And if so, at what point did God grant humans souls?
There’s no rational reason to believe in God or heaven or souls. And the people who DO believe in such things don’t agree with each other. So, the factual answer would be “No”; and the mythical answer would be “depends who you ask”.
I thought people who believed in heaven don’t believe in cavemen.
This is what I thought as well, until I watched footage filmed at the museum of creation (somewhere in the bible belt) where they had displays of caveman running from dinosours…but let’s not discuss that example historic fact.:smack:
Most Christian denominations - including the Catholic Church, which is in no way liberal or non-traditional - quite happily believe in an old Earth, evolution, and, yes, cavemen.
I can’t speak for other religions that have a heaven concept, though I expect most are also the same way - some hardheaded conservatives holding onto ‘it’s not in our holy book, therefor it can’t be true’, most rolling their eyes and just layering God onto the obvious truth.
Hehehehe
Thinking of Christian neighborhoods with “family values”, I can only think of a Heaven where councils are set up so no cavemen or cavewomen can live in the white Religious Right section in the clouds. Where Peter asks them to stand in the cavemen line, are only given fire a cave and a club! 
I thought this was going to be a more interesting question along the lines of Limbo of the Patriarchs.
It is an interesting corundum for the religions who accept human evolution an old Earth. The opportunity to “get saved” did not exist for 99.99% of human history so what’s the big deal with Jesus 2000 years ago, what about 500,000 years ago. Is Korg 70,000 BC in heaven?
Well, it could be argued that God perceives time differently than we do. We’re travelling along a line drawn upon a page, always facing the same direction, whereas God has the page lain down in front of him and perceives the whole line at once. From that perspective, 70,000 vs. 2,000 years ago may be a meaningless distinction, they’re both just dots on the same line.
Jesus was the necessary reconciliation between humans and God. Why does changing the gap between the fall and crucifixion from 2, 000 years to 2 million years doesn’t change things at all?
Once again, why does changing the gap between the fall and crucifixion from 2, 000 years to 2 million years doesn’t change things at all? No matter which, there were a large number of generations between the fall and the resurrection. How is the conundrum any different because the gap is wider?
Look at this guy. I mean, really look at him. He lived around 1 million years ago. His girlfriend emphatically did not look like this.
It takes an enlightened theist indeed to accept the philosophical consequences of the fact, yes the fact, that this guy lived a million years ago. He was far, far more intelligent than chimps, made sophisticated tools, cared for the infirm long after they would ‘naturally’ have died in the wild, and may even have used complex language and fire. He is most certainly not an animal (insofar as we’re not classed as animals, legally speaking).
Anyone who believes in an Afterlife must ask themselves whether they’ll meet him there when they die. If so, then surely everyone will go to Heaven, regardless of their beliefs. If not, then God is arbitrarily barring the gates to some people based on nothing more than that they happened to have been born in the wrong epoch.
What’s your logic supporting this statement?
Not being argumentative, just honestly can’t see it.
Because the ‘beliefs’ of Eric Erectus would surely be so diverse (especially compared to beliefs today) that to specify any condition or criterion for Heaven-entry which he actually meets would surely be met by all and sundry thereafter. What could be floating around the cranium of this beetle-browed hominid which gave him a pass, and gave some people today a pass, but was absent in others? Any ‘candidates’ just seem absurdly arbitrary to me.
Ah. The “surely it is so” line of reasoning. Yeah, that’s a good one.
Anyway, I trust you have a scientifically valid basis for this speculation? I’m sure the anthropological world would be astounded to learn of your insight of what Homo Erectus believed or didn’t believe, or whether he indeed had a form of consciousnouss at all.
This is reductio ad absurdans: If a statement is true, what then are its logical consequences. Understand? The statement I am exploring is this: “Some Homo Erectus individuals entered Heaven by virtue of their beliefs.”
I do not believe this is true myself. I am exploring the consequences if it were true. I cannot conceive of non-arbitray beliefs which would gain these individuals entry to Heaven, whose absence in other individuals would bar them entry. If you can, please share them with us and we can assess their absurdity or otherwise.
Don’t you need some kind of evidence of what those beliefs might have been before you can draw conclusions from them?
What do you believe that evidence to be?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, why stop at Homo Erectus? Why not dogs or fruit flies?
“If a fruit fly can get into heaven than anything and anyone can get into heaven!” Ummm, yeahhhh . . . knock yourself out.
No, absolutely not! RAA is perhaps the most important tool of all in logic, but it does not require evidence of the truth of the proposition in question - indeed, it is a tool to demonstrate the proposition’s falsehood.
For example, consider the statement “the square root of 2 is rational” (ie expressible as a fraction compising integers a/b). To explore this statement, I don’t need to actually believe it. I just go ahead and explore the consequences. Lo and behold, I find that for this to be true, b must be both even and odd. Therefore the statement is false.
In this example, I am considering the statement “Some Homo Erectus individuals entered Heaven by virtue of their beliefs.” Of course I don’t believe this, since I don’t even believe Heaven exists! But I can still examine the logical consequences of the statement by temporarily assuming its truth just for argument’s sake. If Homo Erectus had ‘beliefs’ (which is not so absurd a proposition IMO, *but I don’t need to justify this opinion in order to examine the statement), how then could some individuals be admitted to Heaven and others turned away purely on the basis of those beliefs? I cannot conceive of this consequence actually coming to pass without requiring some absurdly arbitrary criterion. Some people here may be able to come up with sensible, feasible criteria which some Homo Erectus individuals may have been able to meet, but not others. I invite them to enlighten me.
See? This is called rational debate. RAA is its very foundation.
Do you understand what rational debate entails? The OP is not “Are there dogs or fruit flies in heaven?” (Nevertheless, yes, the logical consequence of fruit flies entering heaven is, it seems to me, pretty universal entry, unless you can offer me some convincing reason why other organisms might be barred.)
Actually, Shodan, I recall you having some poblems with RAA in the past regarding the Problem of Evil: Take 3 statements[ul]God is all-powerful [li]God is all good Evil exists[/ul]Just as b>0 cannot be both even and odd, all three statements cannot be true simultaneously - either God cannot prevent Evil, or he doesn;t mind it much, or Evil doesn’t really exist at all.[/li]
But I don’t need to believe in God to point this out, agreed?
I don’t see a great contradiction. God is all powerful, but He gave us free will, and as a consequence evil exists. He could stop it, but chooses not to. Just because I don’t lift a 10 pound weight is not an indication that I cannot.
Regarding cavemen and souls, I personally think they had them as do dogs, cats, whales, etc. I guess we’ll find out when we get to the afterlife what animals, if any, await us.