[s]Yeah you would say so, I guess maybe you are in the United States right now, and if true it only sheds some more light on an earlier surmise of mine. . .[/s].

Just out of curiosity. . .are you referring here to what you emailed me about? I dont get the connection tho.

okay o. e do, oga adviser. enjoy ya tree, no need to get so bitter over a simple debate, ehn?

though context and usage seem lost on you there! u didnt even get what i meant about the states!

bros, enjoy

vedaxcool:
@Deepsight, no Inesqor, na so dem they behave they go first claim logic but when you don corner them de go claim spirit.

Na wah o, e tire me. I dont know how somebody can cite an extract which itself talks about "collective descriptions" and then turn about to insist that he needs only stick to four descriptions selected by Christians - inorder to build a "logical" construct!

Mind boggling!

It blows the mind, such illogical logic, but if i talk now, the whole christian world go talk say na becos i no like Jesus.

Make i kukuma shat my mouth.

InesQor:
Small [i]advise [/i]right?  Why not take your own advice and apply it to simple spelling?

Okay, clearly you've never been to the United States. No problem.

But really, you should consider a refund on your University Education. I'm an engineer arguing plain logic with you - a Lawyer - and you cant even present witnesses to save your scrawny neck. 

Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

Wont do your homework for you son, not in the mood. Enjoy.

The Long Summer by Brian Fagan

"The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization by Brian Fagan is an excellent read. You will find yourself sprinting through this book and asking for more when you are done. Luckily, Brian Fagan also wrote The Little Ice Age . The focus of this article is The Long Summer and climate change. In Brian’s book he paints a picture of how earlier civilizations thrived and dived according to climate stability and climate change. In an era of seemingly rapid climate change this book is very timely.

Brian Fagan in The Long Summer takes us from the last ice age, through Mesopotamia and Rome and on into the Medieval Era. Throughout the ages, Fagan demonstrates how stable abundant climates led to the rise of great civilizations and then illustrates how those same civilizations were brought low due to climate change. Sometimes this climate change and civilizational decay was gradual, other times it was rapid and overwhelming.

The most important message of The Long Summer is that in the past large floods, droughts, cold periods or heat waves would kill thousands of people but today those same disasters would devastate millions. These natural disasters today result in a massive backlash after the immediate effect of the disaster. These dangerous after effects were experienced in Haiti after the earthquake, in New Orleans still today, and in many places across the world such as Indonesia. When disasters occur today they affect millions and lead to large societal, cultural, and political changes. During our era of rapid climate change Brian Fagan’s The Long Summer is a must read."

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-does-climage-change-change-civilization

Krayola:
@ deepsight. come on. We're looking for a link between climate and technological ingenuity. Not between climate and civilizations. All your posts are saying is that harsh climates can make people accumulate in a given area conducive for living. they say nothing about what we are debating here

Will you seriously contend that such accumulation in groups and resultant urbanization is not key to technological advancements based on urban needs?

Besides if you read up all that I have given you will see many direct resultant technological advancements primed on climatic imperatives.