Imperfect Design

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

User avatar
greeneye55582
Garter
Garter
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:52 pm

Post by greeneye55582 » Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:54 pm

genovese wrote: Please outline some mechanism by which a normal intelligent, non diseased brain comes about to hold ideas which are not tenable.


Parental influence.
Peer influence.
Religous influence.
Cult influence?

User avatar
greeneye55582
Garter
Garter
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:52 pm

Post by greeneye55582 » Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:57 pm

genovese wrote:greeneye wondered why intelligent design needs to be perfect.

Non perfection is very probable with human intelligent design - I agree. But are you saying that THE Creator of the Universe has only the same limited intelligence as us mortals?


That's not what I'm saying at all.

But I put the questions to you again -

Why should intelligent creators want to create something perfect?

And who gets to define what the guidelines of perfection are?

User avatar
greeneye55582
Garter
Garter
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:52 pm

Post by greeneye55582 » Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:04 pm

AstusAleator wrote:What I'm curious about is this: If it is our genetic code that enables us to concieve of a concept such as god, are there other animals that have similar thoughts or are we the only ones?


Astus, interesting question. If you want to go along with some current theories & papers, only animals with an a large cortex (such as ours) are able to 1) have a conception of "self" 2) apply that concept of self to others and the environment around it 3) create some form of cultural definitions that then collectively alienate its own "group" from other "groups" 4) enable us to think about our origins (rather than just go through the motions of living. eat. breathe. sleep. so on).

In other words, larger cortex = larger capacity for ways of thinking.

Like I said, these are just updates/modifications to theories that aren't really old. If anyone wants me to send them articles, just PM me. But I won't post them in the forum, cuz that'll take up too much space. ;)

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:41 am

genovese wrote:mith gives "Love" as an example of loss of logical thinking. If you read the other ongoing topic ie Reconciling Faith with Evolution, you will see that I have suggested that having Faith is beneficial to the species and is probably impregnated into our genome. In order to hold such beliefs I have also suggested that DNA is somehow switching off logical thinking. The same applies to falling in love. This is beneficial for the species and it would not surprise me if DNA is switching off logical thinking, which might inhibit the process.


If you think religious faith is based on a temporary absence of logic, then you clearly do not understand religion at all. Pope Benedict XVI was right when he described Christianity as "the religion of reason." A logical examination of the evidence will lead one to the conclusion that God does in fact 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)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:46 am

AstusAleator wrote:What I'm curious about is this: If it is our genetic code that enables us to concieve of a concept such as god, are there other animals that have similar thoughts or are we the only ones?


I've often thought about that myself, if other species have religions like we do. I think that not only intelligence is important to religious faith, but also the ability to communicate such ideas to other individuals and especially to offspring. I've also wondered if animals that can communicate with humans (such as apes through sign language) can understand religious thought well enough to sincerely believe in God themselves. If so, perhaps we should allow chimps to be baptized?
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
genovese
Coral
Coral
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:56 pm

Post by genovese » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:58 am

Alextemplet is correct about the Pope's views. I agree that all religious beliefs in the supernatural are there for the benefit of the species - but not for any one religion. They have all probably said the same thing as did the Pope. Christianity and Islam are just the very latest fashions in religion.
The "temporary absence of logic" only applies to accepting Belief in something without actual proof. The religious person will have perfectly logical thinking on other subjects otherwise we would be talking about a mad person.

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:06 am

kclo4x wrote:[It is not of reason.

as far as i know, other then matter and energy nothing els seems to exist.

So, if god, as the Christian faith believes is ALL knowing and ALL powerful, this would require infinities!
and the universe is not infinite, it is finite. so either god must exist in a form other then matter or energy, a new something never detected before.
but then do we have reason to believe in him if he hasn't been detected?
Also can something different from matter and energy even effect matter and energy?

maybe this is crazy but i think thats a good way to disprove a knowing god.


Think about what you're saying for a minute. The universe, which is (probably) finite, was created by God. Common sense would indicate that for God to have created the universe, He must first have existed outside it! So He would not be bound by what we consider to be "natural law."

And who says God has never been detected? I talk to Him every day. Surely that counts as detection?
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)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:07 am

genovese wrote:The "temporary absence of logic" only applies to accepting Belief in something without actual proof. The religious person will have perfectly logical thinking on other subjects otherwise we would be talking about a mad person.


What about believing in God with proof to back up the belief?
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)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:12 am

kclo4x wrote:Well then he cant know everything, and has no clue what we do, how could he?

it doesn't count as detection because it doesn't hold up to the scientific method


Why can't He know everything?

No, my personal interaction with God certainly doesn't hold up to the scientific method, but only means that it can't be "scientifically" proven. "Practically" proven is quite a simpler matter, since if you've ever met someone, then for all practical purposes you know s/he exists! After all, no one ever claimed that science is perfect.
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)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:18 am

kclo4x wrote:[Science? whats wrong with it?

How could he?
i dont think its possible for something that isn't matter or energy to effect us
and god can't be either of those.


what isn't matter or energy?
Gravity?
i think its a property of mass :P


Science is, by definition, the human attempt to understand our surroundings in naturalistic terms. Just as humans are imperfect, so is science.

God can effect us because He controls both matter and energy.
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
genovese
Coral
Coral
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:56 pm

Post by genovese » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:28 am

alextemplete says "what about believing in God with proof.."
Please let me know what the proof is.
"Talking to God every day" is not proof that he/she exists.
I talked to Father Christmas and Fairies once upon a time, but I do not expect you to take that on board as proof that they really existed. I agree that they did exist in my own mind, but unfortunately other people standing next to me were unable to confirm their presence.

User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)
Contact:

Post by alextemplet » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:50 am

kclo4x wrote:Nothing is perfect, and how can god control matter and energy?

and don't say because he created it, thats so illogical and based on nothing.


Why is it so illogical? If I create something, I can choose to create it to be controllable by me, can't I?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests