Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
If we all agree that the two are compatible, what exactly are we debating about?
#2 Total Post Count
Obviously not the original topic by jeremiah, but by some sort of fancy doodle stuff about creative expression....
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
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.
I haven't received anything; did you send it via private message or e-mail?
#2 Total Post Count
Never mind; I got it.
#2 Total Post Count
Sorry RK but I want to make sure that we are on the same page
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.
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.
Does it? I am not convinced that it does. Creation simply IS as first principle.
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.
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.
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)
Hope you don't think I was being unfriendly. I was only trying to understand the logic of an intelligent individual against intelligent design.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests