Login

Join for Free!
112176 members


God vs Evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby narrowstaircase » Sat May 05, 2007 4:36 am

robertkernodle wrote:.
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.

Robert K.


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.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Postby want2know » Sat May 05, 2007 5:00 am

Darby wrote: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.
For one reason or another that sounds very logical to me: if something can't possibly happen naturally, it must be supernatural.
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am

Postby Sillitovet » Sat May 05, 2007 8:07 am

want2know wrote: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.


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.



want2know wrote:For one reason or another that sounds very logical to me: if something can't possibly happen naturally, it must be supernatural.


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]
Sillitovet
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 8:25 pm


Postby alextemplet » Sat May 05, 2007 8:03 pm

Sillitovet wrote: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.


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.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby want2know » Sat May 05, 2007 9:07 pm

alextemplet wrote: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.
I am 100% with you on this one.
Sillitovet wrote: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.

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.
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am

Postby alextemplet » Sat May 05, 2007 10:01 pm

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.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby narrowstaircase » Sun May 06, 2007 1:32 am

alextemplet wrote: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.


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.

alextemplet wrote: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.


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.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Postby alextemplet » Sun May 06, 2007 1:52 am

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.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby want2know » Sun May 06, 2007 4:26 am

narrowstaircase wrote: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.
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.
want2know
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:25 am

Postby alextemplet » Sun May 06, 2007 4:45 am

That's very true, God exists regardless of whether or not we acknowledge Him, understand Him, or want Him.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby narrowstaircase » Sun May 06, 2007 6:16 am

want2know wrote: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.


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..."
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Postby narrowstaircase » Sun May 06, 2007 6:22 am

alextemplet wrote:That's very true, God exists regardless of whether or not we acknowledge Him, understand Him, or want Him.


reminds me of an old greek saying that i just found the other day, "Called or not called, God shall be there."
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron