God vs Evolution
Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam
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)?
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."
^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
-
narrowstaircase
- Death Adder
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
- Location: gold coast, Australia
robertkernodle wrote: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 indeterminism.
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.
robertkernodle wrote: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 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."
robertkernodle wrote:I say, "The universe is indeterminate".
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.
robertkernodle wrote: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.
Robert Kernodle
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!
"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."
-
robertkernodle
- Death Adder
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:14 pm
.
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
RK
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
RK
-
robertkernodle
- Death Adder
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:14 pm
.
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.
Robert K.
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.
Robert K.
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.
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)
-
narrowstaircase
- Death Adder
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
- Location: gold coast, Australia
robertkernodle wrote:.
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
RK
nooo! i didnt mean you. i think you are very imaginitive and exploratory, very cool
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?
"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."
Re: God vs Evolution
jeremiah_1990 wrote: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.
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.
-
AstusAleator
- King Cobra
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
- Location: Oregon, USA
-
alextemplet
- King Cobra
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
- Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
- Contact:
-
cracked_doc
- Coral
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:21 pm
- Location: U.A.E
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests