CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Good question. And if we didn't know good from evil before eating from this tree, how could we have known it was wrong to eat from the tree? It sounds like we were setup for failure from the beginning.
Saying that good and bad are man made concepts sounds very Atheistic to me. I would think the non Atheists would say that good and bad were created by God.
But that doesn't mean that atheist will necesarilly think that good and bad are merely a man made concept. Some atheist, e.g. me, think ethics are reducible to factual, non man made criteria about the world.
Again, this is only something I believe, but I do have a idea of how it might be possible. I realize it may not be satisfactory to only give the general structure of the theory but it goes as follows:
It's a constructive prove, so I am trying to
1) show that a reduction of contempory ethics to non-ethical claims about the world is possible by giving an example of such a reduction.
2) Ethical dilemmas can be modelled in a game theoretical setup.
2,1) Ethical behaviour corresponds with the behaviour of superrational players in a game theoretical setup.
2,2) The payoffs in the games are based on criteria derived from biology.
3) Evolutionary theory can be derived from the second law of thermodynamics.
3,1) Evolution is caused by the universal tendency towards an increase in entropy.
3,2) Complicated, non-equilibrium chemical systems are better at increasing entropy than simple, equilibrium chemical system
3,3) The distribution and interaction of life forms can be evaluated in terms of how efficiently they distribute energy and increase entropy.
I will now show how this general setup can explain some basic assumptions people tend to make about the world.
Generally complicated life forms (like mammals as opposed to bacteria) are very effective at distributing energy and increasing entropy, but they are 'expensive' in the sense that they require a lot of lower level life forms to be sustainable. Since they are effective they are worth more, this corresponds with our inert tendency to place a higher value on birds than ants.
It explains why we generally tend to only apply morality to life forms, but it further predicts that we should care a great deal about non-biological processes which life depend on. It explains why overpopulation is a bad thing in terms of how unstable overpopulation has made our ecological system. The biosphere can only sustain a finite amount of complicated systems (people), and if we exceed this number it will be at the cost of the entire biosphere. If the biodiversity is decreased the flow of entropy is decreased, which is quantatively a 'bad thing'.
This theory explains why we have an inert drive towards cooperation, but it is also consistent with why there generally will always be people that try to exploit cooperative behavior. A society can sustain having a small number of exploiters, and these exploiters will have rich opportunity to be even better at increasing energy flows and entropy than cooperaters. It explains why the welbeing of the majority ought to be sustained.
It explains sexual and natural selection, and it is consistent with Buddha's saying that 'everything changes'. It is also consistent with the Taoistic view that we ought to be tune with Tao, which means to "go with the flow". To go with the flow is to go in the direction that the second law dictates us. On the contrary, to cling on to constants is to cause oneself eternal suffering (since this object is inherently doomed to fail)
It explains the ambivalant stance we have towards abortion. A human life is an incredible complicated system and thus intrinstically worth a lot, but the fact that only a finite number of people is sustainable, and the fact that children that get a loving upbringing is generally better fit to live in this world is the fundamentals of the abortion dilemma. This theory also explains why it's wrong to look only at one side of a moral issue. It is not wrong for a predator to kill a prey despite the fact that the prey may be a mammal (highly complicated, 'expensive' life form).
All these explanations can be reduced to the second law of thermodynamics and various objective, circumstantial facts.
I realise now that I have written a wall of text. This is probably because I have never thought about writing this down in it's entirety. Again, this I am not even close to proving any of my 'predictions' and 'explanations', or to prove the general set up point 1) running to 3,3) Some of the points are directly taken from serious work though (all the points in 3) are). I have yet to produce a single game theoretical set up. Again sorry for not making this shorter, I understand few people have time to read wall-of-texts on online forums like CD.
First, your entire argument presupposes that doing the moral thing means doing what the universe wants to do - increase entropy.
Second, do you think the average human does/should assess the value of things based on entropy? And by what method do/should they make this assesment, the length of the object's genome sequence? (I guess size does matter...)
There is at least some evidence that we assess our kinship with other animals based on whether we detect emotional response in them similar to that produced by our limbic brain - is there evidence that we make that assessment based on preservation or increase in entropy?
2) Ethical dilemmas can be modelled in a game theoretical setup.
I gave an example - can you use your process to develop an objective game theory model for it?
In developing such model, do you realize how each person's model is going to depend on what facts they know (which can only be overcome by someone who knows all facts), and their nature and nuture (which is what they use to get their best estimation of the possible outcomes in order to determine congruence with the desired purpose)?
It explains why we generally tend to only apply morality to life forms
We tend not to assign morality to plants because we don't see them making many actions that we assign cause or effect to. Do you think people would assign vastly different morality to a venus flytrap eating a fly than they would a frog doing the same? Moreover, do/should people apply the same morality to animals as we do to humans?
If you put 1000 various people each in their own room with a list of 1000 moral dilemmas, would they be able to create objective models for each and all come to the same conclusion?
If you think there is more to say on the topic, we should probably start a separate debate for it since it is a bit off the main topic. Feel free to create it or relay that you would like me to.
First, your entire argument presupposes that doing the moral thing means doing what the universe wants to do - increase entropy.
If I said something like this then I didn't mean to. I am merely trying to say that everything we call morale happen to coincide with the actions that would increase entropy. I wrote the following in another message, but I am not making a metaphysical claim about what is good, I am making the claim that all our morale biases can be derived from an extended view of the second law.
Second, do you think the average human does/should assess the value of things based on entropy?
I think in some ways we actually already do. I believe that all basic morality is has a deep ingrained emotional component, and that this emotional component is derived (in our case) from a complicated interplay between genetics and societal norms. I think both genetics and societal norms approximates the behavior that can be derived from an extended view of the second law. So I am not saying that people consciously reflect upon energy flows when they make morale judgements, it's more like that the inert emotions that drive our judgements can be derived from non-emotional propositions about the world.
If this theory turns out to be good, then I think people should value things in terms of entropy.
I gave an example - can you use your process to develop an objective game theory model for it?
I can't do it now, and I can't do it here, but I believe it can be done. Again, this is merely a sketch, I am no where near having a satisfactory model of it yet.
In developing such model, do you realize how each person's model is going to depend on what facts they know
This theory promises that an objective model can be derived given perfect knowledge of a situation. I never intended to convey that this theory can give answers to problems we haven't got answers to yet. This whole theory does not belong to ethics, it belongs to a discussion of meta-ethics. This entire theory tries to show that ethical naturalism is true by giving an explicit example of an ethical reduction to non-ethical claims. The hope was never that we will some day be able to answer complicated moral questions using this model, the hope is that we can give an approximate account of all morale judgements and dilemmas in terms of non-ethical propositions.
We tend not to assign morality to plants because we don't see them making many actions that we assign cause or effect to.
Well you say that, but how do you explain that many people would be more reluctant to kill an 100 year old tree than a flower? The reason why this theory is elegant is because it designates a value to an organism as a function of what role it plays in the biosphere. I don't think we should apply the same morality to animals as we do to humans, I don't think they should assign vastly different morality to a venus flytrap than a frog. I am not trying to tell people what to do, I am trying to figure out why people feel the way they do.
If you put 1000 various people each in their own room with a list of 1000 moral dilemmas, would they be able to create objective models for each and all come to the same conclusion?
Even if they used this theory, they would probably still have insufficient knowledge about the dilemmas in order for a consistent answer to be given.
everything we call morale happen to coincide with the actions that would increase entropy
I posit that for any method you give to measure entropy an action can be found which decreases entropy and is generally considered moral.
Additionally, if it is moral to preserve life to increase entropy and moral to take life to preserve future entropy, then rather than a system of morality, you have a system of unfalsifiability.
If this theory turns out to be good, then I think people should value things in terms of entropy.
Now your back to saying what in the first paragraph you say you "didn't mean to" - that increasing entropy is the moral thing, either because that is what the universe wants to do, or because of its correlation to our existing morals.
genetics and societal norms
Otherwise known as nature and nuture. I believe they are perfectly explained by evolution. Even if entropy is a driving force for evolution which has led to our current system of morals, that does not make them objectively right.
given perfect knowledge of a situation
Not sure if we are talking past each other, but in my original response, I suggested that someone would need to know all of the facts, but that it was an actual impossibility and you responded by saying:
"You don't need to have all the facts to believe that morality is eventually reducible to non-ethical facts of the world."
This entire theory tries to show that ethical naturalism is true by giving an explicit example of an ethical reduction to non-ethical claims.
While I admire the undertaking, and think we need more thought on extra-religious morality, I think you will agree that the idea is at least nacent, and I think untennable altogether.
To have a useful model, you will need at least 2 things:
First, the goal(s) - e.g. the most entropy, or the greatest good for the greatest number, etc.
Second, a way to quantify the expected progress towards the goal(s) for a given action.
The first is difficult if not impossible, and I content that the second is impossible completely.
No that doesn't make this system unfalsifiable. If it was unfalsifiable then it would have to be alright to kill and not kill in some situations. I am just proposing that's in some situations death has it's proper place in others it doesn't. There's nothing unfalsifiable about this view.
Now your back to saying what in the first paragraph you say you "didn't mean to"
Notice my premise. "If this theory turns out to be good, then..." At this stage all this idea is about showing that morals may be reducible to non-ethical claims, not about telling people what to do. If however it turns out that this theory corresponds with contemporary ethics then sure, I think we should judge in terms of entropy and the sorts.
that does not make them objectively right.
Again, I am not trying to say that our morals are metaphysically true, all I am trying to show is that our morals can be reduced to objective claims about the universe. There's a big difference between these two.
I suggested that someone would need to know all of the facts, but that it was an actual impossibility
I agree it's an actual impossibility, and that's why I agree that knowing with absolute certainty what the right choice is in any kind of dilemma is, well, an actual impossible. But just because my theory can't be utilized with perfection, doesn't mean that I don't have good reason to believe that it's true.
I posit that for any method you give to measure entropy an action can be found which decreases entropy
Come again? Entropy never decreases. Do you even know what entropy is? I don't think you do, so why do you claim that´the following is impossible:
First, the goal(s) - e.g. the most entropy, or the greatest good for the greatest number, etc.
Second, a way to quantify the expected progress towards the goal(s) for a given action
There's nothing impossible about either of these two. Sure it will be estimates, just like everything else but that's not a problem. We are trying to determine the "flow" of entropy, that is the derivative of entropy. There's nothing wrong with giving a 'close-enough' answer.
If it was unfalsifiable then it would have to be alright to kill and not kill in some situations.
Exactly.
You say that human life is "intrinstically worth a lot" therefore don't kill
but then say "only a finite number of people is sustainable" therefore it is ok to kill.
"It explains the ambivalant stance we have towards abortion" - if it is both moral and immoral for the same woman to have an abortion, it is unfalsifiable.
"If this theory turns out to be good, then I think people should value things in terms of entropy."
Nothing about your theory shows that increasing entropy is something we should do, only that it may correlate to our existing morals. If maximum entropy is the heat death of the universe, couldn't a case be made that minimizing the increase in entropy is a worthy goal? If we should increase entropy, shouldn't we just set everything on fire?
I think you need to decide whether you are trying to model/describe the current state of (or maybe the ontology of) our current morals whether they be good or bad, or trying to model/describe a system of morals that are objectively good (unless/until you can prove that those two things are synonymous.)
Entropy never decreases.
Entropy does decrease in open systems (e.g. Earth). In relation to the universe, I'll restate as minimizing the overall increase in entropy.
There's nothing wrong with giving a 'close-enough' answer.
The answer has to be 'close enough' to compare two or more sometimes very similar actions and determine the right one.
why do you claim that´the following is impossible
-First, the goal(s)
I say is 'difficult if not impossible' largely because after much thought over the centuries it has never been done. You yourself seem to vacillate between saying that maximizing entropy is a goal and saying only that we currently value it.
-Second, a way to quantify the expected progress towards the goal(s) for a given action.
This is impossible because factors that we use in making moral decisions such as pain, sorrow, etc. are likely not quantifiable at all much less by their entropy. A related question might be how much is one life worth - how about whether one life can be worth more than another.
If you can only save your child or your neighbor's child, but not both, and by your method for calculating entropy of a given person (age, metabolism, etc.), you determine that your neighbor's child has more entropy - should you save the neighbor's child instead of your own? If aliens invade and they have more entropy than us, should we forfeit and let them kill us?
So far we have a (precursor of a) model that can justify any action and does not address the rightness of our morals and is not applicable in any real life situation; wait a second - I think you have actually modeled our moral universe perfectly....
any thought on moving discussion to a new debate? - maybe objective morality without religion, or the ontology of our morals or entropy, we don't need no water let the mother f'er burn...
if it is both moral and immoral for the same woman to have an abortion, it is unfalsifiable.
True, abortion is both right and wrong, but how is this a problem? It resonates well with our current dilemma. We can see both moral and immoral aspects of abortion.
but then say "only a finite number of people is sustainable" therefore it is ok to kill.
How I am saying it's okay to kill people here? I am just saying that a finite number of people is sustainable, therefore we want to make sure that we aren't too many. Sure killing people is a solution to our current predicament, but there are other solutions which don't directly damage cooperation among people. Appealing to cooperation is in tune with my theory. Cooperative societies have more potential for interacting with the environment in a way that increases biodiversity.
Nothing about your theory shows that increasing entropy is something we should do
No there isn't, nor does there have to be. It's possible correlation with our beliefs is the argument for why it should be acknowledged. If it correlates exactly with what people think is moral then it might be beneficial see where it's conclusions go.
You yourself seem to vacillate between saying that maximizing entropy is a goal and saying only that we currently value it.
I believe the former follows from the latter so it's basically two sides of the same story. If we can conclude that the moral option is always the option that tends to increase the rate of entropy, or maintain a high rate of entropy, then we have a basis for arguing that our goal in life is to maximize the time derivative of entropy.
If you can only save your child or your neighbor's child, but not both, and by your method for calculating entropy of a given person (age, metabolism, etc.)
Again, the amount of entropy of a child is unimportant, what's important is how an organism contributes to the flow of entropy on a larger scale of things. The problem can't be reduced to a weighting of one organism's entropy against another organism's. Burning off the entire earth does not increase the rate of change of entropy, rather it decreases this rate, so it is obviously immoral in my model. We shouldn't let aliens kill us since they aren't integrated into our biosphere, so obviously there's a high chance that their introduction would be at a cost of the environment at large, thus reducing rate of entropy.
I think objective morality without religion is the most catchy name.
I think you are looking too much into it. The concepts of good and bad are still man made. But, those concepts were created based on everything you said. I think you are describing the motivation.
You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, and I'm not going to claim to understand all that you've said, but I would like to respond to a couple of the points:
3,1) Evolution is caused by the universal tendency towards an increase in entropy.
Are you sure about this? I don't know much about thermodynamics, but I know a little bit about evolution. If you define entropy in terms of the randomness of the genome, then natural selection acts to reduce this entropy by eliminating combinations that don't result in a viable organism. Although there is certainly an increase in entropy on those rare occasions where a new species is formed, this is by far the exception rather than the rule.
Generally complicated life forms (like mammals as opposed to bacteria) are very effective at distributing energy and increasing entropy, but they are 'expensive' in the sense that they require a lot of lower level life forms to be sustainable. Since they are effective they are worth more, this corresponds with our inert tendency to place a higher value on birds than ants.
This is getting at the real heart of the issue. You say that more effective organisms are "worth more", but who is it that judges them more worthy? The laws of natural selection may select for more effective individuals, but that's because of the mechanism by which it works, not because such individuals are "worth more". Personally, I think we judge the worthiness of various species by how much nutrition they provide us when we eat them, but we evolved the tendency to evaluate other species in this way because it helps us to survive.
In fact, most, if not all, of our value judgements can be traced to things that allow us to survive better, but we only have those values because those of our ancestors that had those values survived in greater numbers than those that didn't, so the genes, and teachings, of those ancestors are better represented in today's population.
You could say, therefore, that this is the criteria that can use be used universally to distinguish right and wrong, but that's only true if we believe that survival is right, and that, again, is simply something we've evolved because those of our ancestors who believed this tended to out-survive those who didn't.
The universe doesn't give a rat's ass whether we survive or not. Only we care.
Actually, I'm going to dispute my own statement here. I think our difference of opinion is based on semantics, not on any real disagreement. I think that when you think of an absolute value system, you're thinking of something that's universal to all humans, or maybe anything that can be considered to improve an organisms chances of survival, and I do agree that once you've identified any kind of goal as being desirable, then you can derive a set of values that contribute to achieving that goal.
However, when I think of an absolute value system, I'm thinking one degree more abstract than that, in that I think the idea of selecting any one goal is itself a value judgement and is no longer abstract. Without that 'seed' goal, such as increasing entropy, or complexity, or whatever, you can't extrapolate from that to create a value system.
Are you sure about this? I don't know much about thermodynamics, but I know a little bit about evolution.
Firstly, I am not absolutely sure, and secondly this particular idea isn't created by me. It's a well defined theory, and it seems to be consistent with every aspect of evolutionary theory - in particular the fact that the evolutionary process increases biodiversity, and it can explain the fact that (until maybe agriculture or the industrial revolution) that life forms that share the characteristic of being complicated are also proportionally rare as opposed to simple life forms. The promise of this theory is that everything about evolution can be reduced to thermodynamics without loss of essential components.
You say that more effective organisms are "worth more", but who is it that judges them more worthy?
I use the word "worth" to signify that there's a correlation to what we usually refer to as human worth, animal dignity, etc, but I don't mean to infer directly from efficiency to worthiness. No one is judging them as more 'worthy', rather, they have a quality of being quantatively better at something than simpler life forms.
I mean to say that since they are an useful (effective) aspect of our biosphere, the pay off will eventually be that human behaviour towards them has a component we would call 'worthiness'. Our terminology is arbitrary, but the fact that we feel we ought to respect these animals comes from the fact that they are quantitavely better at "doing their job" than simpler life forms are. I understand this thought process isn't exactly what is going on in peoples head when they think about animal rights, but more on that...
In fact, most, if not all, of our value judgements can be traced to things that allow us to survive better
Notice that we can only survive if we treat certain aspects of nature with respect. We are embodied in ecosystems where the survival of one species relies on the survival of another. Our own selfinterest dictates that we ought to respect our planet. It seems to me that a set of 'super rational' feelings, call it the superego if you want, would be ingrained by evolution. We strive better if the biosphere at large strives better, and our biosphere strives better if the distribution of complicated vs. simple life is in tune with what thermodynamics dictate (it is possible to derive such a distribution). Now given the existence of an optimal distribution and our selfinterest in living in a striving biosphere, it seems likely that the result will be a set of behaviours which have a component of 'worthiness'. There's a sense that they are rare and important. This hunch can be derived from the fact that they are objectively rare and objectively crucial for the wellbeing of our ecosystem. Killing an elephant changes significantly more than killing a flower. Now if favorable behaviour indeed is selected for by nature, then I see no reason why evolution shouldn't have given us these moral biases.
but that's only true if we believe that survival is right
I am not trying to say that any of these things are metaphysically "Good" in any platonistic sense. What I am trying to show is that our hunches about ethics can be derived from non-ethical claims. This argument thus isn't that our hunches are "true", rather that there's an objective reason as to why our superego is shaped the way it is - not that our superego is shaped in the right way, the best way, the only way, etc, that's a different topic entirely.
Even if someone knew all of the facts (an actual impossibility) - there is still the relative weighing of principals/values/morals involved which will not be objective.
The existence of any moral dilemma (e.g. Should animals be used for drug testing etc. if there are no alternatives?) will elucidate the complexity.
I was making a generalization based on an assumption similar to what Cartman suggested, and I still think it's valid for most Atheists. However, I also agree that you can come up with a somewhat limited value system based on some criteria in the real world, such as natural selection. For example, you could say certain behaviors give you or your society (and thus you by extension) a selective advantage.
However, even here you're applying a value that defines 'good' as being evolutionarily successful. I'm a little hard pressed to think of a non man made criteria that could be used to derive an absolute system of good and bad.
Perhaps if you gave some examples it would help us to understand.
Actualy, it's fun you should mention natural selection. Biology place a central role in my reduction. I posted rather long answer to Cartman. You might want to take a look at it.
The reason is not specified in the Bible. The point of the Bible to is to show the relationship between man and God. If man had no reason to know about this tree besides we weren't supposed to eat of it, then their's no reason for us to know besides that. Natural man has a sense of entitlement but in the Bible we are subordinate to creator God.
It's a fine line, and a little open to interpretation, but certainly there are multiple levels of knowledge of good and evil. It may be that God created Adam and Eve with a sense of obedience, but not any higher understanding of good and evil. In which case, God could reasonably expect us to obey his rule about not eating from the tree.
Their are mutiple interpretations as you said. I fully believe that Adam and Eve knew what physical death was and in turn knew the consequences for that side of it, they just chose to disobey God. I believe the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had many names like how many things in the bible. We only know one because that is what it made us human have: knowledge of what it feels to do evil.
Some theologians, along with myself, believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a tree that did not inherently possess the power to make one knowledgable about sin. Instead, the tree was the command of God to not eat of it, so that if one were to eat of it, then he would become knowledgeable of good and evil (i.e. fully understanding and experiencing it through his own sin). This would coincide with the aspect of Adam and Eve already having discerned that it was bad to eat of the tree. It would also coincide with Eve not being knowledgable of her sin until after Adam had eaten of it too.
It's funny to watch how far some theologians are willing to stretch crappy metaphors in an attempt to justify their insistence that their favorite collection of ancient scriptures (bible) is flawless.
Example: the tree was the command of God to not eat of it
To cause the fall of man. He must have intended it to happen if he is omniscient and omnipotent and made the tree. He knew what would happen if he made it, he had the choice to not make it, he had the power to stop the event (by destroying the tree or moving it where adam and eve wouldn't find it, ect) but didn't, but he did what he did (hypothetically) so he must have intended for it to happen
Well, look at how the world works...balance. If there was no balance then everythign would fall apart. Example: if there was an absence of consequnce to any illegal act, then illegal acts would prevail. If there was an absence of consequnce to any excessive act, then excessive acts would prevail. Everything needs balance in order to have long term viability.
I'm going to throw in a theory I've read before and it's going to sound crazy...
Adam and Eve were the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent crawling up the tree is supposed to be symbolic of the addition of the spine to the human body. The serpent is also a representation of Lucifer, who corrupted the vegetative state that the World was supposed to remain in. However, Lucifer isn't Satan. Lucifer is the son of Venus. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!", that's from Isaiah 14:12 in the Bible. When it says "son of the morning", it's referring to the morning star aka Venus. Satan, on the other hand, is Saturn.
The World's first cycle, the mineral cycle, was by Saturn/Satan. The second was the vegetative cycle, where the Garden of Eden was introduced, which was by the Sun. The third was the animal cycle, which was by the Moon, which was put in a particular position as to reflect the Sun's rays and better protect the World from Venus, Lucifer and Saturn/Satan. The Moon is apparently a goddess. In recognition of these first three cycles, the first days of the week were named after them... Saturn-Day(Saturday), Sun-Day(Sunday) and Moon-Day(Monday).
The original Bible was written in Hebrew. In Hebrew, God was referred to as Elohim, which is plural... in other word, Gods. So the Bible was originally suggesting that Earth was made by multiple Gods, not just one.
That's another way of looking at it. It's apparently the beliefs of many past historical figures and secret societies and according to them, that is what the Bible is really saying, as well as many other religions.
But, when I created this debate I knew that there was not a possibility of a logical answer - actually I thought it would be ignored completely.
So far Adam and Eve are basically dogs knowing only obedience, the tree is god's command itself, and now Adam and Eve are trees too (,and joe said something about a cake...) - consider me entertained beyond expectation.
PS - were they the trees god made before sunlight existed or trees after sunlight?
Personally, I'm an Agnostic... so these aren't my beliefs, but part of me believes that this is what the Bible was trying to say. If you take away the names, most religions are saying the same thing. In Ancient Greece, Venus was referred to as Lucifer. That was actually before both Old and New Testament. Modern Christians believe Lucifer (which means "light-bearer" in Latin) to be Satan, however like I pointed out, Lucifer was referred to as the son of the "morning star" in the Bible. Guess who else was referred to as the son of the "morning star"? Jesus Christ. Revelations 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
So, it sounds a lot like Jesus was either a brother to Lucifer or he is Lucifer.
I didn't make this stuff up. These are the beliefs of many people, one group in particular is the Free Masons. Like I pointed out before, there are apparently multiple Gods. Supposedly there are seven... at least those are the big ones. Throughout time, these Gods were represented together through many ways... one being a crown. An example would be the Statue of Liberty's crown. Seven spikes to represent the seven Gods or possibly the seven Sun spirits. Seven days of the week, also may be to represent the seven Gods... at least three of them are.
Anyways, I just wanted to fill in some more of the theory.
PS - were they the trees god made before sunlight existed or trees after sunlight?
Apparently it was after. Vegetation came with the Sun, who was the God responsible for the second cycle. Saturn/Satan was responsible for the first. Saturday, Sunday, Monday, etc. This is why whenever you hear about the Illuminati and Free Masons being Satan worshippers, they kind of are. One of the rules of becoming a Free Mason is that you must believe in the Gods and you can worship them when and however you please. A lot of them go about worshipping Saturn aka Satan.
