God vs Evolution
April 25, 2007 at 8:43 pm #7503jeremiah_1990Participant
I believe God created the universe and everything in it. And that evolution is an incorrect ‘THEORY’ made by the human race to neglect God. I want your argument about why you believe that human existence is a freak accident or if we were created for a purpose.
April 25, 2007 at 8:52 pm #71530
Fair enough. Care to elaborate? I assume you did not just create an account here to preach that one thought?
April 25, 2007 at 8:56 pm #71531jeremiah_1990Participant
Im just tying to get people to start thinking about what they belive. not what a text book says or their professor
April 25, 2007 at 9:56 pm #71534
Why do you assume that Scientists are atheistic? The best professor I ever had told me to question everything she said…if a professor or textbook is presuming to make one’s mind up then they are not worth a light.
Both should simply present the so-far-proven facts and allow their subjects to make up their own mind.
I actually thought Science and Religeons’ slandering of the other was very out of date now.
Can one not have Science AND Religeon in their lives?
April 25, 2007 at 10:07 pm #71535SteenParticipant
Furthermore, just because a text book or a professor has given you information, if you chose to accept it as tue, it doesnt mean that you have done it because they have told you – you most probably have taken it to be the most logical explanation available. Personally I sway to the evolutionary side – to me it makes sense. But the idea of a greater being/God does not seem impossible – but its always going to be a highly debated issue isnt it?
April 25, 2007 at 10:53 pm #71537quote jeremiah_1990:
Agent Smith: But, as you well know, appearances can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason why we’re here. We’re not here because we’re free. We’re here because we’re not free. There is no escaping reason; no denying purpose. Because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist.
[Several Agent Smith Clones walk in]
Agent Smith Clone 1: It is purpose that created us.
Agent Smith Clone 2: Purpose that connects us.
Agent Smith Clone 3: Purpose that pulls us.
Agent Smith Clone 4: That guides us.
Agent Smith Clone 5: That drives us.
Agent Smith Clone 6: It is purpose that defines us.
Agent Smith Clone 7: Purpose that binds us.
April 25, 2007 at 11:00 pm #71538
On a logistical note, jeremiah_1990, please stop editing your original post – successive posts do not make sense if they refer to a post that has changed.
For reference sake, this was your original post:
"I believe God created the universe and everything in it. And that evolution is an incorrect ‘THEORY’ made by the human race to neglect God."
April 25, 2007 at 11:39 pm #71540HopeHasFailedParticipant
in the bible the world is only a few thousand years old, therefore the evindence around us points us in the direction that god in fact, does not exist, now if you want to beleive in god that’s fine but i really don’t see how your post has anything to do with biology, religion is not what this forum is about. But our fossils prove that your bible, if not your god, is wrongful thinking and needs to be tested and revised.
April 26, 2007 at 12:33 am #71542
No wait, the Bible was never written in English, or even Latin, to begin with. The Bible is all about interpretation.
What you read (in the King James version at least) is a translation from three languages, and a bad one at that [other language versions of the Bible are a translation from English so therefore must be even worse!].
For example, Methusalah lived for approx. 800 years according to the Bible (correct me if I am wrong). This is probably a mistranslation of the lunar and solar cycles. Using the solar cycles, he actually lived for around 70 years – a far more realistic figure.
I really cannot stand the ‘us and them’ argument. Please, can we just debate in a sensible, and humanistic, manner?
This post is perfectly relevant to Science – Jeremiah_1990 contests the paradigms we work by and therefore it is up to us to defend them.
April 26, 2007 at 3:02 am #71547
Evolution, to me, makes almost perfect sense; God, to me, makes completely perfect sense. I believe both.
April 26, 2007 at 7:37 am #71551quote :
Coyp of another blog.
April 26, 2007 at 10:55 am #71557
Could you link to the blog that was taken from please?
April 26, 2007 at 5:31 pm #71603LinnParticipantquote :
This is an icorrect assumption of those who have not taken the time to study the scriptures, no where does it state an age.
As far as the original question, I believe that God created the universe and the earth was not inhabited until life began to slowly be formed by God exactly in the order that scietitist say it happened, in full harmony with the bible.
I do not believe that anything evolved on its own accord.
I do believe in speciation. 🙂
April 27, 2007 at 4:41 am #71660
Sorry somehow this site doesn’t allow me to post link until I have at least 5 posts. In anycase this was posted only a few minutes ago in one of google blogs.
April 27, 2007 at 4:50 am #71661
"What then is the simplest state and does it exist? It is plausible that the most simplest form no longer exists. But I believe a more likely proposition would be that we are unable to accurately observe it rather than we do not coexist with it. The closest scientific theory we have to explain the simplest state is the string theory and the likes, which try to explain the makeup of the subatomic particles (what the electrons, neutrons and protons are made up of, which makes the atoms). Well we could propose that the simplest form we can deduce down to is actually energy but then we assume everything started from energy, which many scientists do, when E=MC^2 is not only one way formula (this formula proves that energy and matter, everything that atoms and particles makeup, are interchangeable – atomic bomb). In either case, what is important here is that however simple we make out the universe, at one point or another evolution no longer does the job to explain where that simplest point evolved from. No matter what we make of it we can never explain the beginning when all we have is a theory about one state evolving to another. So in this sense evolution is not a contradicting theory to that which tries to explain the beginning, creation. So the next time lets try to explore the complexity and see if evolution, which proposes all existence from simple to complex, does in fact "create" complexity out of simplicity."
April 27, 2007 at 11:03 am #71666
At no point does Evolutionary theory state that all things move naturally from simple to complex. Simplicity often just ‘works’.
Similarly, it never suggests why things are here to begin with; only what happened to life/molecules/whatever along its path to what we see today.
April 27, 2007 at 4:16 pm #71682quote :
So dose evolution allow the possibilities that we humans could have coexisted with organism from the beginning?quote :
So you are in agreement that evolution and creation are not contradicting theory.
April 27, 2007 at 5:12 pm #71684
Evolution says nothing about creation of earth universe etc, and neither does say anything about divine acts populating the earth with the species we see today.
April 27, 2007 at 5:16 pm #71688
No of course Evolution doesnt suggest that Humans could have coexisted with organisms ‘from the beginning’. Humans have been around for a ridiculously small amount of time compared to life itself.
And I wont answer the last part because an awful lot of Creationist view is based on circular arguments and drawing people into them…
April 27, 2007 at 5:59 pm #71691mattwParticipant
Everyone is searching for God. Without God life is just wasted time. Many scientists believe in evolution and God. Some people abandon God because they have been offended so badly that they cannot believe any caring God could have allowed something so terrible to happen to some good person close to them. But science doesn’t need to deny God, only take care of the tasks and great works of science. 😀
April 27, 2007 at 8:04 pm #71696
An equally valid claim might be made that evolution is a correct THEORY made by the human race to EXPLAIN God in greater detail.quote :
I find many freak accidents quite beautiful. Why would you automatically grant them such low status to begin with? Your concept of accident (as I believe many people’s concepts of accident) is unduely negative.
A creative universe simply can be creative…. as a first principle, with no centralized mind. It simply is what it is, and what it is… leads to sentient life-form, ensemblic, self-organizing, self-realizing parts of itself.
Purpose is already what it is by virtue of the fact that the universe is what it is – CREATIVE, SELF-ORGANIZING.
If you wish to call this purpose ‘GOD’, then I suppose it’s okay with me. If you wish to posit a centralized intelligence modeled anthropocentrically on the cognition of human beings, then I think you impose too shallow a conception on a universe of much greater infinite depth.
April 27, 2007 at 8:52 pm #71703quote :
But the universe is not "creative" as you say. We as one of its created things think that it is. The very design that has been guiding everything from the very beginning has always been and, as far as I can tell, will always be, thus it is not creative. All the creative power is already in the universe. Would Van Gogh be any less creative if he didn’t paint The Starry Night?
April 27, 2007 at 8:55 pm #71704
Lets move on. We know that subatomic particles are the ingredients of atoms, and atoms of molecules, and molecules of compounds, and compounds of organisms. As they progress to more complex state there are greater possibilities by exponential factors. This brings us to the consideration of what the most complex state could be and if there is such a thing as the state of most complexity, if we can observe it.
Since we are constantly evolving, the rational of evolution would be that we have yet to see the state of most complexity and evolution by definition eliminates the possibility of evolution ever stopping. Evolution doesn’t know the future, it only evolves based on the circumstantial factors that occur within and around itself. It merely reacts to the present on top of what’s been accumulated by the past sequence of present. Evolution is not the designer but it is an outcome from a design. But if we were to disagree and propose that evolution will ultimately reach the most complex state, or whatever you would want to call it, that no longer can or needs to evolve then we would have to consent that this universe has a design, specific purpose, which all points to that state or point, the most complex and no longer evolving state. But accepting this would mean that everything is guided by intelligent design, the very antithesis of evolution (at least for those who believe evolution is possible without intelligent design).
April 27, 2007 at 9:16 pm #71705
April 27, 2007 at 9:49 pm #71710
The only point out of the first, very verbose, post on that blog that I found even slightly reasonable was this:
"I just wish people will stop looking at a chessboard after 100 moves and cry intelligence has only evolved after those 100 moves, neglecting somebody had to come up with the rules and the pieces to begin with."
It’s basically what people on this forum, and indeed many Biologists, have been saying anyway.
April 27, 2007 at 9:57 pm #71711
But I think that was the whole argument that the universe from the beginning had intelligent design in mind.
April 28, 2007 at 7:32 am #71726quote kotoreru:
You are right the Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I do agree that KJV was poorly translated, especially with the British English 😉 but what they had to work with back then were inferior, i.e. better original manuscripts have been discovered since the King Jame I days. But I do believe KJV might have gone through some revisions but I am not sure. As for the other English translations, I am not aware of any translations that were not translated from their original language. But you are right the translation is always inferior. Luckily now days all seminary students have to learn the original languges anyway.quote :
Yes it does say that Methuselah lived 969 year and the Bible does mention that people did live much longer back then than we do today. I wouldn’t blame the translation though, since there are so many detail accounts of how long people have lived in the Bible. And plus they would also had to mistranslate Genesis 6, where God specifically shortens human lifespan. As for the lunar cycle, it wouldn’t make a much of a difference, may be a number of days a year or so.
April 28, 2007 at 12:09 pm #71738
Though on a minor note, I’m going to pick you up on two things:quote :
The Moon orbits the Earth every 28 days (or so), and the Earth orbits Sol every 365 days (or so). This would make a big difference.quote :
What are you trying to say? 😛
April 28, 2007 at 2:34 pm #71746Modern EpicurianParticipant
Personally I am an evolutionist, and here’s why.
To me, the idea of a God brings up far more questions than answers and I work on the Occum’s Razor principle. Granted, I may not know the origin of the earth, but to state that it was created by some ultimate being creates so many questions that my mind begins to boggle.
I see religion as a whole to be a form of Freudean ‘wish fulfillment’. This does not say that it isn’t true.
As any good scientist, I am not an atheist, as that would be foolish. This would completely discounting a theory (granted I may not feel that that theory is overly credible, but it is a theory all the same.) and all good scientists should never discount a theory until it has been proven false.
April 28, 2007 at 5:03 pm #71763quote want2know:
So maybe tomorrow a better manuscript is found and a more correct translation accepted?
April 28, 2007 at 6:22 pm #71767
I dont mean to sound massively ignorant, but in The Da Vinci Code (will I regret saying this?) there was mention of other Bible books not released by the Vatican.
Is there any truth in this, and if so how on Earth can you take it seriously knowing its been edited and abridged by Man (assuming its divine origin)?
April 28, 2007 at 7:37 pm #71770quote Modern Epicurian:
I believe all true knowledge does lead to more questions than answers. Furthermore, I would be highly concerned if all scientists ran from the first encounter of "unanswerable" mysteries. Greater the mystery greater they should be motivated; more mind boggling it is more challenging it would be.
April 28, 2007 at 8:05 pm #71777quote kotoreru:
What you say is true. There are exactly 66 books in the Bible, Old and New Testaments. However there are other books out there. In fact the Bible is a collection of stories, genealogies, poems, prophecies, letters and what have you, written by hundreds of different people spread over thousands of years. It is believed that all of its contents are divinely inspired. Obviously over the history of man kind, more accurately since the period when man became literate, there has been far more writings about God than what are included in the Bible. It is also believed that the selection of the books to be included was also divinely inspired. The book could not have existed without the divine interventions. You ask me I do lean to the opinion that it could not have been a work of men most of whom with different backgrounds who knew nothing of each other and their written work – especially considering it is the most read, most scrutinized, dissected and studied written work beyond all comparison.
April 28, 2007 at 8:16 pm #71779
want2know said:quote :
A design that is NOT creative?! I’m not sure how you see this use of terms as consistent. I see it as inconsistent,… even self-contradictory.
Any manner of talking in plain language will have vestiges of metaphor related to the creator of metaphors (i.e., humans), so total non-anthropocentric dialogue seems impossible to me.
I say the universe is creative. You say it is by design. But a design does not just sit there as an non-dynamic blueprint; it moves. This movement is what I call being creative. "Creative" is a description of form building, which you call being built from a design.
"Design" is a very human-suggestive term too. "Who is the designer?".. is the question it begs to be answered.
If no designer is needed to make a design, then no creator is needed to be creative. Again, the terms are not in conflict. I see them as cooperative, where neither needs a centralized mind-like intelligence behind it.
April 28, 2007 at 8:16 pm #71780quote :
That is true. And I would be more delighted if they do than not. But it is the general consensus that what we have now are quite accurate and no major discovery is expected. Not that even when they did in the past, it didn’t change the Bible as a whole but may be a sentence here and there. It just shows you how much the Bible is scrutinized and delicately handled in every way to prevent any possible corruption.
April 28, 2007 at 8:29 pm #71782quote robertkernodle:
I think we are in an agreement. I do believe that the universe is creative. But not in the sense that as it passes through time it becomes more creative. From the beginning that creative power was always there. Nothing in this universe is really "new" if you will, they are just manifested from the intangible law of science to the tangible material in 3 dimensions. In this sense the universe already had in mind what it could do from the beginning. If we think what were created were accidental where is the accident in the law of science that always was and always is? Thus it no longer creates itself.
April 28, 2007 at 8:43 pm #71785
Alex’s Bible History 101:
The Bible was first compiled around the year 400 by the Catholic Church. It was put together by compiling 73 different books. There are many reasons why the bishops of the Church chose these particular books, but the most important reason was accuracy and date of writing. The books that were omitted were not included because they were written several hundred years after the books that were. For example, the four Biblical Gospels were all written within a few decades of Christ’s death, and all four agree with each other. The apocryphal gospels, however, were all written an average of 300 years after Christ’s death, and have numerous contradictions; clearly they are not accurate. It amuses me when the uninformed try to claim there’s some sort of Vatican "conspiracy" behind omitting false books; if failing to include unreliable sources is a conspiracy, then the entire academic community has been in conspiracy against us since the dawn of time.
For most of Christian history, the predominant version of the Bible was the Latin Vulgate, translated in the early fifth century by St. Jerome. The Vulgate was translated from a Greek version called the Septuagint, itself a translation of the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Because of this, the Vulgate did not have a very high reputation for accuracy. Nevertheless, the Vulgate was the basis for the first major English translation, the Douey-Rheims version, which was first published in 1609. Thus, the first major English Bible was translated no fewer than three times (Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English)!
As a remedy, King James set his scholars to work on what was then known as the Authorized Version, and what today is known as the King James Version. King James’s translators worked directly from the original texts, and if it hadn’t of been for their king they would have succeeded in producing a very accurate translation. However, the Protestant Reformation was in full swing, and King James ordered his scholars to make some very serious revisions. This included changing the wording of several important passages and even deleting seven books from the Old Testament! This is why Protestant Bibles today contain only 66 books, whereas Catholic Bibles contain all original 73. This is something else that amuses me; it’s way too easy to edit the Bible to make it say what you want, and then try to claim that the Church that uses the original Bible is unbiblical!
It wasn’t until the 1950s that a reliable English translation of the Bible was produced; this was the Revised Standard Version, a joint work of both Catholic and Protestant churches that made use of every available ancient manuscript. The RSV is still widely considered to be the most accurate translation available, being the preferred version in many seminaries. Many other versions have been published since then, some of the most popular being the New American Bible in the Catholic Church and the New International Version in Protestant Churches. Both of these Bibles are generally considered reliable, though neither is considered to be as accurate as the RSV. A handful of translations today seek to paraphrase the original text to make it more readable to a modern audience; foremost among these are the Living Word Translation and the Good News Bible. Obviously, none of these paraphrases are considered to be reliable, but their readability sometimes makes them popular in Sunday schools and other child-focused ministries.
The most basic Christian belief about the Bible – a belief shared by every denomination – is that it is the inspired Word of God. We believe that this is why the books that were included are in it, and we also believe that the books that were omitted were so because they were not inspired or otherwise unreliable. There is no such thing as a perfect translation, and even the RSV remains the most reliable today I would not be surprised if a better version came along at some point. The Bible’s authority of God’s written Word is indisputable; thus, any sound translation must strive to translate the original texts as accurately as possible, and translations that fail to do this are of little use for doctrinal purposes. We cannot simply edit God’s word as we see fit; we must read it and understand as He has written it, so that we can understand the message that He intends to tell us.
April 28, 2007 at 9:13 pm #71794quote alextemplet:
I assume you are Catholic, 73 books verses 66. But to get into that would be beyond the interest of this blog. But which I would look to one day campare.
By the way, thanks for the indept input, as I am no way expert in the history of the Bible.
April 29, 2007 at 2:34 am #71800
I am Catholic! 😉
April 29, 2007 at 6:08 pm #71830
Yes, want2know,… I believe that we are in agreement.
My use of the term "creative" implies a dynamic, "ever-changing design" – a primal first principle of movement – flow – malleability.
The word "design" just seems a bit static for my personal expressive taste, whereas the word "creative" implies motion of designs that never are really here, but always moving past themselves, although they are self-similar to every other instance of themselves.
The "design" (if you will) is a diagram in motion. You cannot separate the diagram from its motion. You cannot separate the noun of being from the verb of being. They are eternally fused.
April 30, 2007 at 12:45 am #71845
Robert Kernodle, I guess the difference was that my focus was the artist not the art. Yes, often it is the art that is created that makes the artist. But I believe that is our human limitation that we are unable to see how things are beyond the surface and we only begin and attempt to understand only through a medium we are able to see and touch (but we know that we can only experience a tiny fraction of the true reality). Because of this we often forget that before a thing is created a creator is. So lets move on and start talking about the creator and stop comparing as if they were on the same playing field; evolution is an expression of a pattern within a created environment and not an expression of creation.
April 30, 2007 at 2:49 pm #71871quote want2know:
I quite like that…
April 30, 2007 at 6:35 pm #71888
Sorry want2know and kotoreru,
I quite do NOT like this. Want2know’s entreaty to "move on" and focus on his preferred use of terms draws attention to the false dichotomy he attempts to create between substance and motion. A pattern cannot exist without a substance in which to exist,.. I quite agree. But a substance cannot exist without its simultaneous predisposition to patterning. It’s a yin/yang thing with no absolute divide.
So to force my attention onto the yang without the equal consideration of the yin is to force what (in my mind) is a fatal conceptual disposition that causes lots of problems in our conceptual world today.
want2know’s following statement illustrates what I’m saying here:quote :
Note the absolute divide between "creator" and "created", which I would equate rougly to the absolute divide between motion (except I would use progressive, CREATING) and substance.
One does not exist without the other. Evolution is, therefore, an expression of a being design – a moving design – a first principle of substance AND motion eternally, indivisibly fused.
So, forgive me, want2know, if I cannot sail exactly with you on this one.
April 30, 2007 at 8:00 pm #71892quote robertkernodle:
Sounds kinda vague, not sure what you’re saying.
April 30, 2007 at 10:09 pm #71895
If I’ve understood correctly, Robert is talking about an abstract analogy.
e.g. Things cant evolve if they dont exist, but similarly things cant exist without evolving.
(Is that what you were saying RK?)
April 30, 2007 at 10:59 pm #71898quote robertkernodle:
To me a pattern must exist within the mind of an artist before the substance comes to life. Such as "Fluldism". When a paint is splashed on to a canvas the artist expects how it will flow, considering the force and direction, which the paint is applied with gravity, which the paint is affected by. At no point in its action does the paint and canvas take their own creativity but only in the original moment when the artist applies the paint does the creativity exist. Sure the paint is affected by many factors once it leaves the artist’s direct physical contact but I can’t possibly think the factors themselves are creating but only the means which the artist have used for his creativity. Thus evolution is an expression of a pattern within a created environment and not an expression of creation.
April 30, 2007 at 11:02 pm #71899
What I don’t understand is why can’t evolution and religion be compatible?
April 30, 2007 at 11:26 pm #71900
I’m sure one day there will be a reconciliation. Or one will simply gobble up the other.
April 30, 2007 at 11:52 pm #71902quote kotoreru:
I hope so but either case for sure we would find out once we die.
May 1, 2007 at 12:02 am #71903quote alextemplet:
I do believe that they are because they are not talking about the same thing.
May 1, 2007 at 12:25 am #71904
If we all agree that the two are compatible, what exactly are we debating about?
May 1, 2007 at 12:47 am #71905
Obviously not the original topic by jeremiah, but by some sort of fancy doodle stuff about creative expression….
May 1, 2007 at 2:29 am #71907
Hi Alextemplet, I sent your a link which talks about the recent change in Catholic. Hope you don’t mind.
May 1, 2007 at 3:27 am #71910
Hi, mith, the moderator,
I will not quote your quote of my quote that you question as vague. I simply will address the general issue that I believe underlies lots of confusion.
Pattern and relation cannot exist without a substrate. Action cannot exist without substance. Waves cannot wave without stuff in which to wave.
SomeTHING has to exist in which action takes place.
Likewise, substrate or substance cannot exist without action, wave, or relation. How stuff behaves already exists with it as its unique expression of being.
The manner of moving exists simultaneously with the stuff moving. BOTH ARE FIRST PRINCIPLES.
This is the philosophical ground of all conceptualizing (imo), which then gets devloped into the more specific rules/equations/laws of specific disciplines.
In other words, we cannot say that an actionless, formless, non-dynamic, non-relational stuff exists first,… then the form, dynamics, relations come second. There is no division of this sort. It’s all together at the very start.
We CAN focus on one or the other, but ultimtely we must see the two sides as fused. We tear it apart, only to see it more clearly together.
Sometimes (in making art, for example) I have no idea what I’m doing. I feel it out. The structure that happens is NOT willed, planned, calculated.
I place myself in familiar initial conditions, and the nature of this physical universe then takes over and (yes, I’ll say it) EXPRESSES itself in a partaicular local-moment configuration.
The design is NOT separate from the action of the creative substance.
There is NO design. There is designING in a substance’s BEING in a particular configuration of now.
I know it sounds waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there, but bear with me. I’ll keep trying to home in on the best terms to enable you to get it.
So,… am I talking about God? NO, not specifically. I am talking about a creative universe – I do not call this "God".
Am I talking about evolution? NO, not specifically. I am talking about a creative universe,… part of which we might call "evolution".
"God" and "evolution" are subordinate to something even more infinitely complex, in my way of thinking. I cannot simplify it with either label.
"God" is a vague personified reference to the awe of it. "Evolution" is a specific description of a local instant of it. "IT" is the creative universe.
May 1, 2007 at 4:20 am #71915quote want2know:
I haven’t received anything; did you send it via private message or e-mail?
May 1, 2007 at 4:21 am #71916quote alextemplet:
Never mind; I got it.
May 1, 2007 at 4:59 am #71917
Sorry RK but I want to make sure that we are on the same pagequote robertkernodle:
You have to agree that to be creative there has to be a choice, a deliberate decision over available options. When there is no option there is no creativity; it’s merely science, one thing leading to another. Creation needs to answer "to be or not to be" (couldn’t help myself). This universe as we know it, according to an atheist, has no creativity if you really look at it. It merely reacts to accumulated events that are all under the law of science, which is static and gives nothing an alternative option but to react only in one way. That is what science says, in fact what this universe after the beginning says. Simply ignoring the beginning. This is where God (or a creator if you prefer) comes in. In the beginning He had to decide to create or not to create, in other words be creative.
As for humans, according to the Bible we are made in the image of God, which gives us the creative power. But here also some would argue that humans don’t have any alternative options moving forward like any other objects but only response to their own makeup due to past existence, of which one has no control over.
May 1, 2007 at 10:08 pm #71967
I neither HAVE to agree nor DO I agree that being creative demands a deliberate choice. I simply use the term "creative" to describe self-organizing. For me, "creative" does NOT require a personified creator,… any more than a scientific law requires a personified law maker.
We speak of "gene expression", for example, but we do not mean little thinking genes passionately expressing their mindful points of view. Similarly, I can speak of a "creative universe" without meaning a mindful creator.quote :
Does it? I am not convinced that it does. Creation simply IS as first principle.quote :
I would suggest that you overlook possible GRADATIONS of aetheism, where some aetheists might have no qualms with the term "creative" in the way that I use it.
"React to accumulated events" is a cold colorless manner of description. To attribute this manner of description to a human-conceived law is not only a bit of subdued ego bloating on the part of humankind, but also an inaccurate appraisal of what the laws of science actually are – they are open theories (continually being tested and tweaked). In this sense, these so called laws of science are themselves creative appraisals by humankind.quote :
This is only one view of one large group in science, and gives no consideration for other scientific approaches that view the universe as infinite without beginning or end. God need not have anything to do with this infinite eternal substance, self-organizing and self-creating,…. UNLESS we choose to call this "God".
Personally, I do NOT choose to call this "God". But I am not unfriendly to some who might.
Hope this helps.
May 2, 2007 at 5:33 am #71974
Alex and Mith,
This definition of creativity is quite important concept for humans to understand the relationship between the created and the creator and if they are two distinct subjects (for me there is no doubt in my mind that they are not the samething). And that is why there is this long discussion about the creative expression.
Basically you see our universe as a long continuous events leading to further events, which you describe as creative. And you believe that when one event triggers the next, the first triggering event had no preconceived notion of what it will trigger, it just does. I think we both agree on this that things just happen, giving birth to "new" things.
But what I disagree is that while the things themselves have no predisposition to what they want to become, they are predisposed by the law of science. It’s like a play, and not an improvisation. The actors, the substance, read their prepared scripts, law of science.
Only recently scientists and scholars have began to discover that we can actually get a hold of that "script of life" or science before we are forced to act it out. As our knowledge improves I am sure we would become better at predicting the "future". And this is because what is happening now has already be made known from the very beginning. If at any moment of its continuum the tangible objects cease to follow that script or the script itself just changes its characters – well that would be considered an official definition of what true miracle is.
Let me try to summarize what I have been trying to say:
1. Everything that we see and can’t see are guided by the law of science and without this guiding principal nothing would be what it is.
2. If we COMPLETELY understand science we can predict what will happen to everything, i.e. the source of weather patterns, physical and mental illness and behaviors.
3. Science, the very script of this universe and everything in it, is neither changing, evolving or creating itself.
4. This awesome science, the author of everything, has either always been or spontaneously appeared out of nowhere in its fully developed and functioning state.
5. So one has to ask himself what is the most likely source of science:
a. if it had always been, although nothing as we know existing within the realms of this reality can just be, we are simply acting out the inevitable path that had been scripted and completed long ago. (this option I think avoids the most important question, if something that complex can just exist without any cause, why is it so difficult for us to believe that things that are not nearly as complicated can just appear and why don’t we see it happening more often?)
b. if it spontaneously appeared, who or what is almighty enough to come up with such awesome creation? (this option I believe takes us to the next step rather than avoiding the question. Since God is not bound by His own creation, science included, His guiding principle is different than what we are used to. This is what the Bible talks about. And this is why I believe the Bible is all inclusive, taking us to the next step. Until I see a better explanation or any contradiction in the Bible I am a believer)
May 2, 2007 at 5:44 am #71975quote robertkernodle:
Hope you don’t think I was being unfriendly. I was only trying to understand the logic of an intelligent individual against intelligent design. 😉
May 2, 2007 at 7:17 am #71976
It is actually possible to form an intelligent argument against intelligent design, but doing so raises numerous other questions and, in my opinion, is at least as great of a leap of faith as a belief in God.
May 2, 2007 at 6:26 pm #72001quote alextemplet:
But that is the very thing I am trying to lay it out here, evidently very poorly, that the most logical next step is to investigate intelligent design after what we have been discovering about this universe. The alternative is to simply avoid the very question of our existence and try to explain it away through progress of evolution or whatever it is, which does not cut it. We shouldn’t neglect that the author of this universe, whom I suggest is science (strictly speaking in the worldly sense), from its beginning had all the recipes required to make this universe as we see it. If that’s not intelligent design I don’t know what it is.
May 3, 2007 at 2:36 am #72012DarbyParticipant
want2know, if we were intelligent beings in a universe with different rules, "you" might certainly make the same assertion about that set of conditions.
May 3, 2007 at 11:13 am #72027quote robertkernodle:
i understand what you are saying and i agree with you.
though i will add, God and religion used to represent something more than a vague metaphysical personification of ideals.
using the greeks as an egsample. the greek gods used to live on earth which is quite significant because it meant that their gods were subject to the very laws they created. it is also significant because the fact that their gods were on earth meant that their lives were enriched daily by their ‘presence’. they experienced religion more so than following its rules. god in religion today seems to be wholey detached from humans. this has resulted in a lack of religious experience.
religion has lost its substance for alot of people including myself. we reject the term god as insufficient and instead you introduce this term ‘creative universe’ which seems to me to be just as vague and detached an explanation (though i see what you are saying). i think a task of science is to unravel and explain away the metaphysical analogies proposed by religion. not to reject them. but to make them understandable and significant for our time as it once was for people in the past. for me creative universe = god. the modern sense of religion relies heavily on an outside influence, a metaphysical being that our intellect can recognise. but the ‘religious experience’ is just that, an experience. an inside influence (or god within) that is recognised and felt through experience and whose meaning can be acknowledged through our eventfull lives. i would even define your creative intuition as a ‘religious’ experience. the sensitiveness and feeling involved in that is very ‘religious’ imo.
May 3, 2007 at 9:09 pm #72055
This universe is NOT creative. Since everything and everyone in it is guided by the law of nature, science. When one event leads to another and that first event has no choice but to lead to the next even the first event is not creating the next event, it is simply following the law of nature, which nothing can possibly escape. When we look at a dying star we could say it’s beautiful but the chemical and atomic reactions and gravity that are taking place have no intention of being creative, they are simply taking "order" from the law of nature. They can’t neither be more passionate or less passionate about what they are doing. They have no intelligence on their own. There is nothing creative about this.
May 3, 2007 at 9:15 pm #72056quote Darby:
Until I know what that sent of conditions is I really couldn’t say.
May 4, 2007 at 8:19 pm #72090DarbyParticipant
But you’re assuming there aren’t a wide range of possible conditions that could combine in such a way as to allow life (and potentially intelligent life) to exist.
You’re not alone, though; even many physicists seem to think that if they can’t imagine another universe with the "right" rules, then it must be unlikely that such a universe exists, and our universe must be truly special. But what they’re really doing is imagining OUR universe with the parameters tweaked a little, not at all the same thing.
It’s the same logic that supports Intelligent Design: if I can’t understand how something could happen following perfectly natural rules, then of course supernatural forces must have been at work.
May 4, 2007 at 8:33 pm #72092quote want2know:
How on earth does it not cut it? In my view evolution explains entirely how we came about, it explains perfectly our presence and to me the existence of a "creator" is far less probable. Wheredo you find flaws in the theory?
I also don’t believe that science and religion can get along, giving religion an affiliation with science – intelligent design for example – gives it a credibility that it does not deserve. Any real theory has to be backed up with facts, and there are none which support religion or a god.
Apologies if I have got the gist of this argument wrong, I only found this froum looking for a definition for the Straub tail reaction, but got sucked in!
May 4, 2007 at 8:38 pm #72093quote Sillitovet:
I could think of a fact or two . . .
May 4, 2007 at 9:37 pm #72100
By saying that science is a creator, we are personifying science as another form of God. By saying that the laws of science are somehow "written" with no varyation, we are saying that the universe is absolutely determinate. By saying that the universe is absolutely determinate, we MUST accept that the universe also is finite. By saying that the universe is finite, … we are in the dilemma of first principle again (i.e., in what does the beginnning arise?) If we speculate that the universe is infinite AND determinate, we only say that the universe is indeterminate in a self-contradiction, because INFINITE DETERMINISM equals INDETERMINISM.
I would ask: Where and how are these laws of science written?
The laws of science are written by humankind. These laws are interpretations through the substantial form assemblege of the human body. They are body expressions, thus they are creative,… albeit a rather terse form of creativity is at play here. These laws merely confirm the substantial nature of creative form and creative process.
To emphasize,… an infinite, eternal universe must have unknowns perpetually, or else we could find an end/limit/final solution. This is the hallmark of creativity – continual emergence on some scale beyond KNOWN (created) LAWS.
May 4, 2007 at 11:58 pm #72106
I think the law of science is what exists, it is not subjective but very objective, and some people had the keen ability to see the law of science in action and tried to express it in human language, i.e. Newton, Einstein, Darwin and Freud.
May 5, 2007 at 12:05 am #72107quote Sillitovet:
I am not sure how you are linking evolution and creation? Evolution didn’t create anything. It’s just an expression of a scientific progress prewritten into the fabric of our universe to guide the existance. It’s like say it’s a rock music after listening to a song. But it doesn’t say anything about the song writer and how the song came to be.
May 5, 2007 at 4:36 am #72129quote robertkernodle:
its strange how you explain indeterminism in such a deterministic fashion. it makes me feel as if what you are saying is wrong because of the contradiction in the action.
though id like you to restate your ideas in this post in simpler terms. they are not managible in the language youve used. for instance "These laws are interpretations through the substantial form assemblege of the human body" makes no sense to me. the laws of physics are human body expressions? once again im lost. also could you please explain this ‘continual emergence’ part.
May 5, 2007 at 5:00 am #72130quote Darby:
For one reason or another that sounds very logical to me: if something can’t possibly happen naturally, it must be supernatural.
May 5, 2007 at 8:07 am #72132quote want2know:
I was not meaning creation as in "how the universe came about" or how life started, I meant a comparison between the theory that is given by Darwinism and that which says a creator somehow made us.quote want2know:
Here you have made an extremely illogical argument! Simply because we do not YET understand how something could have happened in no way proves (or gives any weight to) the argument for a supernatural cause. [/quote]
May 5, 2007 at 8:03 pm #72157quote Sillitovet:
You’re trying to cause conflict where there isn’t. Evolution only explains how life developed after it was created, not how it was created in the first place. There is no real contradiction between Darwinism and creation; the two explain completely different events.
May 5, 2007 at 9:07 pm #72160quote alextemplet:
I am 100% with you on this one.quote Sillitovet:
That is exactly it. I do believe that human understanding is very limited. We probably know less than 1% of what is there to know about this universe. And our understanding of what is "natural" is defined by that less than 1%. I am just more open to the possibility that the other 99.9999% will contain supernatural.
And furthermore what is more supernatural to you, a thing always existing or having a beginning? And it’s naturally impossible for any space to continue on forever but at the same time it can’t just end somewhere either (if it does end what is that end, what’s it made up of?). That is the very universe we live in, it really is supernatural.
May 5, 2007 at 10:01 pm #72165
What defines natural and supernatural is a tricky question. I think the definition you are using is that natural is what we can explain and supernatural is what we can’t explain. The natural, then, would be very limited and based on our limited knowledge; the supernatural, by this definition, would encompass most of the universe. By this definition, the origin of the universe, and the cause of the big bang, would be supernatural, since we do not yet know what caused it.
Throwing God into the matter raises more questions than it answers, but based on the evidence I fail to see how God’s existence isn’t a valid possibility. To dismiss something like God simply because it can’t be explained naturally seems, to me, to be an example of only believing what we want to believe. We shouldn’t say that God doesn’t exist simply because He can’t be explained naturally; instead, we should take a good, hard look at the evidence and see if it’s possible for such a being to exist.
May 6, 2007 at 1:32 am #72170quote alextemplet:
isn’t that just a play of words? never the less, from this definition we can see that humanity is moving along an axis from knowing but not yet understanding, to knowing and understanding. many things used to be unexplainable and were thus categorized as supernatural. we had to find out everything we understand now. and before we understood it we gave terms or allegories or characters to these things to give them meaning and a foothold in our conscious. once explained and understood, they werent rejected, but integrated into our knowledge base, they were made more meaningfull.quote alextemplet:
the problem i have with the modern interpretation of God is that it is a bearded guy who sits on a throne in the clouds. i see the stories of god and those in the bible as allegories explaining humans and giving meaning to us through symbols collected in our unconscious. the widespread fundamentalist interpretation of religion is the ying to the yang which is bland, mechanistic, unfeeling science. they exist together, appose one another because they have to to keep the spirit of humanity in balance. if such an extreme interpretation of reality exists, what better to exist than its total opposite. the bible and any other religious text have allegories there waiting to be interpreted and given meaning and so giving ourselves meaning. its quite obvious to see in our time that this idea of god being a guy in the sky is a premise and this is the idea that everything is built on or is sorely rejected. it is this premise which seems to me to be so unnatural and so wrong. god is a symbol for something everlasting and eternal which we cant quite grip yet. and when he does come from that supernatural place of our minds into our conscious, and is explained and understood, we’ll see what he was the symbol for and we’ll see that it did exist all along and it is meaningfull. he will exit his supernatural phase of existance in our minds and enter the ultranatural phase and we will integrate this understanding into our collective knowledge base like weve been doing for so long now. anything that occurs has to be natural, including our intuition of something greater than ourselves. a wholescale collective intuition is evidence enought of its existance. but not as a guy in the sky.
May 6, 2007 at 1:52 am #72171
I understand what you mean by the difference between supernatural and natural; in fact I have considered myself that God is part of the physical, natural universe in a way that we don’t understand. So I have no disagreement with you there. Nor do I disagree on your ideas about what God is or might be. The "guy in the sky" never quite suited my thinking, either, nor does such a deity fit into the evidence I have seen. God, to me, is much more animate, much more a part of our world, and maybe one day we’ll understand Him better. Or maybe not.
May 6, 2007 at 4:26 am #72183quote narrowstaircase:
I am not certain if I completely understand your logic but seems like you have a pretty good understanding of your god. But you are right that only way we can understand the creator is only if He let us in on it. Without it it’s only speculation at best, which we are doing in this Forum, like ants trying to understand human existence (I am sure the gap between God and us is much bigger). It’s beyond the scope of this forum but… God doesn’t exist because we say he exists, He is. This is the God that I believe; manifested through His Word.
May 6, 2007 at 4:45 am #72184
That’s very true, God exists regardless of whether or not we acknowledge Him, understand Him, or want Him.
May 6, 2007 at 6:16 am #72193quote want2know:
you misunderstood me slightly and i will explain how. it has very much to do with our perspectives which i will show you by comparing. a fundamentalist interpretation of religion takes God to be a metaphysical ‘guy in the sky,’ as i stated, who is somehow detached from the universe and sits above it looking down on everything else. my view is that God is the universe and cant actually be seen as something independant of it. through the smallest indivisible fibre of the universe, God is there. not above it or detached, but is actually him. where you say "I am sure the gap between God and us is much bigger", i say there is no gap between God and man. like my previous point. we are indivisible from this eternal and all encompassing ‘thing’ called God. it runs through every fibre of the universe of which we are a part of. where you say "[the] only way we can understand the creator is only if He let us in on it", i say the only way we can understand God is if we let ourselves in on it. i cant explain this except to say that god is seen by practicing introspection, what is the human soul except god? what are his effects on us except our feelings and our idealistic morals that spring from us like instincts. here are some quotes from William Blake that may make it clearer;
"The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged and numerous senses could perceive. And particularly they studied the genius of each city and country, placing it under its mental deity: Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of and enslaved the vulgar by attempting to realise or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began priesthood; Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales. And at length they pronounced that the God’s had ordered such things. Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast."
"The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekial dined with me, and i asked them how they dared so roundly to assert that God spoke to them; and whether they did not think at the time that they would be misunderstood, and so be the cause of imposition. Isaiah answered: I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discovered the infinite in everything, and as i was then persuaded, and remain confirmed, that teh voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote. Then i asked: does a firm persuation that a thing is so, make it so? He replied: All poets believe that it does, and in ages of imagination this firm persuation removed mountains; but many are not capable of a firm persuation of any thing. Then Ezekiel said: The philosophy of the east taught the first principles of human perception: some nations held one principle for the origin, and some another; we of Isreal taught that the Poetic Genius was the first principle and all others merely derivitive…"
May 6, 2007 at 6:22 am #72194quote alextemplet:
reminds me of an old greek saying that i just found the other day, "Called or not called, God shall be there."
May 6, 2007 at 9:10 am #72199quote alextemplet:
I think you misunderstood what I meant by saying creator, I was refering to the theory that there has been some sort of "intelligent design" or that a higher being created living things. NOT the creation of the universe (which, incidentally, I hope shall one day be explained by science) at all. And for this definition of the word creator I would say there is a conflict between science and this aspect of religion.
Reading above it seems that several people almost mis-interpret the meanings given by others to try and make their own argument! Much of the discussion seems to be nit-picking over the exact definitions of words rather than over the subject itself.
I wonder why some people believe and others do not, is it to do with their parents beliefs? My father is an atheist so perhaps that is the reason I am also, it is hard to throw aside childhood beliefs forged by authoritative figures. On the other hand my belief is backed by evidence.quote alextemplet:
This phrase sounds good, but it underlines the escape clause of many religions – "you can’t prove he isn’t there, so he must be". Equally I could say; God doesn’t exist, regardless of whether or not we acknowledge him, try to understand him or want him.
edit: I don’t know if this has been posted before but this man can articulate my feelings better than I am able! http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113
May 6, 2007 at 3:12 pm #72211
I dislike the term "intelligent design" because it is too often used solely to describe anti-evolutionary ideas. However, if we accept the fact that the laws of science are sufficient to explain the universe – and I seriously think they are – then that still does not rule out the possibility that those laws themselves were designed by an intelligent creator. After all, in an infinite universe, what can’t be true?
It is a tad ignorant to write off religious belief as the sole work of parental figures. My family sincerely lacked faith, and yet I am very devout. I came to my faith through my own investigation, after I took a good, long hard look at the evidence and realized that the evidence really does support the existence of God.
May 6, 2007 at 10:19 pm #72217quote Sillitovet:
i think the responses by ‘K Honey’ and ‘Robert Thomas’ are valid points in response to Dawkin’s own ‘non-belief’. Also ‘Jeremy Needleman’ makes excellent points in interpreting such a uniquely English talk with all its nuances.
although i must quote a song writer in response to Dawkins, "if theres no truth and who cares, how come you say it like you’re right?"
edit: i dont like the way he clumps Einstein and Hawkings into his own mindset and understanding of reality and in essence speaks for them. ive said this before on this forum and ill say it again. the people who interpret the word God as a metaphorical symbol for something eternal and all encompassing (Einstein and Hawkings) have much more in common with fundamentalist believers than they do with atheists. simply because atheists reject value in life by emphasising dry facts. the grass is green, the sky is blue, this mechanism works in this way, and so on. claiming these dry facts to be ‘the ultimate truth’ but in doing so dismissing any meaning behind that knowledge which is the real truth. a quote from Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." i dont think Dawkins would say anything like this and yet he feels its imperitive to categorise such a great thinker and imaginitive mind with his own. If he feels such distain towards the word God then why doesnt he make a speech centred on the way its been interpreted by different people. he could put himself in such an investigation and see how he has so narrowly confined its interpretation and meaning. infact its like i said before. this literal interpretation of God is so unnaturally detached from humans personal experience with life that it has resulted in the forging of two camps which are readying to make war on one another. fundamentalist religion and cold, mechanistic, unfeeling science. two extremes whos existance is only validated by their ‘opponent’ and ‘all-or-nothing’ status. another quote from Einstein which he had in his obituary, "the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research." His view of life doesnt even compare to Dawkins’ in my honest opinion.
May 7, 2007 at 1:51 am #72220quote Sillitovet:
that ‘escape clause’ is very deterministic and doesn’t do justice to the religious experience im trying hard to communicate. have you ever read The Little Prince? chapter four is especially relevant to this difference in perspective. http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/chapter4.html
these lines: "Just so, you might say to them: ‘The proof that the little prince existed is that he was charming, that he laughed, and that he was looking for a sheep. If anybody wants a sheep, that is a proof that he exists.’ And what good would it do to tell them that? They would shrug their shoulders, and treat you like a child."
i love this book. although it is futile to impose such a view on someone else i hope you can appreciate this perspective as at least existing and being relevent in the lives of other people. if there is something within me that feels intimately connected with life, if through me it strives for higher levels of consciousness and makes its character known through ideals such as compassion and selflessness and love, isnt that proof enough that it exists? and cant i call that thing God? or in William Blakes perspective the Poetic Genius?
May 7, 2007 at 3:50 am #72229quote narrowstaircase:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that EVERYTHING is god. In that sense, since everything is god, the very urge to let ourselves in on it is also god but at the same time the urge not wanting to believe in god is also the same god. It’s not just our internal struggles about the existence of god but there are so many conflicting forces in play in this universe. Are these apparent conflicts merely our lack of understanding as only a tiny part of the whole god? If so how in world can we trust this inadequate part of god to be doing all it can to let itself to be known as a part god, if even possible?
And also, to me I can’t understand the difference between no god, but merely believing in the existence, and your god, which is another way of saying the same thing only divinizing the existence.
May 7, 2007 at 4:00 am #72230quote Sillitovet:
but I would argue your logic for not believing in existence of God, although I haven’t hear it yet and would love to, would be more illogical than for His existence.
May 7, 2007 at 6:39 am #72231quote want2know:
by saying that, i meant that there is an internal meaning and inherant value in everything. the consistancy of the value might be termed God. i dont know really. The psychological conflicts in human nature, the dichotomies, called The Human Condition is explained in Jeremy Griffith’s books. that is where i would look if i were you, to learn more about that in particular.
ive tried to explain to the best of my ability using quotes from people i think will help in communicating my perspective. i just wanted to emphasise that for alot of people God isnt a guy in the sky and that religion means more to some people than a set of rules, or a detached figure of authority and supreme power. maybe the next step in understanding me is in mobilising your imagination.
if you arent just antagonising me for the sake of a debate i would suggest you read authors like Laurens van der Post, Carl Gustav Jung, Jeremy Griffith, Pierre Tielhard de Chardin. these people are the four pillars of my personal development. Jung and Griffith are scientists of the highest regard.
May 7, 2007 at 7:04 am #72232
Narrowstaircase, sorry if I came out as if I were antagonising you. That was not my intention. I truly wanted to understand the link. And by asking the first question that there are conflicting forces, I saw myself a possible rebuttal to that logic and just wanted to save some time by playing both sides. I do wish that you do share with me what you have picked up from your reading. As I am not much of a reader, if you haven’t noticed already by my communication skills, unless I have to. I do prefer gettting it straight from the horse’s mouth if you will.
It seems your understanding of Christian God is not all accurate. You continue suggesting that God is detached. If you don’t mind I would also like to suggest a reading or two. Mere Christianity by CS Lewis and the Bible by God.
May 7, 2007 at 7:37 am #72233quote want2know:
i have the bible but have not got very far into it yet! 😀 im only up to leviticus. ive been reading other things. but when i do i dont interpret it literally. that will probably be the point we will agree to disagree on. the christian god has meant different things to different people. i think it has to do with what you experience personally. a relationship of sorts with life, yourself and your ideals.
ps: start reading!
May 8, 2007 at 1:19 am #72339quote narrowstaircase:
But there really is one God and I don’t disagree that He might mean different things to different people. But I am sure they don’t think their God is different from my God, if they are truly Christians.
May 10, 2007 at 5:35 pm #72496
Sorry I seemed to go AWOL on this discussion, but I injured my knee and couldn’t walk to my usual place of contemplation to chime in for the past few days. I’m back to a functional limp, so I’ll see what I can add:
In your response to me a few days ago, you seemed to disqualify any attempt at stating an indeterminate universe by citing language itself as absolutely deterministic in its ability to state indeterminsm.
Nice trick, but it doesn’t work. Systems can speak of the potential of other systems outside themselves. See Goedel. Language, therefore, does not disqualify its own discussion of its limitations.
I say, "The universe is indeterminate".
You say, "That statement is determinate, so it is self-contradictory".
I say, "No,… that statement is a clear statement of its own limits." Clarity and definition are human perceptions marked by human expressions, all the while knowing their containment in a larger system of indeterminate other forms.
May 10, 2007 at 5:54 pm #72497
Now more generally,
A consistent observation is not strictly a finite, bounded event of absolute closure. Such an observation is a resonance (of a vibration) between different levels of organization, whose measurement is a peak in a range of indeterminate "in betweens".
Quantum physics seems to insist that there are NO "in betweens" past a certain scale – there are only peaks and jumping from peak to peak, with no intermittent slopes (since we cannot seem to see any).
This inevitably leads some of us to ask, "In what do these peaks exist?",… to which the quantum purists reply, "This is not our concern – we only care about what we observe, and we avoid the question of an underlying reality altogether, since this is not good science (to ask such a question)."
To me, this is the same as saying, "In between the quantum peaks,… we deny the existence of the word ‘be’. We deny "being", except as measurement. We deny being’s existence beyond measurement, which being logically MUST enable this very measurement."
This is NOT good sense. Is eliminating good sense the price of good science?
I suggest not. We seem to need a substrate of BEING itself, in order to have any basis for anything at all. Then we seem to need to describe the nature of this BEING-substrate in such a way that allows flexibility, maleability and organization on all scales visible and invisible to us. We assume that always something indeterminate lies outside any boundary of any law we can establish.
We simply canNOT deny existence outright beyond known bounds. We seem better to model the potential of the unknown too, in such a way that it allows for the known we see.
String theorists already do this, but their terms still seem somehow rigid and subsidiary to yet another level of reasoning.
RK – (to be continued)
May 10, 2007 at 8:21 pm #72508
Interesting. I actually started a new post in the ecology section asking the same thing you have hinted at – if we cannot scientifically test something, should we ignore it (basically)?
May 11, 2007 at 12:41 pm #72543quote robertkernodle:
i didnt do that. that was a presumption on your part. and now a premise of your argument. i dont hold that language is independant of the user so i couldnt possibly cite language itself.quote robertkernodle:
i have no tricks. i am in awe of the reflective power of the human mind. someone said, and i forget who, but they said, "we dont only know, we know that we know."quote robertkernodle:
therein lies the thing i was talking about. you didnt just ‘say’ the universe is indeterminite. you gave a process of how you came to that conclusion. i was questioning the validity of the process. the ‘logical’ steps you took to come to that conclusion were rigid and consequential. not imaginitive and exploratory.
Goedels work has been explained in this way:
(rational thought = logic?)
"rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth" which is what Goedel was proving mathematically.
as far as i can see Goedels work can be used in highlighting the insufficiency of a semi functioning brain, one that only utilises the right side, or logical side. it seems he has only worked with and described logic and how it functions independantly. we know there are two differently functioning sides of the brain. its a shame the other is so deprived of validity.quote robertkernodle:
the last sentence is so intellectualised its become cryptic in my honest opinion. nevertheless, to say your statement is clear then add that clarity is a human perception, i assume (if im wrong correct me here) you mean subjective, adds no validity to your statement.
to show you the boundaries you make in communicating here is what i think the last sentence means as far as i can tell.
"Clarity and definition are human perceptions marked by human expressions, all the while knowing their containment in a larger system of indeterminate other forms"
Clarity and definitions are subjective and are expressed using language, all the while knowing…. idk the rest. so please explain things in simpler terms. im a bit slow 😳
Is the universe deterministic or not? i dont know. i just thought that the way you came to that conclusion was relevant to reflect on. and i am going to buy one of Goedels books asap! so thankyou!
May 11, 2007 at 5:13 pm #72560
Meee! "Not imaginative and exploratory"..!! 🙂
Oh come now, narrowstaircase,… let’s not use a slight dissonance on your part to a particular tonal aspect of my delivery as a claim for "unimaginative".
I’m cool, however. It’s always good to see what one person’s words draw from another.
I hope to prove that I can be very imaginative and exploratory.
DISCLAIMER: My above waste of valuable forum space is a preemptive measure to keep my own ego in tact, while at the same time preventing a flame war that will cause moderational intervention for the entertainment of all,… and may (by virtue of the slight emotional overtone without significant content) be deleted at the moderator’s discretion, … however, which might serve as a negative example of HOW NOT TO USE THIS MESSAGE BOX 😀
May 11, 2007 at 5:46 pm #72561
Ah,.. such gaps to fill in my qualitative outlook!
But here goes with a continuation of my post of Thus May 10, 2007 5:54 PM:
In my view, it makes sense to say that peaks of resonance that we call "observations" emerge continuously from a progressively less organized level of the one substrate of being. These peaks of observation establish themselves anew each and every time.
I call this coming into being by the label, "create". I speak of the one substrate of being as "creating" forms, relationships, qualities, etc.
OR events create themselves from the one substrate of being. The nature of being is such that it is its own substance,… noun and verb, … stuff and motion,… created and creator.
BEING is a noun – a stuff – a substance.
BEING is a verb – an action – a motion.
BEING is both the above simultaneously, indivisibly as a first principle of all that we can say characterizes being.
BEING need not be a person. BEING just is – the basis of personhood – the basis of mind – the basis of consciousness – the basis of higher organization of itself.
From a human perspective, observational peaks seem locked in and absolutely bounded,… and we call these experiences "laws". They ARE laws. They are OUR laws,… NOT the laws of an eternally unchanging NATURE or the laws of an eternally fixed SCIENCE.
Laws are transient PARTS of nature, immersed in endless other possible laws of eternity.
Think of it this way:
If we envision our observable universe as a big tidal wave, then we regard this universe as a stable dynamic form. We never see the wave break, because on an eternal cosmic scale, this "break" is slow beyond any mortal comprehension.
Eternity, however, might have infinitely many such waves that break and reform, … none of which is EXACTLY the same form of any that has broken and reformed before.
Even if we call this "God", then God never could possibly know what he is doing exactly over the eternity of his existence. God could not even know himself completely,… omnipotently, since omnipotence that is infinite and eternal is NEVER self-grasping COMPLETELY. Knowledge without end connot contain itself. Intelligence without end cannot know itself, since such knowing never stops coming into being.
The process or action of knowing is infinite and eternal (without end). Thus, there is no final self-knowing that we can call omnipotent God.
Eternity, thus, is something other than willful, intentional intelligence. Eternity is emergent, creative, self-organizing substance/action ultimately unpredictable,… with NO central awareness over its infinite eternal possible extent.
We are part of this grand eternal emergent process. We are the very intimate "stuff" of the creative universe come to know itself.
The universe BECOMES us!
The universe CREATES life!
We ARE the universe in part. Life is a quality of the universe. Life is and UNAVOIDABLE consequence of eternity.
Biology, then, is the study of a very minute part of eternity.
Evolution is a description of local events in a very minute part of eternity.
Evolution cannot square off against God, because BOTH are of the same consequence.
God and evolution are different forms of description. The very idea that they are in competition begs an invalid question.
I can explain myself as a creator of art. Or I can explain every neuromuscular firing that enables the actions that lead to specific creations. The latter technical description does not invalidate the former qualitative description,… any more than evolution invalidates God.
May 11, 2007 at 7:57 pm #72567quote :
I’m sure this is what people (about 5 pages ago) have been saying all along…
(and dont worry about the arguments – I myself recently had a spat in another topic…the mods just seem to lock the page lol)
May 11, 2007 at 11:12 pm #72575quote robertkernodle:
nooo! i didnt mean you. i think you are very imaginitive and exploratory, very cool 8) thats why i wait intently for you to write something . i dont like the internet for the most part because of the break down in communication but where else am i going to discuss this stuff? and if im wrong about something tell me!! i need to know!! dont give up on me! but im lucky though, you introduced me to Goedel, what do you think of his work as it relates to things outside mathematics?
edit: if you dont mind can you tell me what you are educated in? i guess physics. also, if these ideas are borrowed or developed from somewhere can you tell me the titles or authors?
May 12, 2007 at 2:24 am #72579JDavidEParticipantquote jeremiah_1990:
Just two questions here, Jeremiah. The second one first: Why would the human race go to the trouble of making up a theory in order to neglect God? Where is the profit in it? And why, if they did, would they choose one that was incorrect?
The more important question is which God? Do you mean the God of Abraham: Vindictive; given to outbursts of rage and jealousy; cruel; neglectful; unjust and just plain mean?
Or do you put your faith into the more gentle, Jesus, his son? The problem there is the interpretation of that rule about ‘having no other Gods before me’. You make a mistake and get on the wrong side of his old man and you are just asking for trouble. Another problem is getting on to Jesus in order to intercede. Do you follow the ritual laid down by the Vatican or is it okay to take the more relaxed petition of the Protestants? How do you know for sure when you’ve got a dial tone? The good news is that the Protestants got so relaxed no one bothers much anymore. Now they are talking of reconciliation with the Vatican in order to get their numbers up. That should make it easier to follow the proper protocols.
Still, it would be a mistake to make an error in judgment here. Maybe Islam is the way to go. Allah may be the guy. No, wait, isn’t that still the God of Abraham, just with a corrupted spelling of his name? Besides, which Mufti are you going to believe? They all seem to interpret the Koran a little differently and God might decide a couple of plagues or some pestilence may be in order to make us toe the line.
Well, how about Vishnu or Buddha or maybe that cool God of the Incas? Maybe the Native Americans got it right with Manitou. Although I don’t recall him saying that he did the whole creation bit, he just seemed to be in charge of keeping it all working.
I don’t know, Jeremiah, it’s all just too difficult. You make just one simple mistake and choose the wrong guy and that’s it. No second chances. No correspondence will be entered into. It’s not hard being a theist, but boy, it really is difficult to guess which way to genuflect.
On second thoughts, Jeremiah, maybe you’ve got it wrong. Maybe the theory of an all-encompassing God is an incorrect theory made up by the human race to explain how everything works. Maybe your theory is just a silly superstition and the scientists are becoming better at explaining the wonders of our universe and of life here on our tiny planet. At least there is some way of testing their theory without having to die first. Keep the faith, Jeremiah, keep the faith. But buy a microscope.
May 12, 2007 at 3:04 pm #72583
Hang on a sec…I thought Jesus was song of God, not actually God :S
May 12, 2007 at 3:39 pm #72584
I really hope you’re just playing dumb…
May 12, 2007 at 8:58 pm #72590
Looks like i missed out on another "fun" discussion.
May 12, 2007 at 9:28 pm #72592quote AstusAleator:
I’ve been watching in the background, chiming in every now and then.
May 13, 2007 at 7:59 am #72599quote :
WTH does this mean? why would anyone give the God of Abraham all these ‘respectful’ attributes?
May 13, 2007 at 12:08 pm #72603
Worst thread ever.
May 13, 2007 at 3:18 pm #72613
@ Mith: 😉
@ James: Constructive.
May 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm #72669
May 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm #72683
Worst close-minded dismissal ever, James. Whenever somebody takes time to imply that a thread is not worth anybody else’s time, then I know it’s worth it.
In the few forums that I’ve been in, the most consistently high-response threads (without exception) involve threads with the word "God" in them. This includes technology, science, art.
Now to narrowstaircase:
As I hinted, it’s best not to go with absolute first reactions OR to go with them comically,… because words are pretty malleable things.
I’ve been mispelling "Godel" (this is the correct spelling). I was getting it confused with Goethe (did I spell that right?) and the fact that I cannot indicate the double-period mark (forgot the correct name of it) over the letter "o".
You asked what I think about applying Godel’s ideas to areas outside mathematics. I’m NOT an expert, but I’ve read cautionary notes that strict applications outside math should be treated as metaphors, since strict application might lead to outright misapplication. But the place I read this seemed to contradict itself. So, I don’t know.
I’m a creative thinker, getting my ideas from places I tend to forget.
I’m a childhood math-science fan turned dancer/artist/philosopher in later life. Lots of university courses all over the place. Lots of self study. I’ve been a fitness guru/competitor. Into yoga. Okay, enough on that – I won’t tell you my sign – (I promise, forum members 8)) .
May 14, 2007 at 10:43 pm #72693
But this is an evolution section of a biology site. This topic has been covered so many times, check out our search function. Its not even relevant for this forum, let alone the evolution/darwinism section. This thread should at least be moved into the off topic section. Its a science forum. There used to be a forum rule about no religious posts/topics, and I don’t know why that was revoked.
May 15, 2007 at 2:24 am #72707
I think this thread has been interesting so far, and somewhat intelligent as well. It’s a nice change from the usual angry violent slug fest.
May 15, 2007 at 7:18 am #72711dr. dugmoreParticipantquote alextemplet:
i agree, im keepin, this topic alive!!!!
god : 1
May 15, 2007 at 9:02 am #72716quote robertkernodle:
what do you mean by that?quote robertkernodle:
i think the functioning of the left side of the brain can be understood by his work and doesnt need a translation into metaphor. but thats just my opinion. it sounds very much like it as far as ive read.quote robertkernodle:
thats called plagarism 😆quote robertkernodle:
oh please tell me what youve studied and read!! and how old are you? i need to know this thanks ❗
May 15, 2007 at 7:55 pm #72730
Einstein plagerized Minkowski, then. 🙂
Ph.D. candidates plagerize all their cited sources.
"Plagerize" is a bit strong, I think. "Synthesize" might serve us better here, since this is NOT a strictly-juried scholarly publication.
If you have a specific question about a specific idea that you think I have, then ask about it specifically, and I will attempt (dreadfully, perhaps) to recall how it came about.
As for telling you my age, …. well,… I am ….. TIMELESS. 😀
As to your question about what I meant by my comical reference to language,…. well,… I am just suggesting that we reamain a bit open to its use, not getting all locked up over a particular phrase or word.
This is a place of dialogue, so my experience tells me to be flexible to allow for its flow. David Bohm would have agreed.
May 15, 2007 at 8:10 pm #72732
This is a biology site. This is an evolution subcategory of a biology site. The topic headline, however, poses a conflict between the concept of evolution and the concept of God. Thus, we seem to be on topic, as I see it. Off YOUR preferred path, perhaps,… but still on topic.
Underlying philosophy plays a role in our biology, as well.
I think that we have to ask, "Why is the subject of God raised so many times in so many supposedly highly intelligent discussion forums?" Perhaps this in itself points to the idea that feelings about a God are somehow biologically programmed into us at the genetic level,… orchestrated by your own seemingly strictly evolutionary mechanism.
And new people are coming into the website all the time,… so what is old to you is new to the new.
You criticize the topic here,… yet, … YOU KEEP ON READING THE POSTS.
Speaks to a higher power, … wouldn’t ya say? 😉
May 15, 2007 at 9:37 pm #72737
I have read very few of the posts in this topic. The title said it all to me. However, I really respect the immense biological importance in your discussion on plagiarism, your age and the topic of your own marvellous vocabulary and literary skills. Why we have fewer biologists on this site nowadays baffles me.
May 16, 2007 at 5:59 am #72749
concerning your twin posts:
this talk of inbetweens and resonance peaks, is it a metaphor? or are you really talking about the physicality of the universe and then linking that to an idea of god? it seems far too physically orientated.
the inbetweens and resonance peaks when interpreted literally appears to be what i know of as the intergration of matter. where smaller units of matter come together to form a new whole. then those new units of matter come together to form another new whole and so on. the universe experiments in new combinations of these parts each time a new level is created. when we extrapolate this downwards we see an eternity, this ‘substrate of being’ as youve defined it. this eternal march downwards into the indivisible that can never be reached is what youve termed god. once again, this emphasis on existence, on physicality, on being, is insufficient as a new paradigm and also escapist. i will explain why later.
when you say:quote :
i think you are dismissing our capacity to see the truth. i wouldnt say they are ‘our’ laws, so much as they are the laws that we observe in our part of the universe and in our spec of time along the course of eternity (quite politically correct). from that perspective i can not say whether the laws of the universe have changed through eternity or not. we just dont know (but you seem to know this as true?). the only way i can interpret this idea of new laws is only in relation to new levels on the heirarchy of matter. or in your terms, new peaks require new laws to interact. but they dont replace eachother. so the laws of interaction are different for atoms, are different for molecules, are different for organisms. but whole systems of laws utterly replacing another i cant comment on. that would be a guess.
in your wave analogy there is also an emphasis on form, or physicality. there is also emphasis on knowledge and intelligence as it relates to this eternal spectrum of matter. i think you have missed the point. i would like to emphasise understanding here. how does understanding relate to our universe? the human brain has a unique ability to observe and reflect in the mind, patterns. patterns can be local and eternal. patterns highlight the understandable in the eternal. patterns are the complete self-grasping of the eternal. what you have done thus far is undermine our knowledge of patterns, which we term laws for the association of matter, in favour of ‘creativity’, or should i say chaos.
in this dismissal of laws and our ability to recognise them you go even further than fundamentalists do in disassociating human experience from god or truth. when i first read these posts i was suddently stricken with worry. how could we be searching, for how ever long we have been, for god, only to be told he is unnatainable? how could we search for meaning, for direction, only to be told the universe is ‘creative’ (chaotic) and that is all the meaning inherant in it? it was a worrying feeling which i now understand the cause of. your idea is very much a case of explaining god by making him unexplainable.
the only time you acknowledge something beyond physical:quote :
what you did there is create new labels, new definitions, new categories, yet no new understanding. nevermind how personality, consciousness and conscience came to exist within a biological framework. just remember that ‘being’ is the basis of them. what is ‘being’? oh that is that ungraspable, unintelligible, unknowable, eternal thing between resonance peaks… it doesnt make sense. it doesnt make anything understandable.
i do however find it surprising that you include (twice) within your post the words, higher organisation. i have to ask you what this means to you because what it is to me is actually a pattern! self organisation. the second path to the second law of thermodynamics. negative entropy. but what is it to you?
here again is the emphasis on explaining something nonphysical, using a physical example:quote :
was it the actions that lead to the creation? id like to think it came from much deeper. though i do agree on one aspect of your post. evolution and god are different perspectives of the same thing.
May 16, 2007 at 6:20 am #72750quote James:
how did conscience and consciousness come to exist within a biological context? how did ethics and hate come to exist within a single species within a biological context? how did a mass singular thing such as belief come to exist within a biological context?
is that good enough for you or do you want me to ask you while juggling and jumping through fiery hoola-hoops of death?
why must something be important to you to be discussed? dont come here and get owned for being unconstructive then come back to nitpick the words in posts you dont think are rellevant. they are rellevent to me and i like to know such things about people. not to banter in intellectuall dead ends. i like to know the basis of peoples ideas. why is that a problem?quote James:
because you’re a twat?
May 16, 2007 at 7:24 am #72752quote :
All of which have no relation to Evolution and Darwinism. There are plenty of good philiosophy forums where I’m sure you would be greeted welcomingly.quote :
It’s all making more sense now.quote :
Why not indulge in your creepy tendencies through a PM?quote :
Rule 7. Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated and will lead to a warning or straight off ban
May 16, 2007 at 7:47 am #72755
god… its irrelevent where it is.. its on this site. lets lobby for it to be moved to general. i will be the first person to sign if you promise to shut up. why are you so pedantic. you come in here guns blazing because you dont like it? deal with it. if you dont like the topic stay out of it. if you think the topic is bringing disrepute to science it time to get out of james world.
[edit: did you read the name of the topic? **god** in direct relation to **evolution** is being discussed. once again. if you dont like it tuff.]
May 16, 2007 at 10:21 am #72765
I just think someone new looking for some real talk on evolution/Darwinism would be put off seeing this as the main thread.
May 16, 2007 at 11:07 am #72767
I can sympathise with James to an extent here – this topic has become rather exclusive (but that’s fine). The yeast thread a while ago had a similar effect on me.
However, since James brought up rules:quote :
And I suppose I’ve just gone and done the exact same thing myself lol
May 16, 2007 at 1:05 pm #72769
My point of view is that of an active member since February 2005, not a mod. O and thanks for the support.
May 16, 2007 at 5:09 pm #72778
Thanks for considering me worth the time you spend on my responses. Today I don’t have time to show you equal courtesy, but tomorrow I’ll try to give you equal consideration.
Give me a chance to respond to your last post, before you post again,… okay?
Generally, (as a warm up) I AM coming from a very physical angle. As I have been hinting, grasping "stuff" is how a human knows.
I suggest that the primary concept needs to be stuff, NOT spirit,… all the while knowing that we can never touch (i.e., grasp) a final, basement-level stuff,… all the while knowing that always there will be another stuff to try grasping.
God is the stuff we can never grasp,… IF we so choose to use the term "God", … which I want to make clear that I do NOT in my usual daily life.
Again, I need time to consider your last post in detail. Thanks.
May 16, 2007 at 5:14 pm #72780
"Grain of salt",… kotoreru. 🙂
If we cannot talk about how we talk, then how will we know what to make of what we think we might be saying? (WARNING: Excessive use of emoticons about to happen!!) 🙂 😀
May 17, 2007 at 9:46 pm #72817
responding to your post of Wed May 16 2007 5:59 AM:
I don’t have time to dissect dialectically every single sentence of your reply.
I can do a quick reply on a couple of points, however:
About resonances, peaks and in-betweens: Metaphor? No. More lieteral. Based on ideas of universal PHYSICAL substrate (substance) of varying density. Related to such ideas as zero-point energy field, except energy needs a substance to energize. Related to such ideas as "aether", except NOT the SOLID TRADITIONAL aether,… but superfluid and conceptualized on non-linear modeling.
"Far too physically oriented", you say. I ask, "Why does this raise a discord in you?
About your idea of laws: Just as you believe that I cannot know that laws change, I believe that you cannot know that laws are even laws. You only can surmise this through limited experience, then extrapolate this over an eternity that you will never encompass. This is the only truth that I believe we can determine locally in an indeterminate infinity.
This indeterminate infinity is what enables evolution, which is just another word for motion and change of substantial form. Evolution never stops. Time is never reversable. No seeming repetition is an exact repetition. Substance is the attitude that must guide knowing and meaning. Moving (active) substance beyond human grasp or forever out of reach of human capacity to know… is what I believe inspires the concept of God.
God, thus, might be seen more favorably as eternal evolution, which Darwinists merely localize in specific terms related to specific human circumstances.
May 18, 2007 at 6:16 am #72832
I just broke into the forum after a long break so I am not ready to read every post but as james said the topic says it all.I don’t know why humans are so curious about this topic may be because religion is so close to their lives they would never give up defending it.I told my friend that religion and God is not true but as long as he is happy in believing in God then that is not a problem[as long as he doesn’t fight with science].But always these religious guys have a upper hand in attracting people to their side because if you believe in God you belief in you more than ever and hence you can achieve more.Religion is like a drug which a person who has a disease should take.If others take it it is bad.Evolution has better proof than God .I still can’t understand how you can deny what you see and believe in something you have never seen.
May 18, 2007 at 9:33 am #72834
Why is it that all the athiests i have met on this forum are named "David"?? Is this just a coincidence or is there a theory behind this??
May 18, 2007 at 9:54 am #72836quote cracked_doc:
there is a theory
May 18, 2007 at 10:38 am #72837quote robertkernodle:
it doesnt do justice to all of mans experience.quote robertkernodle:
evolution is what you say it is on a physical level. though i can see a direction and constant pattern. the arrangement of units (cells) come together in different ways to create new and different wholes (organisms). this is where creativity bursts forth. but hasnt it always been this way? atoms come together, molecules come together so forth to multicelled organisms, all the way from that undifinable substrate of the universe. that is the pattern im talking about. always towards stable, more complex arrangements of matter. what i believe, is that the relationship of the parts is more important than their existance. without acknowledging this relationship the wholes become irrelevent. in my mind, if you dismiss the relationship of the parts then the existance of that very substance you fervently crouch over as a mechanistic ‘objective’ observer becomes an illusion. the relationship is the matter. if you make the law (relationship of the matter) an illusion, then the matter itself becomes an illusion.quote robertkernodle:
i disagree. the way the substance interacts guides knowing and meaning in my opinion. in your example you can obtain meaning from a picture, since it is a depiction of only existance, of only being. this cant happen because we need time to experience the changes occurring. we need a movie which depicts the interactions of the parts. which laws of physical and biological science attempt to reflect.
May 18, 2007 at 12:55 pm #72839quote David George:
Wow, that’s some pretty offensive stuff. Said in a very off-hand way. I really think you should exercise some discretion with those views… even on a ‘Science’ forum.
Science never has proof, of anything. All we can do is supply the evidence such that particular beliefs are dis-proven.
May 18, 2007 at 3:12 pm #72844quote :
What is the theory plzz?
May 18, 2007 at 4:02 pm #72847mehdi71000Participant
I think it’s amazing how a human is assembled molecule by molecule. And there is no protein in any organism that modifies DNA. so how does a cell evolve to be a human. I read some ware that when earth was not populated by any living organism, by chance of lightning’s molecules combined by chemical reaction and formed a cell. But my teacher told me if you take a jar and put lairs of different beans neatly in it and shake it for 10 million years you will never get the combination you started with. Just like if you put a drop of ink in a glass of water. If you shake it for millions of year’s you’ll never get the ink back.
And some say evolution is a result of selective breeding were the strong and best survive. If so if you have 400 Citroens and you race them every day till one after one wares out you will not be left with a BMW only a strong Citroen witch is not a good thing :->.
There are many questions in why human beings are created. I’m a Muslim and I know Islam has been changed so people have different views of things and its becoming like a university physics course. In Islam how ever stated that you cannot change Quran. And in Quran it says our souls have chosen there own destinies in life. And we are part of a experiment. and there is no eternal hell for no body. How ever bad you’ve been you simply have hell witch it stated the fuel is stones and human souls. And you spend your time in there according to your sins and after that you’ll go to heaven. witch is you have 7 stages according to your good deeds. So we are part of an experiment and we do get our wage after wards and since we have feiling and im sure you know how it feels to be robed or being bullied the bad will pay for causing you pain . Please note god created satin. Why won’t he destroy him? I think satin is like a filter in an experiment. Maybe god needed some thing to pull away us from god to see how we would react with out god . But I think what ever your beliefs it’s good to live in faith. It’s healthy too .and people who truly do bad things they do get punished in this world to. And if a creator created this world and every thing in it has to be very smart. Its good aswell to ask god for guidance and help. God is god what ever your religion or non religion. You must have a creator. And I like this topic very much its very deep and when ever I think about it I always realise life from a different angle. and please can some one tell me were i can get some GFP on a vector.
May 18, 2007 at 10:27 pm #72855JDavidEParticipant
Seemingly, no one has noticed that Jeremiah, who originally posed the question, having put the cat amongst the pigeons has quietly slipped away, his mischief done. There are twelve pages devoted to this pointless debate and no further interest by Jeremiah.
When fundamentalists (in any sphere of debate, not just religious belief) feel threatened, challenged or emasculated, the tendency is to resort to violence. Jeremiah simply planted a rhetorical car bomb.
Do you suppose we can just sweep up the mess and go back to debating the merits of Darwinism? His book was not about the origin of life; it was about the Origin of the Species.
May 18, 2007 at 10:28 pm #72856quote cracked_doc:
david —> – a,- d —> + e, + l —-> devil 😈
‘el’ sounds like ill. and ‘ad’ sound like add. they add ill, in other words they are sick. they are soul sick… they have no souls…..
May 18, 2007 at 10:39 pm #72857quote JDavidE:
i think the OP was more focused on the origin of the human species, not the origin of life, and the lack of meaning implicit in the scientific paradigm. since science doesnt acknowledge meaning theres nowhere to go with this. evolution does explain the mechanics behind speciation, but if you are looking for meaning in it you will have to get it where you find it i think.
May 19, 2007 at 3:20 pm #72872
hahahahahaha…thats a good theory but the "Davids wont be too happy bout it
May 19, 2007 at 7:05 pm #72875
And, matter is in the relationship. We do not disagree; we just have our respective focal points slightly out of sync.
Relationship cannot exist without a substrate. But neither can a substrate exist that is not in relationships.
Creation, evolution, being requires a polarity in constant symbiogenisis, yet with NO absolute divide.
Being is substance AND motion, as I have said, simultaneously, indivisibly.
The way we can conceive of this is via a fluid substrate with the motion of a fluid substrate, which allows great degrees of freedom for evolution. Some folks might even call this duality "GOD". I do not.
Taoism (in my opinion) might be a broader spiritual point of view to accomodate our passion for the ineffable infinite, of which evolution is a valid description.
The point I think that needs to be made here is that all believers in God are not exactly the same quality of belief. All aetheists (if we so use the term) are not exactly the same quality of belief.
There are fervent scientists, schooled in the strictest math who believe in God. There are ignorant people who would believe anything any scientist would say, rather than believe anything about God (which makes science their God).
May 20, 2007 at 2:57 pm #72889
Why would strict mathematicians not believe in God?
May 20, 2007 at 6:02 pm #72897quote David George:
I think you might want to re-check some of your assumptions. Religion a drug? I suppose truth is a pretty powerful narcotic, then. I would not believe in God if I did not have the evidence of what I have seen. You are wrong to so casually dismiss religious belief as the dementia of some diseased mind. If only you could see what I have seen.
The question I have is, why must evolution and religious be opposed to each other in the first place?
May 20, 2007 at 10:53 pm #72902quote robertkernodle:
the point i was making is that if you see a star on the other side of the universe we can extrapolate that it came to exist via the same laws, or relationship of it constituent parts, as the stars on this side of the universe, because the matter is indevisisble from the string of relationships that led to it existing. it appears in your posts that you dont think that but think that laws are malleable and dont define whats really going on and at best are subjective fractured interpretation of a localised event. this pov is unfounded if it truly is your pov. which is why i said, that the relationship of the parts that make the whole, is as important as the matter itself.
"being is substance and motion; simultaneously, indivisibly" are still catchphrases and dont prove any point. being is matter and the relationship of matter?? its hard to see what you are saying.
the way you conceive of it is through fluid ‘substrate’ and ‘motion’. this idea of yours is chaos theory.
but the main point that i got from these posts is that you think the ‘substrate’ of the universe, and the impossibility of ever actually knowing what it is, is the thing that inspired the idea of god. i disagree, and that can be the end of it.
May 21, 2007 at 10:13 am #72932quote :
The last person who said that to me was a ‘born again’ Christian. I reserve judgement…
May 21, 2007 at 3:59 pm #72947LinnParticipantquote kotoreru:
Thats a fair statement, I agree with kotoreru.
May 21, 2007 at 6:26 pm #72951
Okay, narrowstaircase, you correctly assess in your last statement that we disagree over the primary basis of belief in God.
And, okay, this can be the "end of it" for you. But your ending does not end my own position, which I maintain is NOT unfounded, as you assert.
You cannot know whether laws are malleable or not. You only can see them in the limits of your and your fellow humans’ mortal lifespans in a shared, apparently consistent history of their accounting. This is why "laws" are OUR laws.
Laws do NOT define what is going on. They express what we humans percieve is going on. If laws did "define", then they would have to be written prior to the events they define, and this makes me ask, "Where, then, are they written?… , and by whom are they written?" This seems to assume a law maker above humans as a starting place, and this is NOT my starting place.
I believe that the aim of living is to understand. To understand, we have to know. To know we have to grasp. To grasp, we have to have someTHING to grasp. To have someTHING to grasp, we have to have it MOVING in a relationship of relationships with us. How best, then, can we understand? From this (my) point of view, it is through a flexible model of reality that relates to some universal metaphor of our experiences,… which can be used to tweak our current laws towards a better plane of understanding.
Okay,… this can be MY "end of it".
May 25, 2007 at 9:51 am #73141
For all those linns and kotorerus and alextemplates I meant religion as a drug meaning medicine which means you think its good it is [although sometimes it isn’t] if not it isn’t.Remember medicine with side efect is religion.
May 25, 2007 at 9:54 am #73142
Alright narrowstaircase define soul cos you said i dont have one and I agree with it.
June 1, 2007 at 4:26 pm #73358
I have been in a coma when i was allmost 16. I have been in a light and so on, a deathexperience or something. The docters thought i was dead first. They asked my parents for a codicil because they wanted to cut in me. My grandmother implied to take care of me some longer, and i started to come alive after a few days, weeks, months, years.
I know my spirit didn’t die, but couldn’t enter my body for the whole, because of insuries and medication/drugs. So my body was partially dead, but not my spirit. It was a strange experience, and i know for sure ‘God’ doesn’t excist. I did feel a judgement and great powers. More like the moslims say; allah oe akbar, or something. ‘Thanks’, to all the big powers around us.
Now more and more people with different gods in there lives start to live together with other people with their gods, now we learn to collied our gods i think. In a year or 50 we will find a godmixture maybe. If a lot of people want to, we will. ❓ 💡 ➡ [/url]
June 1, 2007 at 4:29 pm #73359david23Participant
supergirl that is very imciteful understanding that you have. I look forward to hear more from you.
June 1, 2007 at 4:30 pm #73360
David, what do you meen with imciteful?
June 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm #73361
I will start a new topic about this god-mix-thing.
June 1, 2007 at 8:20 pm #73376
He meant "insightful".
June 4, 2007 at 1:15 pm #73482
Yeh, please start a new topic on this, Supergirl 🙂 Very interesting stuff…
June 11, 2007 at 6:55 pm #73693ReggieLynchParticipant
I believe that God and evolution are both right and work with one another and not against.
Humans know that they have evolved from single cell organisms, we have proven it and we can file this as truth.
Now lets move over and take a look at parenting. We start as a single cell, an egg. and another single cell, the sperm and we evolve from this into a human being. So it is safe to say that our parents gave us the conditions to become a healthy human being
And in comparison God did the same by giving us the right climate and conditions to evolve into healthy human beings
To me evolution is the how, and God is the answer to why. I guess it all depends on how you look at it. You cant deny proven fact and you also can’t deny religious belief.
In the older religions like true "Voodoo" That was very heavy into science they had explanations as to how things work but the why always came back to God or divine intervention.
To me there is no reason why the two can’t be one in the same or have an equal hand with one another.
June 12, 2007 at 1:14 am #73702
Hmm I agree with about half of what you said in that post ReggieLynch. I agree God is the why and Science is the how, but I think that by saying "God specifically provided the right weather for our evolution" you are just moving the goalpost.
I like your illustration of a repeating pattern in the egg starting as a single cell, and evolution starting from a single cell, though I’m not sure it’s entirely appropriate here…
June 12, 2007 at 7:31 am #73730fscottdahlgrenParticipantquote jeremiah_1990:
I support your right to believe that God created the Universe, and everything in it.
I too agree that evolution is an incorrect "theory" made by humans. I would also agree that gravity is an incorrect "theory" made by humans. Both have great flaws, imperfections, the products of mere humans.
Evolution was made by humans to explain the variations of life and those in the fossil record, not to neglect God. You tread on thin ice with comments like this. If you want to start a fight, then I recommed taking boxing lessons. Otherwise, do not imply that science and faith are mutually exclusive.
I do not know if humanity is an accident, if we have a purpose, or what that purpose is. I have no arguements for why I do not know. I just don’t.
June 12, 2007 at 7:26 pm #73768
Humanity as an accident would truly be a collosal cosmic joke; something that can comtemplate its own mortality as a by-product of social evolution???
June 20, 2007 at 10:28 pm #74067quote jeremiah_1990:
It would appear that the main objection you have to the far more accurate evolution explanation is that you want to have some sort of a "PURPOSE" imposed on us. Why? We are here and we are glad of it. We do not need someone else’s "purpose."
Instead, we create belief systems which bind us into close family-like societies. It is these belief systems that we devise for our own good that have goals which we work together to achieve. The one you are so enamoured of is the "salvation of the soul" and "the Second Coming of Christ." By having belief systems with goals—even goals that are effemeral—we work together in relative harmony to achieve them. They are constructive in that way. All religions provide goal(s) so people bond together to achieve them. That is the evolutionary function of religion.
But a religion does not need to have some supernatural, imposed "purpose." A more recent religion, Marxism, has an egalitarian, communal utopia as its goal. The whole belief system is defective, but it still survives because it provides a common goal.
We humans have "free will", don’t we? So why not exercise it and set our own goals. We do not need to be the object of just teleological forces!
June 24, 2007 at 10:27 am #74153MinutemanParticipant
Tell you what: ignore what biologists say and do. Instead of using antibiotics, medicinal drugs, specialist crop varieties etc, why don’t you just pray?
Pray to your god for food and medicine.
June 24, 2007 at 1:28 pm #74157quote Minuteman:
what are you trying to do—to kill me!? I have lived to be 80 years old and I depend upon three small medicines a day to keep me going in good shape. Will you do so well yourself some day? Well, certainly not if you think prayer can take the place of what medical science can do! Are you suggesting that if I, for example,broke my leg and had a compound fracture in which part of the bone splinter was sticking through the leg muscle, that prayer would take care of the matter? You just better pray that you never have a broken bone!
June 24, 2007 at 1:51 pm #74159quote jeremiah_1990:
Here is a scientist AND atheist! You ask a fair question. To me, there is no such thing as "an accident," freak or not. Everything is the product of an endless chain of natural cause and effect. The process is always going on and hence all matter is gradually undergoing change. The evolution of life is just one of the changes and it took place over such a vast expanse of time that we are emotionally uncapable of fathoming it. The universe is infinite; we are finite. We just do the best we can to understand as much as we can of the many different cause and effect processes going on all the time. Our explanations are gradually improving. They are always getting more accurate. Each time they become more accurate, we discare the old view and accept the newer and better one. But since they always have the potential to improve, we call them "theories."
When one stays emersed in the Bible, one is transported back some two to four thousand years when people considered everything in terms of black and white, up and down, cold and hot, good and bad, etc. There was no gradation and nothing was judged or known in a relative sense. The concept of time was primitive. People did not then have the tools to think intelligently that we have developed mostly in the last five hundred years.
So, when you absorb yourself in The Old Book, it stunts your ability to think. You come on to a forum like this and ask questions like you were from another world. Many of the group are at a loss as to how to communicate with you. That is why they respond with a light banter and really don’t respond responsibly.
June 27, 2007 at 11:49 am #74224LunarStrainParticipantquote Minuteman:
I sense sarcasim Minuteman or maybe I just hope your being sarcastic. This seems like a pretty elementary concept but we didn’t get where we are today by praying. Science explain alot of How, Why, What & When, but as rational humans we cant expect all things to be explained in an ever changing world. Religion is Guidance, Hope, Religion is merely Subjective and with that from my perspective so is my god. I think that there is a huge difference between what we know is true and what we believe in (for the sake of believing)…Just a thought kind of wanted to share, Im interested in learning others perspectives though
June 30, 2007 at 11:41 am #74288foursixandtwoParticipantquote :
this is really the primary point of the argument. I am sure the originator of this thread is intelligent enough understand the concept of natural selection. yes the engine of genetic mutation, far as we understand it is more or less random. But the survival factor makes evolution absolutely non-random. The genetic mutation effects a body, which must live in a particular environment. A body carrying disadvantageous mutations will on average have less offspring, gradually weeding bad genes out of the gene pool.
and to call the origin of life an accident is not entirely innacurate, except the connotation of non-purpose it implies, leading to misunderstanding. But go ahead and call it an accident, in enourmous span of the universe, in is an inevitable accident.
as much as i’d like to defend the theory of evolution on various fronts, i know this not the point. No amount of evidence can conquer faith. I know understand this well because i was indoctorinated to believe in God (and various other irrelevant superstitions) as a child. Most people do not escape such indoctorination, i almost wish there was a god so i could graciously pour out my heart of gratitude to him, that i was one of the lucky few from a background of faith to come to see the truth.
The only thing that will change your mind is the realization (if you choose to see it) that science creates a world more beautiful than the one god does. God is a narrowing and limiting tool to control populations of humans.
July 21, 2007 at 4:54 pm #74709quote Steen:
I see no reason why any good scientists could not believe in a “god” even though I, myself, am an atheist. What is all important in my way of thinking is that it is the belief in a personal god that is dangerous to science, that is a god that alters natural cause and effect in response, let us say, to prayers. Personally, I don’t believe in the existence of a god any more than in Santa Claus—and for the same reasons. I even deny the existence of “spirits” of any kind. But I feel close to deists, agnostics and pantheists and consider them all to be fellow “Free Thinkers.” In other words, the real issue is not whether “god” does or does not exist but whether he plays around with natural cause and effect if he does exist!
July 27, 2007 at 4:50 pm #74823
The desire here tends to be to believe both, but just how inconsistent the belief in evolution is with belief in god depends most on what sort of god one has in mind. Even Einstein liked to toy with deism. Belief in a diety entitles one to be called a fellow Free Thinker to me, a life long atheist. The main issue is between Free Thinkers and theists, those who believe in miracles and that their God alters natural cause and effect to suit His will, thus making a mockery of cause and effect determinism. Without belief in natural cause and effect determinism, science cannot exist.
It is possible that there exists a sort of abstract god, a sort of First Cause. He would not have needed to create the Universe because it could just as imposibly have existed forever. This belief can be part of or called "religion," but it need not be.
People like to "reconcile" religion and science. They delude themselves. To reconcile ancient beliefs with science is to compromise and hence corrupt both.
July 31, 2007 at 6:50 am #74886vikas srivastavaParticipant
Being a worker of biology,we can not neglect that the human is the result of progressive evolution,but as far as believe is concern,we still believe in "life after death" and "the existance of God"may be because of uneven happening in our surrounding,for which we do not have any exact reason,
July 31, 2007 at 7:10 pm #74915quote vikas srivastava:
Yes, but natural selection has made no changes in us biologically that would account for the rise and fall of societies, civilizations, world population and the growth of the total human cultural heritage. It can be explained, potentially, only by SOCIAL evolution.
Yes, also, you, to paraphrase, attribute our religious beliefs to handy explanations for something we have not yet otherwise explained. Yes, indeed, that sums it up! Since we have to have a common world-veiw and way of thinking to feel a sense of community (because we now live in much larger groups than the hunting-gathering sizegroups we evolved in) it has worked best to have those beiefs (religions) consist of our best explanation of things for the times. Unfortunately, however. religions have to grow old with age until they become obsolete and need to be replaced. . . .
August 8, 2007 at 7:14 pm #75072checkersParticipant
The problem is that many Christians and Atheists think the two are mutually exclusive. Without starting a long bible debate, I will state that the two creation and evolution can co-exist and also that the bible does not give a definitive date of how old the world is. English translators took many liberties in their translation. Often words that could mean an indefinite amount of time, were given an time frame.
August 27, 2007 at 3:18 am #75460
I’m a staunch antitheist and atheist. Saying God exists outside of time is as plausible as me saying I’m a billionaire and my cash exists outside of time and space. I just don’t understand, especially in the context of a personal god. Isn’t conscience itself proven to be altered by chemical reactions (e.g. drinking)? The Bible disturbs me (e.g. Deuteronomy 22:22-29 and Leviticus 20:13). I always hear: "What about the New Testament and Jesus’s loving testimony?" Of course, failure to mention the Hell fire and gnashing of teeth scare tactics (that mainly Jesus started) is a common practice. President Bush strived to implement Intelligent Design in curriculum when the last major court case (Dover County) took place. Why is calling Genesis’s six days allegorical deemed to bring a religion closer to reason? Moses’s staff instantly turned into a snake according to the Bible. The word "faith" has to represent the most unfortunate concept I’ve ever heard of. All it takes is faith (belief without evidence) to make a belief rational, right? Why not loan money to a random stranger in New York City? We don’t need evidence a person will pay us back. Faith can explain its reasoning. Actually, not really… Faith is opposite of sense, reason, logic, and evidence. It, by definition, is absurd. Christianity should never be pictured as children Christmas caroling a few cute tunes. Global warming may end life on this planet as we know it and the fundies are fighting precautions. There is no reason to even suspect that God exists. Consciousness and intelligence, as far as we know, only come after extensive periods of evolution. We’re animals. They’re animal characteristics. Does applying animal characteristics to cosmos origins explain anything? Have you seen those Jesus Camp videos? American evangelical sects are just like militant Islam. I’m American and certainly not anti-American, but didn’t Bush apparently say God told him to strike Iraq? I suppose Buddhism doesn’t really bother me much but the Bible/Koran religions are fatally toxic (as well as impoverishing). I agree with the honorable and legendary Dawkins when he speaks of religion as acting like a virus.
August 27, 2007 at 5:25 am #75467quote evointrigued:
Hm . . . I would reply to this, but I somehow suspect it won’t turn into a very reasonable discussion.
In any case, I am very glad Christianity is in fact quite the opposite of what you describe it to be, or I would have to change religions in a hurry.
August 27, 2007 at 6:08 am #75469
Now THAT was a rant.
I 60-80% agree, but blanket statements don’t solve problems, they only create new ones. Religion is what people make it, and unfortunately bad people have made certain religions do bad things for them at points during history (or currently depending on your views).
Perhaps your gripe should be more with narrow-minded fundamentalism?
I understand your beef with faith. But then again, everything in life takes faith. You can listen to your science teacher tell you about atoms, but unless you become a nuclear physicist, you’ll probably never see primary indisputable evidence that atoms truly exist. Therefore you are putting faith in science… odd eh? The good thing about science is that it’s testable and refutable, so really you’re putting faith in the good scientists of the world to keep you from being mislead.
But anyway, I agree it can be frustrating to reason with someone when their beliefs are based entirely on faith. In fact I don’t even attempt it, except from time to time on this forum.
September 24, 2007 at 4:00 pm #76271Roland PohlmeyerParticipant
Evolution or creation? Is this what it boils down to? Are they not nearly synonymous? I think that we should all respect each other’s points of views. If someone believes in God, good on him/ her. I have always admired people who had this personal relationship with their God, unfortunately I have not. That is not to say that I cannot marvel at the universe and the wonders from quarks and photons to the DNA double helix, cells and virus to planets, stars and galaxies.
Scientist just want to understand how things work, our dogmas are transitory until we find something better. Many scientists are atheists, but then it’s only a small step from atheism to pantheism where the universe can be seen as God. We are just searching for a truth that is reproducible. Unfortunately, science can come across as dogmatic and aggressive which is a real shame. If you are happy I’m happy for you, but please don’t try to change me, because I’m just as happy being a scientist and Darwinist.
As for the purpose of life. Life can have many meanings or none at all. In a way, it may be less important to know where we have come from than to decide where we want to get to. It’s up to each individual to decide what they want to do with their existence.
September 24, 2007 at 5:15 pm #76279quote checkers:
Sure . . . deists think of God as a "First Cause." That does not interefere with or need not be inconsistent with evolution. Einstein seems to have been a deist, perhaps Darwin as well. I am an atheist and I consider deists and myself as in the same group called Free Thinkers. What we have in common is that we do not accept the idea that no "God" runs things to suit his whim or in response to prayers and that all that can be known can be ultimately understood as natural cause and effect.
September 24, 2007 at 5:26 pm #76280quote evointrigued:
Yes, President Bush does represent the Baptist, Evangelical and Penticostal people in the South and Mid-West. Their St. Patrick college is turning out young Christian Fundamentalist militants by the hundreds and the Bush Administration is fitting them into all branches of the governmental bureaucracy. The president’s policy has a religious agenda.
I disagree with only one sentence in your post. The human race HAS to have religion(s) in order to bind people into societies. We are evolutionary products of small hunting-gathering groups and are instinctively unsettled and stressful in larger groups unless religion is there so that we can identify with these huge, Religious bonded societies. The problem with modern times is that the religions have been outgrown and we need something far more scientific with which to replace them. Our secular ideology has proven unable to do that.
September 24, 2007 at 8:18 pm #76293
"Christian Fundamentalist militants"??? Um . . . yeah . . . right . . . 🙄
Once again the irrationality of atheism is all too clearly demonstrated.
September 25, 2007 at 10:15 pm #76341
I’ll aim at coming off lighter. I don’t want to offend anyone. I am just concerned with how religion is attacking compassion. I’ll throw a couple extra points in to spark controversy.quote alextemplet:
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). There are atheists who are religion apologists. Anti-theism is what your statement was against.
I consider B-52 carpet bombing mass populations in the name of the Judeo-Christian god to be a militant act.
I consider forbidding marriage with non-believers (2 Corinthians 6:14-15) to be fundamentalism, and an idea present in both the New Testament and Old Testament.quote AstusAleator:
I consider my gripe to be with fundamentalism. Without any genuine evidence, there is no genuine reason to postulate. Without reason, positing is an act of unreason. What consensus generally calls a "moderate Christian" is founded upon unreason, and they have a bad tendency to provide a power base for the fundamentalists. Until the roots of the problem (unreason/theism) are tackled, the problem will continue. I’ve heard it argued that the roots of the problem are the people, not the religion. This was debunked when I saw well-intended people hurt others because they feared God’s wrath. It’s like physicist Steven Weinberg said: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."quote AstusAleator:
If the experiments aren’t performed first hand, that would be trust in the scientific community’s objective conclusions, but that’s not faith at all. Ideas from scientific consensus are constantly reinforced to us. When I was sick and consumed antibiotics inconsistently, natural selection proposed by the scientific community was supported by evidence. When I consumed them consistently, evidence was revealed again. When a cell phone fails to operate because the polarity of the battery is incorrect, the consensus is supported again. In fact, just the fact there are battery cells is evidence consensus isn’t formed arbitrarily. The list could continue for days. When the community calls an idea fact, evidence has displayed there is genuine reason to take it seriously.quote charles brough:
What about Sweden? They’re apparently 85%+ secular.
September 25, 2007 at 10:40 pm #76344
What about Sweden? They’re apparently 85%+ secular.[/quote]
Your rebuttals of the fundamentalists were well done, but as you are well aware, all is not black and white. The human race has had religion for well over 100,000 years. You perhaps assume that means we are adicted to belief in "spirits," but as Sweden indicatres, people are able to be held together by ideology that has much less to do with spirits than the old religions. If it holds a people together, it serves the same function as the old religions. "Religion" is merely a world view and way of thinking that binds people together. East Asian Marxism is a "religion" also since it functions the same. A "seat" is something you sit on and is defined by its function: the same with what binds us into societies.
Sweden is remarkably better off without fundamentalists. People there tend to believe in only a "First Cause." In addition to a Christian heritage involving belief in a sort of spiritual Christ, they have manger scenes at Christmas. But they are also bonded by a strong socialist ideology that is part of their secular belief which is absent in our secularism.
We atheists are so ineffective because we have so little in common. If we were bonded together by a SCIENTIFIC system that had the self consistency most of the old religions have, we would be united, could effective organize and actually run the world.
September 25, 2007 at 11:38 pm #76347
I like your logic. Science, and skepticism when there’s little/no evidence for claims, would solve many problems founded on irrationality. Ethical philosophies like the Golden Rule (to replace the Christian/Muslim mix-up of ethics/cruelty) certainly have my support.
September 26, 2007 at 1:14 am #76349
Don’t forget, nationalism is actually a pretty strong force of cohesion.
September 26, 2007 at 2:59 am #76351quote evointrigued:
In the link http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com there is a follow-through on what I wrote above. Christian and secular doctrines have compromised the way social science data has been interpreted. In the link, I wade through the data from a totally atheistic, objective viewpoint. What we need is the objective application of social science to develop a totally new world view and way of thinking.
By the way, I just discovered that ebay has my first book still on sale after 42 years! http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Cycle-of-Civili … -H-Brough-
September 26, 2007 at 3:34 am #76352
First of all, when the heck has anyone B-52 carpet bombed anyone in the name of God? I remember Muslims attacking the WTC six years ago, but I’ve never heard of Christians carpet-bombing with B-52s.
Charles, it is obvious what you intend to do. You are clearly a very fundamentalist atheist who wishes to impose an oppressive atheist theocracy. How ironic, isn’t it? You spend so much time attacking fundamentalist believers, when your own brand of fundamentalism is actually even more volatile and even more dangerous to society. I suppose it’s true that we always hate the most what we see in ourselves.
September 26, 2007 at 4:21 am #76353
…charles, how come wikipedia has you listed as dead?
September 26, 2007 at 4:38 am #76354
Actually, wikipedia’s article is about Charles Hillman Brough; amazon.com lists the book he mentioned, and gives the author’s name as Charles Henderson Brough. An interesting coincidence, wouldn’t you say?
September 26, 2007 at 11:48 am #76370
Mith asks why Wikipedia has me listed as dead! I was unaware of that! Alex mentions Charles Hillman Brough. He was a last-century governer of a Southern state and is deceased. It must be him it’s referring to.
Google has me under HUMANPURPOSE several thousand times. I am also
http://www.ezrabook.com/cgi-bin/ezra/re … at2%2Ccat3%
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Cycle-of-Civili … -H-Brough-
as well as http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
September 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm #76372quote alextemplet:
Without explaining just what you mean by "God," you give us no clue as to your belief. Your belief could make perfect sense—as it would if you were a deist—or no sense at all if you believed in the personal theity in the Bible who alters and displaces "His own creation" all in order to answer prayers. With that kind of a "god" in mind, evolution would make no sense.
September 26, 2007 at 12:32 pm #76375quote alextemplet:
At the very least, Christianity’s militant ways were revealed during the Crusades. I’m not sure about the recent bombings, which is why I just said I consider B-52 carpet bombing in the name of the Judeo-Christian god militant. I think there is good reason to support the idea. Here’s the basic idea. Here’s a poll about it. I’ve never once seen a hint of a trace of Bush denying the claim and it’s been a long-standing, heavy claim. Bush said America had a calling from "beyond the stars" to push Creationism into public schools when the creationists were clearly being dishonest. Have you heard of the "Third Awakening" Bush spoke of? I think it’s apparent that Bush said he struck Iraq in the name of God but I’m not certain.quote alextemplet:
The Bible is the foundation of the Koran. It’s not surprising that faith in a book founded from the Bible would produce such an atrocity (WTC attacks). The nasty ways of the Bible resemble the the nasty ways of the Koran (47.4). I won’t attempt to defend either.
September 27, 2007 at 4:39 am #76406
Evointrigued, You might want to check your history. The crusades were defensive wars triggered by Muslim aggression. The Quran and the Bible are complete polar opposites; the Bible says "love thy neighbor" and the Quran says "kill thy neighbor." It’s no wonder Muslims consider the Bible to be such an abhorrence. As for Bush, he’s an idiot. Plain and simple.
And what about all those Jews and Catholics that Stalin’s atheist friends murdered? Let’s be honest; people kill each other. Always have, and always will. Calling each other violent won’t accomplish anything other than getting us all ticked off. What’s the good in that?quote charles brough:
You also might want to check your information. If you put half as much value in rational thought as you claim, you’d be a Catholic.
September 27, 2007 at 9:47 am #76414
WHERE does the Quran say "kill thy neighbours"…any citation?…thats utter bullshit
September 27, 2007 at 2:43 pm #76421
[quote="alextemplet"]Evointrigued, You might want to check your history. The crusades were defensive wars triggered by Muslim aggression. The Quran and the Bible are complete polar opposites; the Bible says "love thy neighbor" and the Quran says "kill thy neighbor." It’s no wonder Muslims consider the Bible to be such an abhorrence.[quote]
Pehaps you have read a Catholic history of the world! Please look at a few more scholarly and objective interpretations of history! The Crusades was a typical invasion of an established civilization by a bunch of barbarians. We established an empire inside Islam that held their territory for a full century. Jeruselem is one of Islams most sacred cities; we conquered it. I am glad we did, but why fool yourseves with illusions?
The Quran is filled with platitudes that are similar to the Christian ones you emulate above, and the Bible is filled also with horrinble crimes and orders as is the Quran. The Bible promotes slavery. Christ tells his followers to bring to Him those who do not worship him and to kill them: Luke: 19-27. He brings not peace but a sword. In Isaiah 45:7 God is said to brag about creating evil. Don’t you understand that all this is the very reason why Catholicism discourages the reading of the Bible? A religion is not what is in the scriptures BUT WHAT THE PEOPLE BELIEVE. If Muslims come to believe terrorism is the way to go, it will be because we keep invading their civilization!
September 27, 2007 at 4:37 pm #76429
Charles you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. Aside from obviously misquoting those Bible verses you mentioned, you also don’t have a clue about history or Catholic doctrine. Jerusalem is not just a Muslim holy city, but a Jewish and Christian holy city as well. The Muslims were aggressively attacking Europe for centuries before the Christians counter-attacked with the crusades. The Catholic Church has NEVER forbade or discouraged its followers from reading the Bible, but has always actively encouraged it.
Come back once you decide to use facts instead of hate speech.
September 27, 2007 at 5:07 pm #76431quote alextemplet:
Alex I think you should also calm down. Jerusalem is indeed sacred for the 3 religions, but you you are oversimplifying the Quran and the Bible.
And if the catholic church never forbade its followers to read the Bible, it also forbade translation in vernacular language for a very long time effectively preventing anyone but the clerics to understand what was in it… Do not idelize your church my friend, it has a lot of stains on its honour.
I will just add that although an atheist, I respect others choice of religion, but encourage everyone to keep a cool and reflected mind on those matters. Christians of all denominations have commited horrible things and some of the most wonderful too. And the same can be said about most of the beliefs or absence of them, so I suggest that everyone keep the large vague generalization out of the discussion, thanks.
September 27, 2007 at 7:14 pm #76445
I admit it, I did get quite ticked off. I am interested to hear what you make of his comment about Cajuns. We Cajuns are very proud of our cultural and religious heritage and do not take lightly to being mocked in such a vulgar manner.
I have never claimed the Church to be ideal; indeed, I remember clearly stating that, like any other human organization, it is vulnerable to corruption. The Church has worked very hard through the centuries to minimize that corruption, and all in all it has been very successful. No organization is perfect and pointing out each other’s faults won’t get us anywhere. And baseless attacks are simply useless; we should at least make an effort to get our facts straight. Regarding the Bible in vernacular, the Church has never forbade this; in fact, the Church has allowed and encouraged vernacular translations ever since Latin went out of vogue as the common language in the 6th century.
I do admit I got carried away; mea culpa. But I do think all of this hate-speech needs to stop.
November 17, 2007 at 5:55 pm #77941E8-not42Participant
I am a regular at richarddawkins-dot-net where we see a lot of this theist view. The use of history to make points always amuses me. The only way to really get a look is to find quotes from exists texts of what people actually said. When one does this one can find interesting things.
For example if I was to tell you Hitler was a theist, Christian and a Catholic and did what he did in the name of God you may be surprised.
But will Christians or Catholics admit what they created and supported – never .
Hate. A human quality – the organization of it – a theist quality.?
Read these quotes and decide for yourself about history. Todays Pope lived and thrived under this persons leadership.
It is ignorance that breeds hate. Having ‘faith’ is the first requirement to making ignorance your foundation. Hate will follow.
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland. [Message, signed Hitler, painted on walls of concentration camps; Life, August 21, 1939]
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]
I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it. [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed. [Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]
What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]
This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]
And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174]
Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another… while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.309]
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 171]
I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 1]
I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna’s destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 2]
…the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party… was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]
Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
I had so often sung ‘Deutschland u:ber Alles’ and shouted ‘Heil’ at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]
I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger’s time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 6]
Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord’s grace smiled on His ungrateful children. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]
The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings… If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth… In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 8]
The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the ‘image’ of God. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth…Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]
But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine– an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular– right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]
Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties– and this against their own nation. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
…the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11, precisely echoing Martin Luther’s teachings]
Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the ‘remaking’ of the Reich as they call it. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
Of course, even the general designation ‘religious’ includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created? [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
It doesn’t dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? …Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas… it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 5]
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10]
For this, to be sure, from the child’s primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’ [Adolf Hitler’s prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13]
The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life [Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]
I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker. [Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]
Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country]… I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past … (few) years. [The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]
November 19, 2007 at 4:41 pm #78037
EB, you wrote this:
""For example if I was to tell you Hitler was a theist, Christian and a Catholic and did what he did in the name of God you may be surprised."""
You certainly proved your point with enough evidence (!), but I can add to that picture. Please keep in mind that Hitler was also a politician and said what he did for was a purpose which was not always the same as his ultimate intent. I mean by that that he USED the Catholic Church just as it pandered to him. They needed to be friends with each other during that period.
However, Hitler also sponsered a shrine for the sort-of religion he was promoting. It was located in Wewelsburg I think it was. It was to be the sacred center of Nazism. Hitler fell back on the old German mythology for a "spiritual" basis for his new religion. He set up his own evolutionary "explanation" for our origin and his own "might is right" (im)moral system. He was developing his own religion; and when he figure he could, he would have, I suspect, set about to gradually replace Catholicism with it.
I am sorry the issue of Cajuns keeps coming up by someone. I assure again that I don’t look down on anyone because they are Cajun, Espanic, Jew, etc and etc regardless of what I may have written.
November 20, 2007 at 4:08 am #78078
I may as well set the record straight on this one.
Of course Hitler claimed to be Christian. Do you honoestly think the man rose to power by telling everyone that he was an evil, hateful, dictator? If this was true, why were Catholics were the second-largest group (after the Jews) targeted for extermination in the death camps? Because the Catholic Church was so very opposed to everything Hitler was doing!
The Catholic Church opposed Hitler from the beginning, and was the only organization that led a successful resistance against Nazism in Germany, even going so far as staging the only public anti-Nazi protests during the entire reign of the Third Reich. The Church also operated a highly successful underground railroad to evacuate Jews and other oppressed minorities out of Nazi-occupied territories.
Once again, the haters have proven their ignorance.
November 22, 2007 at 11:16 pm #78338tebufferParticipant
I BELIEVE TOO believe that GOD created the world…
BUT MY QUESTION IS….
WHO CREATED GOD…?
November 23, 2007 at 5:22 am #78358
God is eternal, and thus always has been around, without having been created.
November 24, 2007 at 12:51 pm #78422
Research ends its purpose here
The characteristics of science simply ends as the human logic is incapable of comprehending the foundations built–which is unexplainable. A real human weakness.
November 27, 2007 at 10:10 pm #78596
Now, imagine if someone proved the non-existance of God… That would be interesting.
November 28, 2007 at 4:48 am #78625
It’s logically impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist.
November 28, 2007 at 10:50 am #78634
quote from Alex "It’s logically impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist."
So, when a psychiatrist hears a schizophrenic saying that he has killed someone because God told him to do it, are yo suggesting that it is not possible to disprove this using logic? For if we cannot disprove something using logic then perhaps we should release and remove medication from all mentally ill patients who are suffering from hallucinations and delusions, for how are we to know that the voice that they were hearing were not in fact real voices as opposed to imagined voices?
Serious question: How do we tell who is deluded? Is it the psychiatrist or the schizophrenic?
Thought experiment: room with two deluded patients both hearing the voice of God at the same time. Psychiatrist is on his own and cannot hear any voices. 2 delusioned people against one normal person. I guess we have to lock up the normal person!
November 28, 2007 at 3:33 pm #78642
Here is a negative statement that can logically be proved:
"crocodiles are not native to Boston"
In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable.
Of course one cannot prove that God does not exist because no one has defined what God is or where he is.
Thus statements such as "God exists" are not logical questions that can or even need to be answered because no one knows what God is supposed to be.
November 28, 2007 at 4:04 pm #78645
Wow, you definitely win the prize for the most amazing manner of twisting my words around into something completely different from what I was talking about.
You are right; one cannot prove that God does not exist. Leave it at that.
November 28, 2007 at 5:23 pm #78650
I’m sorry if I appear to twist your words, I can understand that to be annoying for you. But you do have to take some of the blame:
When you come out with authoritative statements such as "God is eternal, and thus always has been around, without having been created", then unless you can put forward some proof, such assertions are baseless in a scientific forum. You would no doubt attack me as being unscientific if i were to say that "Father Christmas is a fact." In fact I would be worried if no one challenged me if I were to make such a claim. Therefore in my eyes you do put yourself up as a target for making remarks which cannot be corroborated.
November 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm #78672
I would also expect that in a scientific forum, there would be an understanding of what can and cannot be verified. Any statement about God thus falls into this category. My statement was in response to a question about where God came from. Obviously for this question to be addressed, we must first hypothetically assume that God does exist, and then I answered that question based on my faith. I assumed that it could be taken for granted that we were speaking hypothetically and based on faith more than science. What I perceived as twisting my words around was when you took a non-scientific statement and addressed it using scientific reasoning.
Of course I can agree with you that I deserve some of the blame, as I took it for granted that my statements would be understood to not be scietnific in nature, and I failed to clarify that. Mea culpa.
November 29, 2007 at 5:34 am #78689babelfishParticipantquote alextemplet:
November 29, 2007 at 2:44 pm #78705kcnq1ot1Participant
I couldn’t read the all posts but I wanna write my thoughts.
I think I believe in God. I’m not sure, in fact, sometimes I find it very funny to believe in something, "believe" is not a suitable word for a scientist. I just wanna know something not just believe. But this is a very big issue, God! If everybody would know the god and would remember the life before birth it would be so meaningless. What will we do? Such an absurd life, everything is clear, everybody knows what to do, then what? Just do the responsibilities, no risk, no curiosity, no difference, no loss no gain…
It must be mysterious and difficult to find God. It requires really big efford. It is like a game maybe, I don’t know, I’m just a human being.
But you don’t need to "see" the evidences to "know" something. Sometimes the problem is so huge that it is very very difficult to analyze and get the correct result. It is just like that. There are so many clues but we want simple and clear answers.
I’m a molecular biologist, before I start to study genetics I have been in different beliefs. I mean, when I started to think about God or more generally the meaning of life, I find myself in that I’m an atheist. Then I started to read the books of some religions. I believed something.
when I started to study genetics everything I learned made me think again. There are so many questions. One may say that we just doesn’t know the answers so we say God exists because we don’t understand lots of things. Whenever science find the answers we see that there is no God. I don’t know. But at this point it seems to me that there is a God.
nobody needs to create God. there is no time there. It is something meaningless, who create god, it is an elemantary level question. Now we know relativity, there is no time in fact. Our conscious sense it like that, it just spend the energy of "time" and think like, oh yeah it is passing, no! nothing is passing..
sorry for my long reply 🙂
November 29, 2007 at 4:03 pm #78709
kcnq1ot1, I’m sure you are not the only one to feel like you describe.
When one can explain something, one feels great at the achievement. When one cannot explain something one is at a loss and less happy with oneself. What better way to cheer oneself up than by attributing the unknown solution to God’s mystical ways? You then do not have to think about the problem anymore and you feel relaxed again.
November 29, 2007 at 4:37 pm #78710
For me, belief is not about explaining what I cannot explain. It is about a very personal relationship, friendship even, with a creator whom I know through experience exists. I’m not quite sure how to describe it but I guess that gets it pretty close.
November 29, 2007 at 9:05 pm #78721Phil BaberParticipant
Religion is an attempt to justify what one can’t explain. Humans are a very small (read negligible) cog in the machinary of the universe. God is a human construct to answer all the questions of existence, but what makes humans believe we should be able to answer these questions? It smacks of arrogance to me.
November 29, 2007 at 9:10 pm #78722Phil BaberParticipant
alextemplet — that you KNOW exists? So are you saying that I am some how incapable of perceiving this existence? Or is this existence a fabrication of your own mind? In which case you are acknowledging that the existence of God is completely speculative.
November 29, 2007 at 9:36 pm #78723
I think we should evaluate where this thread is going and whether or not this should be in the evo forum.
November 30, 2007 at 2:17 am #78733woolleyyParticipant
do we have a fight forum? Cause this looks like it could get dirty…
November 30, 2007 at 2:27 am #78736
yes, it’s called off topic
November 30, 2007 at 4:37 am #78742
Well the topic of the thread disqualified it from scientific discussion in the beginning. I won’t cry if it’s canned.
November 30, 2007 at 7:49 am #78746
I think it is important in a scientific forum to hear the arguments put forward that people use to support some widely held, but unproven, views. America has recently been threatened by minority groups trying to ban the teaching of Evolution in schools. It is surely in the interest of the scientific community to try to understand how these people reason and argue their points of view. How else are we to stop ourselves from sliding back into the Dark Ages? It could be argued that the greatest threat to the USA comes more from home grown religion than from foreign terrorists.
November 30, 2007 at 7:43 pm #78760
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are utterly incapable of separating the topics of evolution and religion. Really any religious discussion should be held in the off-topic section, but no one seems to really follow or enforce that rule.
December 1, 2007 at 2:35 am #78786
I’ll admit they make some interesting discussions. I don’t think anyone’s ever changed their views because of them though.
Perhaps the best thing these discussions have to offer is that the debating parties search for information regarding the topic to help their POV, and learn some things in the process. Of course their sources aren’t always reliable, scientific, or objective :).
December 1, 2007 at 9:32 am #78798
You have a point; I must admit that I have learned a bit just by researching to prepare a better argument in these debates. However I still think it would be nice to just once have a discussion about evolution itself, without it becoming a religious crusade.
December 6, 2007 at 1:16 pm #79027
Today I think is the contemporary of eve’s apple. The more we know and know the more we thirst for answers very far that our mind could explain.
In the beginning, there is nothing…God said, let there be light, and there was light.
God asked, where are we when he laid the foundations of the earth? who measured its dimensions and space?
Where are we now?
December 7, 2007 at 5:32 am #79113
In peanut butter
December 7, 2007 at 5:54 am #79121
Bitterly sweet astus.
January 10, 2008 at 4:38 am #80418quote jeremiah_1990:
I believe evolution was not a creation of man it is only his discovery
evolution is a creation in process
so it was not a freak accident because it was part of his plan
January 11, 2008 at 10:18 pm #80537
Let us pretend for a split second that everything just is.
Not even just sudden existance.
An always was and always will be world.
Creation is out of the picture.
Things just are.
January 12, 2008 at 5:51 am #80548
just for a split second
science has too many other problems to look at why do we have to waste time with this endless thing?
January 13, 2008 at 6:51 am #80623
If what you say is true, Jones, then somebody (or perhaps no one?) put a lot of effort into convincing us that the world was very different in the past from what it is today.
January 14, 2008 at 9:39 am #80674
the split second has gone back to the reality
January 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm #80693
That would be the catholics, love. 😉
January 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm #80701
Yep, we Catholics are definitely very big fans of reality.
January 17, 2008 at 5:35 am #80865
From a purely scientific standpoint (this is not a religious website obviously), the creationists do have a firm footing for what they believe. Both creationists and evolutionists who can both be classified as "scientists" use a lot of the same evidence (i.e. fossils or just the earth in general) but because of their perspective,they will be more inclined to interpret that evidence to fit into their theories. So who is right? Here’s one example from a creationist view: genetics…natural selection is at work but only at the micro-evolutionary level, an animal cannot simply change into another animal because there are too many controls (ex.methylation) in DNA replication to make a huge enough mistake to cause an animal to evolve into something else. They have also done research and found that most mutions that occur are generally minor and usually detrimental to an organism, producing a loss in information rather than a gain so that they would not be likely to survive to produce more offspring.
January 17, 2008 at 10:12 am #80866quote LittleBeaver:
Very true, but what happens to the very few mutations that are beneficial? Are these to be ignored because they are less frequent?
January 17, 2008 at 4:00 pm #80876
They are not to be ignored as nothing in science ever should be, forgive me for not addressing that. As I understand it, the point is that the mutations that do occur, and are able to be passed on to other generations and contribute to that species, could not be drastic enough to produce say a change in species because the foundational DNA for that particular animal is still there. A cat is not going to eventually evolve into a bird because it developes a mutation for a wing-like structure…the bone and muscular structure is simply not embedded in the DNA (I know this example is totally hypothetical). It seems like there would have to be too many pure chance mutations that just do not occur in nature to direct such a change in species. A little taco dog and a huge mastif both still have "dog" DNA even though they have very different phenotypes but are still and will remain dogs. There are a few documentations of beneficial mutations but most mutations that do occur either have no effect or a bad effect on the organism.
January 17, 2008 at 4:50 pm #80879quote LittleBeaver:quote LittleBeaver:
I would add a few things:
-this discard horizontal genetic transfer (HGT), which seems to be very important in gene acquisition and quite frequent now that we can see whole genomes. There are also gene duplications. So it’s not just deletions and point mutations.
-I have witnessed and selected many "beneficial" mutations in bacteria. They are individually not very frequent, but at the population level, not that rare. And combined with HGT they can spread quite fast in populations when selection is strong enough.
-If you had seen what point mutations in some regulations genes (hox family for example) can do to drosophila, you would know that very limited mutations at the early stage of development can have really important effects on the whole animal.
So molecular biology is regularly bringing more strength (although admittedly often more complexity) to the evolutionist model, while the creationist are still to bring anything convincing for scrutiny. And the micro/macro evolution dichotomy has no real meaning. There is only evolution which effects are mostly felt on limited levels rather than just being spectacular (macro level), and the dichotomy is mostly a Marketing trick by creationist to avoid looking as complete idiots if they were to flat out refuse the huge evidence of short evolution.
January 17, 2008 at 5:17 pm #80880
In answer to LittleBeaver,
I expect that the difficulties you have with the standard theory of evolution have already been dealt with by previous writers on this post, and by Canalon above.
The modern Darwin theory on evolution and even Darwin’s original theory didn’t suggest that a cat would suddenly mutate and develop wings, you would need man manipulating genetic material to do that – science fiction stuff, although see Canalon re HGT above. All the species that you see around you today only represent a tiny fraction of all the species that have been around since the origin of life. You wouldn’t expect Dinosaurs and all the other funny creatures (found in fossil evidence) to have all lived and inhabited this small planet at the same time as the many species that we see alive today. They would have been competing and fighting each other to survive. There wouldn’t have been enough room or food for so many different species. Why therefore would a Creator put all these species on the planet at the same time – knowing that it wouldn’t work and that they would become extinct?
I am assuming that you believe that all species were created at the same time – correct me if this is wrong.
If you think that Dinosaurs existed at the same time as Homo Sapiens, why have we not found drawings of many extinct animals like Dinosaurs in pre-historic caves paintings? Living at the same time as the dinosaurs would have been very frightening for Man.
January 17, 2008 at 11:13 pm #80882
You pose a few good questions. However, the drawings question doesn’t hold up when analyzed properly. How many other species have been drawn in caves. I don’t have extensive knowledge of this, but I do know that the most popular drawing are of horse-like animals. Does that mean that only horses existed during that period? Perhaps those homo Sapiens that encountered the dinosaurs did not live. Or, perhaps humans and dinosaurs lived in very different environments and locations on the earth. There are other stronger evidences of humans and dinosaurs existing together, such as the dinosaur and human foot print that have been found together preserved in rock.
Another question that you brought up was that all creatures could not have lived together on earth, so why would God try. Think of why species now become extinct. Man has decided that his own desires for more land and different food is worth the sacrifice of ecological balance. If humans began to hunt deer (for example) and that was some of the dinosaurs key prey, that would cause an imbalance in the ecological structure that was in place. It is man’s own doing that has caused certain animals or species to become extinct, not the fault of God not creating enough space. Even then there are plenty of location, such as the ocean, where man has not interefered and new species are still being discovered. Those species in the oceans have fought for space and food, but still exist in a wide ranging flora of amazing creatures.
January 17, 2008 at 11:19 pm #80883
"-I have witnessed and selected many "beneficial" mutations in bacteria. They are individually not very frequent, but at the population level, not that rare. And combined with HGT they can spread quite fast in populations when selection is strong enough."
I have a problem with this because bacteria and humans (or any other mammal) replicated completely differently. Bacteria have a much higher likelihood of passing on genetic mutations because of transformation, transduction, or conjugation. In humans or other mammals the cells are not simple replicated from the mother cell, but rely on a sperm and an ova to complete the new cell. Therefore, just because it may be easy for a bacteria to pass on mutations, there is no reason to claim the it is easy for higher organisms to pass on mutations.
January 17, 2008 at 11:53 pm #80886quote :
Not only horses, Wooly Mammoth drawings have also been found in France.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauv … caves2.php
Fossil remains of dinosaurs have been found throughout europe and france, which is also where many of the cave paintings are.quote :
I don’t think so, can you cite your source for this.
January 18, 2008 at 12:24 am #80887
I believe it was in Dinosaur Valley State park in some of there excavations, but I may be mistaken.
January 18, 2008 at 12:50 am #80888
January 18, 2008 at 2:28 am #80896
I’m sorry, but anyone who honestly believes that dinosaurs and humans co-existed is sadly delusional, only to be eclipsed by those who claim the dinosaurs never existed.
January 18, 2008 at 2:42 am #80898quote twinletkat:
Sure replication is different and there is no sex involved. Nevertheless, mutations in the eggs/sperms will be passed when they happen. In fact considering genome length, a few mutations per genome will happen and will be passed on the next generation.
January 18, 2008 at 1:21 pm #80901
Little Beaver said "…As I understand it, the point is that the mutations that do occur, and are able to be passed on to other generations and contribute to that species, could not be drastic enough to produce say a change in species because the foundational DNA for that particular animal is still there. A cat is not going to eventually evolve into a bird because it developes a mutation for a wing-like structure."
Your worry about how could small mutations lead to large morphological changes might be explained in: “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” by Sean B. Carroll who specialises in the new science of Evo Devo.
In a nutshell it explains how animals with very similar gene sequences are able to appear so different. Since most animals share similar proteins, it is not unexpected to find similar gene sequences between different species. A few key genes have been found to be involved at the embryonic stage of development. These genes are very similar between different species. What has been discovered is that some other genes act as “on” “off” switches and depending at what stage in the developing embryo the switches are “on” or “off” can make huge differences in the morphological appearance of the final product.
In my primitive mind I liken the embryo building genes as being like the 8 notes in the tonal scale on a piano. We all have the same 8 notes. But the difference we get in the final product (the tune) all depends on which notes are “on” and which are “off”. Knowing how many different tunes are available from just 8 notes shows just how much variation in morphology is possible by slight mutations affecting the genetic switches.
So having told you that you can’t expect to get a cat to appear with wings I now begin to wonder!
January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm #80917
I like the piano metaphor; makes a lot of sense.
I would like to ask Little Beaver what alternate theory s/he proposes as an alternative to evolution.
January 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm #80925MrMisteryParticipant
Evo-devo is one of the coolest for science since they invented "Just-add-water coffee". I have always been intrigued how these homeotic genes are able to direct the development of the organism. The best example is how a small mutation in the SRY gene will produce a XY person that is phenotipically female. Not to say that the direction in evolution is man —> woman 😆 😆
January 20, 2008 at 7:17 pm #80928
To respond to some previous posts: HGT may have proven to be a positive mutation for those particular bacteria, but would that mutation still prove beneficial if they were in a natural environment with other normal bacteria without antibiotic influence? The point remains that the bacteria did not mutate into a different microorganism…they remained bacteria with bacterial DNA. Drosophila did have drastic mutations but did they produce a more successful fly? If I was a human living at the same time period as dinosaurs, I would choose not to situate my home/family in a place that I thought could be compromised/eaten or otherwise destroyed by dinosaurs. And I find myself questioning the accuracy of cave drawings as a description of which animals existed in the past.
January 21, 2008 at 7:42 am #80939MrMisteryParticipant
I don’t want to sound ignorant, but i can’t make heads or tails of your post…
January 21, 2008 at 7:46 am #80940
LittleBeaver quote "Drosophila did have drastic mutations but did they produce a more successful fly?"
I previously mentioned how small mutations affecting genetic switches could drastically affect the develoing embryo (Evo Devo) . I presume that your reference above refers to this. Mutations produced in the lab, just like random mutations produced in Nature, will not have any beneficial effects for Drosophila unless it produces an advantage vis a vis the environment and its ability to transmit this effect to the next generation. The techniques used in the lab are there to discover how mutations could have an effect, and are not designed to help Drosophila per se. So it would be rather surprising to find a benfit with such an experiment. However, if you were to suggest at the start of the experiment a hypothetical environmental scenario where limbs would be more useful than wings for survival and procreation and if this could be achieved in the lab – would you then be convinced that a benfit could arise from such mutations?
I cannot take seriously your statement on the accuracy of cave drawings. When I was young, I had the opportunity of visiting the caves of Lascaux (now closed to the public) and I can assure you that the drawings were superb and that no dinosaurs were represented. There may have been “religious” reasons why they only drew certain animals and not others but it had nothing to do with skill or accuracy of the artists. I think in this case you wold have argued better using religious reasons for the drawings depicted
January 21, 2008 at 7:56 am #80941
Wow Geno, what a treat to see the Cave paintings. You are fortunate. The geologist in me thinks it is interesting how they made the paint from various minerals.
January 21, 2008 at 12:40 pm #80946
Yes I was very lucky – as far as I can remember I must have been about 10 or 12 years old. Of course we didn’t know at the time that the caves would become inaccessible to the public due to deterioration of the paintings with all those tourists breathing on them. But I do remember how strong the colors were – really impressive. Impossible to believe that they had been there for about 30,000 years.
Unlike my photo prints with my ink jet printer which seem to start fading after about 2 years.
January 21, 2008 at 9:51 pm #80951
The point of my previous posts about dinosaurs existance with humans and the paintings are not the point that I was trying to make. The point is that just because there is no immediate and irrefutible evidence today that humans and dinosaurs walked together does not mean that it did not happen. Have not fisherman found various dinosaur-like aquatic animals that had not even decomposed enough to be older than humans?
Dinosaurs put aside … my goal is to make people look at true facts and then deduce what they believe. Not know what they believe and look for proof to back up their own hypothesis and assumptions.
January 22, 2008 at 6:55 am #80964
[quote="twinletkat"]The point of my previous posts about dinosaurs existance with humans and the paintings are not the point that I was trying to make. The point is that just because there is no immediate and irrefutible evidence today that humans and dinosaurs walked together does not mean that it did not happen. Have not fisherman found various dinosaur-like aquatic animals that had not even decomposed enough to be older than humans?
I agree that the non-existence of dinosaur pictures on cave dwellings does not prove that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same period of time. Had there been some pictures however would have been nice confirmation for your theory that they did exist together.
“my goal is to make people look at true facts and then deduce what they believe. Not know what they believe and look for proof to back up their own hypothesis and assumptions.”
Nothing wrong with your statement here although many discoveries have been made by people having theories and then trying to prove those theories by the use of experimentation. The great advantage of Man’s brain is that he can think in abstract terms which enables him to work things out even though he cannot see them! You seem to me to be saying that you only believe in things which you can see. We wouldn’t have made much progress along those lines. There is abundant evidence that the earth is very old, as is life itself, and that life has evolved from common ancestors. It is difficult to prove this in our life time because evolution takes place over thousands of years. We would have to set up an experiment and watch it over many generations.
Mankind had to wait for space exploration before the last "flat-earth" thinker finally abandoned his ideas even though there was ample evidence before space exploration that the earth was not flat.
Can you tell me what are the “true facts” that make you believe that all the species that we see to-day have always been around since the origin of life.
January 22, 2008 at 7:20 pm #80994
There seems to be a flaw in your logic, twinkletkat. Your reasoning seems to be that just because there’s no evidence doesn’t mean it isn’t true, and therefor it should be treated as a legitimate theory. Wrong. Using this logic, it’s impossible to determine what might be real or not. For example, maybe the entire universe was created a mere thirty seconds ago and we were all created complete with false memories to give the impression of a full life as well as a universe created with the "appearance" of old age to convince that because we’ve been around for a while we’re somehow important. Maybe that’s true, but without any evidence, how can you be sure? And if other theories have stronger evidence, why not go with what you can prove?
January 22, 2008 at 8:42 pm #81001
Good point Alex. Also if we follow this line of logic
“my goal is to make people look at true facts and then deduce what they believe. Not know what they believe and look for proof to back up their own hypothesis and assumptions.”
How would Einstein have deduced that matter was another form of energy? How would theoretical Physics have got us to where we are to-day? Try observing quantum mechanics without abstract thinking and much imagination.
February 1, 2008 at 1:04 am #81307
In a book I’ve read, dinosaurs as for the bible are referred to be dragons in nature. And both had lived together at the same time.
February 1, 2008 at 7:14 am #81317
The tales of dragons have been told throughout time, as written records indicate, but I do not think you can correlate this to dinosaurs. I will agree however, that man of antiquity may have found dinosaur fossils and conjured up tales of dragons in its storys.
February 2, 2008 at 11:06 am #81347
That’s actually how they said about it. And for creation, it was suggested too that the six days of God’s creation were equivalent to million of geological years.
February 3, 2008 at 10:28 pm #81377quote mcar:
The question has been raised as to what exactly is meant by the term "day," as this word takes on varying meaning depending on where in the universe the observer is located. For example, on Earth a day is 24 hours, but on Mars it is 25 hours, on Jupiter it is a mere 12, and on Venus a day lasts about three months. One would assume that the creation story was written from the perspective of God, the creator, who presumably would be in Heaven, and no one knows how long a day is in Heaven. So "day" to us might mean many millions of years to God. Also, given that God exists for all eternity, one would expect that what would seem like a very long time to us (such as millions or perhaps even billions of years) would be as mere seconds to God.
February 4, 2008 at 12:31 pm #81412
Well alex, the last sentence you wrote, such long time would be just a very fast snapshot to God.
That is far more to be likely comprehended by the human mind.
February 4, 2008 at 7:01 pm #81439quote jeremiah_1990:
Excellent advice! But how did you get your thought of God? Did God itself(sorry I can’t confirm the gender of God) teach you or someone else?
February 7, 2008 at 8:00 am #81547quote :
I mean no argue here but in the tone of what you confirmed here, is somewhat you would just agree that you existed with no designer. Maybe from just a mere collection of non-living dusts which were condensed into an unidentidified thing. Yes, simply a "thing" and not totally living.
February 7, 2008 at 12:52 pm #81553quote mcar:
Yes, every one has right to choose his belief. So I prefer to live in a real world, rather than false world. I respect reality but not lie.
February 7, 2008 at 5:15 pm #81569quote tianlai:
On this statement you and I are in complete agreement, although I think the agreement stops there, as I doubt if any two philosophers have ever been able to agree on a single definition of reality.
February 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm #81579
Philosophers could think that white horse is not a horse, but biologist couldn’t think so.
February 8, 2008 at 1:23 am #81592
Reality is the present. But man isn’t satisfied with the evidences from the past. What we are ought do today is the one that will shape our destiny. Yes, we have the freedom to go and choose the idea and way of living. But we have to remember that we can do nothing anymore about the past. For we were not there when it had all begun.
February 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm #81806JellybeansParticipant
I believe that God created everything, and that everything evolved and shaped into what is suitable and best for it.
The only reason of our existence is to rule over what God has created and to improve our lives and even our faith as well.
May 19, 2013 at 5:53 pm #113826Tim12Participant
Charles, what you were wrongly attributing to be Christ’s words to this followers, was a parable he was telling his disciples about a hard master. Sheesh!
May 19, 2013 at 5:56 pm #113827Tim12Participant
My post seems to have been misplaced.
As I tried again, it was again misplaced to a completely different subject.
May 20, 2013 at 9:48 am #113829JackBeanParticipant
to different subject or different page?
May 23, 2013 at 6:29 am #113850hydrParticipant
I Don’t know that god doesn’t exist, just being a science major I see all the evidence that points otherwise. maybe aliens created"GOD" who knows.
June 11, 2013 at 3:54 pm #113941thoffnagleParticipantquote jeremiah_1990:
I didn’t read through the thread but I hope that someone asked the following questions:
1 – What evidence do you have to support the existence of your god?
If you have no evidence for your god, then you have to go with another hypothesis. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains very well how life evolved, once it had already began. There are several hypotheses to explain how life began – admittedly, they all have flaws but they all follow the laws of physics and are, therefore, explainable. In fact, the entire process from Big Bang to humans (why are we always thought of as the epitome of life? It’s a totally unsupportable view.) is explainable by the laws of physics. So,
2 – Why do you reject these explainable hypotheses?
Lastly, please learn the scientific definition for the word "theory"! If you’re going to use it in a scientific context, you should know how to do so. Even the fundiots at Answers in Genesis know how to use it. If you are behind even AiG, then you really should catch up to the 20th, if not the 21st century!
November 9, 2013 at 9:42 pm #114702RabbitPhilosopherParticipantquote jeremiah_1990:
Whether or not human existence is a freak accident evolution by natural selection IS a scientific theory that at present best explains biodiversity and it hasn’t been shown to be incorrect. "God created the universe and everything in it" is not a scientific theory, it explains absolutely nothing.
November 22, 2013 at 6:24 pm #114771NMLevesqueParticipantquote jeremiah_1990:
Which god? What or who created this god? And finally what evidence do you have to support this conclusion?
Side note: The theory of biological evolution does not preclude a person from believing in a god(s).
You presented a false dichotomy here, I don’t think our existence is an accident nor that we were created for a purpose. There are plenty of other options to choose from, here’s one:
We are the result of a naturalistic process in which life adapted to it’s environment (climate, geography, flora, fauna, etc) and the selective pressures it imposed on the ancestors of our extant lineage, thus we are a direct result of the conditions of the Earth, more specifically east Africa a few hundred thousand years ago. Evolution is itself an observable fact corroborated by a comprehensive concordance of facts (independently verifiable observations) from a variety of fields which we’ve uncovered as a result of the best methodology we have for discerning the nature of reality (the scientific method). It is also something that has made accurate testable predictions, and which has yet to be falsified despite ample opportunities and attempts to do so. Simply put it is the best theory we have, and as a pragmatic and skeptical person, it is the most logical position to take.
November 28, 2013 at 2:07 am #114795supersapienParticipant
For all the people who say that religion and science can exist together and compliment each other, I would like to point out that, in science, things are accepted as a theory or fact when there is substantial evidence that is testable. The problem with God is that there is no evidence whatsoever that is testable and conclusive. It is always personal hallucinations that make someone feel and believe in God. So science and religion are incompatible.
You might, however, find some verses in scriptures that may relate to science but a number of them are totally against science, un-testable.
What I personally feel is that when people are not able to get answers to questions (regarding the nature, purpose of life, etc.), they tend to start believing in god, because it is the easy way out. Why not work to find the truth instead of just believing what scriptures say? Scriptures might just be some works of literature which we assume to be true.
I’m an atheist and that’s because I understand science. Science asks us to question everything and I did and god seemed so improbable to me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.