Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Harte]

17 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I guess it all depends.

Some of it might be worthy of disdain. 

Particularly if it turns into extremism. 

The thing is, the argument is always that atheists are just as bad. 

I just don't see atheists in here quoting Dawkins like Will Due quotes the Urantia book.

I just don't see that. 

You're talking about dogma. I'm talking about faith in a more general sense.

Harte

[GlitterRose]

I guess that's my beef.

The faithful seem more dogmatic, on the whole. 

Maybe the separation is religious vs. spiritual. I dunno. 

I don't like organized religion because of the dogma. 

It can be harmful.

Edited February 17, 2018 by ChaosRose

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I guess that's my beef.

The faithful seem more dogmatic, on the whole. 

Maybe the separation is religious vs. spiritual. I dunno. 

I don't like organized religion because of the dogma. 

It can be harmful.

Everything organized can be harmful, and eventually it does become, every idea or revolutionary movement turned into bloodshed - communism, religions, french revolution, nationalism... wars are not only of religious nature -every ideology brings corruption and eventually bloodshed, this phenomena is not only a religious phenomena. Science more and more turns dogmatic in the direction of scientific materialism - it is a natural development of things since it is concerned only with empiricism.

[Harte]

Science only purports to discover the mechanisms behind materialistic phenomena, so OF COURSE it is dogmatic to materialism.

Science doesn't attempt to understand the non-material.

You can't measure it.

Measurement is what science IS, when you boil it all down.

Harte

[+Hammerclaw]

There is a branch of science that deals with the nonmaterial. Because of the nature of what it studies, it is often called "soft science".

Soft science may or may not involve experiments, depending on the field, and the experiments may be harder to control or reproduce. Psychological studies, for example, have a number of variables which cannot be controlled, making it difficult to analyze the data from such experiments, or to ask other researchers to repeat the experiment. This branch of the sciences utilizes conjecture and a more open-ended discussion, rather than sticking to clearly defined boundaries, facts, and topics, and conjectures in soft science may be unprovable with experiments and other research.               wiseGEEK

[Crazy Horse]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

"Only a theory?"

Every scientific proclamation is "only a theory."

That doesn't keep your TV from working.

Harte

The working of a TV are well known.

A signal (consciousness) is transmitted through the air, is picked up by the receiver, (the brain) and the information is transformed into pictures and sound.

Turn off the TV, (the brain) and the signal (consciousness) is still there.

One feature of the NDE is the hovering over the clinically dead body and brain, looking down, seeing and hearing everything. Sometimes seeing things down corridors and in different rooms. This has been attested to, too many times to be dismissed by anyone actually seeking the truth. This suggests very strongly that consciousness is non local to the brain.

Folks who practice OBEs during sleep can have a similar, verifiable experience.

[Crazy Horse]

35 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

There is a branch of science that deals with the nonmaterial. Because of the nature of what it studies, it is often called "soft science".

Soft science may or may not involve experiments, depending on the field, and the experiments may be harder to control or reproduce. Psychological studies, for example, have a number of variables which cannot be controlled, making it difficult to analyze the data from such experiments, or to ask other researchers to repeat the experiment. This branch of the sciences utilizes conjecture and a more open-ended discussion, rather than sticking to clearly defined boundaries, facts, and topics, and conjectures in soft science may be unprovable with experiments and other research.               wiseGEEK

Agreed.

One thing Dr Sheldrake has demonstrated via his experiments of predicting telephone callers, email senders etc, is that, if the participant believes in these abilities, then the success rate rises, but if they were sceptical about such things, they only managed slightly better than a 50/50 chance.

[Crazy Horse]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Can you demonstrate God doing of these things? Come to think of it can you show God doing anything?

Well I pray, and that works surprisingly well.

But as Hammerclaw just said, these things are not repeatable on demand. Jesus for example wasnt a trained circus act, there had to be some feeling, some compassion imho.

So it is very difficult to show, demonstrate God, because God is everything and everything is God.

But life, energy, consciousness, must have arisen from someplace, thats a fact, I call that place THE ALL.

There have been thousands of faith healings, and NDEs when people see the Afterlife..

Can you repeat this in a laboratory, no, but that doesn't mean that it is unreal.

 

[Doug1029]

10 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

And where did that energy originate from?

In fact, where did the whole universe come from?

From a tiny piece of "something" we get an expanding universe full of planets and stars, galaxies and energy, energy that is aligned with certain principles and laws. So a random Big Bang happened and then all that energy starts to conform to certain laws of physics!

Kind of a miracle wouldn't you say?

And we have life and consciousness to consider.

Science tells us that nothing can come from nothing, yet we have all this energy, matter, life and consciousness.

Science makes no sense, "God" does.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory doesn't say that.  What it says is that the Universe is expanding.  That there ever existed a single point of origin is an assumption.  One that does not necessarily hold from a scientific perspective.  All physical laws break down at the point of singularity.  But can anything actually get that small?  Indeed, the Big Bang may be nothing more than a Big Bounce.  But that's all speculation, anyway.  Speculating about it is the same as religionists speculating about god.  We don't know, so to keep from looking stupid, we make up something that makes us look even stupidder.

The only honest answer is:  "I don't know."

Doug

Edited February 17, 2018 by Doug1029

[Crazy Horse]

23 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Actually, the Big Bang Theory doesn't say that.  What it says is that the Universe is expanding.  That there ever existed a single point of origin is an assumption.  One that does not necessarily hold from a scientific perspective.  All physical laws break down at the point of singularity.  But can anything actually get that small?  Indeed, the Big Bang may be nothing more than a Big Bounce.  But that's all speculation, anyway.  Speculating about it is the same as religionists speculating about god.  We don't know, so to keep from looking stupid, we make up something that makes us look even stupidder.

The only honest answer is:  "I don't know."

Doug

Speculating about the Big Bang is not the same as speculating about God.

The BB is only a theory, something that apparently happened a long time ago, as you say, just an assumption.

But Creation is with us today, we can see and feel and experience it in every moment of every day. So we have a lot more to go on..

What we can say is that the energy that is under, and at the back of Creation, (we could call it the BB for arguments sake), must have come from something, this is self evident. And that life can only come from life, this too is self evident. And that consciousness can only be born from something else that is conscious.

Bearing all this in mind, I can quite easily speculate, with some confidence, that "God" is Conscious and Alive. 

Above this basic understanding I wouldn't like to speculate. 

 

[Hre2breal]

7 hours ago, joc said:

No one is a target here.   If you feel like you are a target, look in the mirror...are you?  Are there red circles drawn on your chest?  And if there are, who put them there?  

You seem to have a lack of tolerance for the beliefs of others...and you seem to feel that when 'your own personal beliefs' are logically being put to the test, that you are a target....you are not a target...if you have a target on your chest, it isn't 'your belief' as much as it is your intolerance to entertain any belief other than your own.  

Just try seeing both sides of an argument...it can only enrich you...it will not diminish your faith.

Just some friendly words of advice.

Whatever Joc I personally dont want any advice from you..I told you before an I ll tell you again I have no respect for you or your empty BS wisdom so l ll leave it there...

[Harte]

9 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Can you post it again Harte? I would like to read it.

Thanks in advance.

Can't find it.

I can only find where I've mentioned it.

I did post it somewhere, but maybe on another forum.

Harte

[MauriOra]

9 hours ago, Harte said:

 

Logically, any creator of a universe would exist outside that universe. An observer existing outside of the universe would see the spacetime structure as a whole, in other words, all time at once.

Thank You Harte..

You have given me much to ponder on .. I found this thought provoking, and really it was an adventure for me. I went on a journey, through your words ..

These words above ..

Yes .. Logically, and I agree.

I am Spiritually Connected and I know through my experiences, that My  Mind,  is Connected to Universal Energies.. A Certain Frequency, In Tune ..

Physically, I am connected to Nature, Mother Earth, The Physical Plane... 

When I go all 5D, my whole body will be humming, like a bee, I feel all around me, my mind is locked into a certain frequency.. Once concentrated and focused on, this can also be done with sound, singing, humming, Knowledge from that frequency will come through to my body, signalling the feelings, converted to thoughts, that my computer Brain is Filing ... Once the Download has been successful,(this may only take a minute,) I can then access Information.. 

Mind Consciousness, connected to the Universe, can go outside of The Scope, and become "Observer" of all, and Time is just the Filing Cabinet of history's, sort of like DNA, Or the Genes, which can be checked out if it is pertaining to the Frequency Note that the Energy Ones vibration resonates with .. The Knowledge, that is given is what is needed in that life paths, Destiny ..

The Higher The Energy Vibration the More Knowledge, is given.. The More Knowledge that can be Accessed ..

My Mind is Connected to Outside this Material World, whilst My Body is Held Inside it,  for this is where it belongs, I stay in Connection, through the Chord, or Cord, of the Golden Thread, connected to My Crown...  

Mo..xx

[Harte]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

There is a branch of science that deals with the nonmaterial. Because of the nature of what it studies, it is often called "soft science".

Soft science may or may not involve experiments, depending on the field, and the experiments may be harder to control or reproduce. Psychological studies, for example, have a number of variables which cannot be controlled, making it difficult to analyze the data from such experiments, or to ask other researchers to repeat the experiment. This branch of the sciences utilizes conjecture and a more open-ended discussion, rather than sticking to clearly defined boundaries, facts, and topics, and conjectures in soft science may be unprovable with experiments and other research.               wiseGEEK

All true. But I'd add that not even "hard" science theories are provable.

New data can make even the most recent theories obsolete.

Also, the soft sciences you mention still only measure, even if the actual measurement is more difficult.

Harte

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, Illyrius said:

It's useless to dicsuss in this terms. They don't see a god and so there isn't one.

Nobody sees one, that's the point. People portray God into the worlds beauty, coincidences or they just force their own correlations. There is no effects or miracles to evaluate because believing in God is a personal choice, its not a tangible thing. 

11 hours ago, Illyrius said:

I suggest we paint some giant bearded guy on Jupiter, then they will have empirical evidence when they send a spacecraft to take photos.

Good luck with that 

Jupiter's a gas giant. I look at it often, it's stunning. Spray painting gas tends to fail. 

Amazing what you can learn with all the information out there. 

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, Harte said:

All true. But I'd add that not even "hard" science theories are provable.

New data can make even the most recent theories obsolete.

Also, the soft sciences you mention still only measure, even if the actual measurement is more difficult.

Harte

My point was, there is a scientific discipline that attempts to quantify and measure the nonmaterial, although I rather doubt some here would be overly fond of it's conclusions.

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, Harte said:

Outside of the religious trappings that come with the various beliefs, this idea of a creator creating suffering is an interesting one to me, and to dozens of philosophers over the centuries.

I'll preface my remarks with this - I don't believe there is a "God" that possesses all the attributes that believers posit.

That said, it seems to me that this "suffering" argument is vacant regarding a creator.

Logically, any creator of a universe would exist outside that universe. An observer existing outside of the universe would see the spacetime structure as a whole, in other words, all time at once.

There is no way to logically argue that suffering invalidates this creator, because there are varying levels of suffering and it's entirely possible that one's suffering is the lesser of several evils. That is, the suffering one experiences might well be less that the suffering that would have been experienced without that suffering.

There are certain realities to existence in this universe, one of which is the nature of reality.

As an example, people will argue that God, being benevolent, should interfere in a catastrophic event - such as a tsunami or earthquake - that kills thousands of people.

Such an argument is invalid, however, because one cannot possibly (logically) argue that there WAS no interference.

Perhaps the tsunami or the earthquake (or whatever) would have been worse without some interference.

Perhaps the catastrophe prevented an even worse one.

Volcanic eruptions slaughter people, but create rich soil. Maybe some have prevented incidents of starvation that would have arose at some future point. I need only point to San Marzano tomatoes if you need an example.

Given the nature of reality, continental plates are going to slip. Flammable materials are going to catch fire. Human beings are going to act like human beings. Mjcrobes are going to evolve into dangerous pathogens. Etc.

One cannot argue that each sufferer has experienced the apex of suffering - there is always the possibility that their (or multitudes of other people's) suffering would have been worse but for interference by a creator.

Another point is this - assuming an afterlife existence (and I don't, personally,) the time a person spends suffering in this existence is like a single grain of sand on the largest beach in the universe. The amount of suffering experienced reduces to an infinitely small fraction of the overall existence of the sufferer, and given the big picture I mentioned (observing all time at once,) is not even a matter for serious consideration.

The only logical argument for no creator is that creation can be explained through natural and understood processes - in other words, the absence of evidence of a creator, and I have an argument that counters that one as well, though it's too long to add to this overlong post in an inconsequential subject. Also, it's quite circular so not a very good one.

Bottom line, the existence of suffering cannot be a valid argument against the existence of a creator.

Harte

Gidday harte good to see you. 

I certainly agree that there is more than enough reason to discount the ideal of God, logically. 

But the flaw I see in your argument is that you are applying a logical process to an illogical construct. God took individual interests in people my times, he allowed mankind to survive the great flood with his chosen one. 

And he is magic. Make the sun stand still God, rain frogs God, kill all the firstborn to show that nasty pharos a lesson God, used Job as a betting chip with Satan, God, put Satan in the garden if Eden to soon mankind God. He can do anything inside or outside if nature with the purported super powers he has capable if creating a universe. 

Yes, a balanced view of basic right and wrong evades an all knowing being like this? That seems more illogical than cibsidetibf such an omnipotent being still has to obey nature 

If there is an ounce of validity to any of the above, God know what hurts, God can change a catastrophic event at the mere thought of it  and he created the garden if Eden with no suffering only to remove that because eve was tempted by Satan. If God can  see outside of time then he knew what that would result in endless stuffing for this he call innocents whilst some slob pulls a million dollar jackpot and blows it in narcotics. 

Considering God is fairytale capable, nothing is beyond his power, he can stop a tsunami as if it never happened.  I would posit that a god capable of anything, and then letting what he determined innocents to suffer whilst sinners win lotteries, is either a total dick, not worthy of worship, or he does not exist. And evidence as we agree supports the latter by providing better answers than ancient philosophies. 

If God is invoked in hindsight with magical capabilities I think logically that indicates he should have magical responsibilities and can be torn down  by them as easily as he is put in a pedestal by them.

[Harte]

26 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

My point was, there is a scientific discipline that attempts to quantify and measure the nonmaterial, although I rather doubt some here would be overly fond of it's conclusions.

A thing, however ephemeral, must be material to be measurable.

Perhaps not physically material, but material nonetheless.

Harte

[Harte]

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Gidday harte good to see you. 

I certainly agree that there is more than enough reason to discount the ideal of God, logically. 

But the flaw I see in your argument is that you are applying a logical process to an illogical construct.

Maybe so, but logic is all we have.

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

God took individual interests in people my times, he allowed mankind to survive the great flood with his chosen one. 

And he is magic. Make the sun stand still God, rain frogs God, kill all the firstborn to show that nasty pharos a lesson God, used Job as a betting chip with Satan, God, put Satan in the garden if Eden to soon mankind God. He can do anything inside or outside if nature with the purported super powers he has capable if creating a universe. 

If there is an ounce of validity to any of the above, God know what hurts, God can change a catastrophic event at the mere thought of it  and he created the garden if Eden with no suffering only to remove that because eve was tempted by Satan. If God can  see outside of time then he knew what that would result in endless stuffing for this he call innocents whilst some slob pulls a million dollar jackpot and blows it in narcotics. 

Nah.

That's not the guy I was talking about.

It's why I tried to concentrate on using "creator" instead of saying "God."

That guy comes with a lot of useless baggage

Harte

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, Harte said:

A thing, however ephemeral, must be material to be measurable.

Perhaps not physically material, but material nonetheless.

Harte

How material is time? We can only measure the effects of duration on material objects. Time, itself, is quite insubstantial.

[Harte]

Yes, ephemeral you might say.

But observations of it can be made, and amounts of it can be quantified.

It's material alright. No less material than wind, or light.

Harte

 

[+Hammerclaw]

6 minutes ago, Harte said:

Yes, ephemeral you might say.

But observations of it can be made, and amounts of it can be quantified.

It's material alright. No less material than wind, or light.

Harte

 

Only the effects of duration can be measured and quantified. Wind and light have substance. Show me the substance of time itself, not it's effects.                    http://does-time-exist.info/     

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, Illyrius said:

I want to destroy materialism not science. I like science.

No you don't you have made derogatory marks  concerning scientists and science many a time. 

Its just a fear of the known, it normally works the other way around but when it comes to belief, quite common. 

I see it all the time here, people try to rationalise belief by removing elements of ancient superstition and rewriting them to suit a narrative, or just cherry picking the heck out if these ancient legends in an attempt to make them sound reasonable and reconcilable by today's mistakes basic knowledge.

Your just using materialism as a buzz word too. 

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, Harte said:

Maybe so, but logic is all we have.

I agree but it's not what religion works with logically the watchmaker argument falls apart. 

Quote

Nah.

That's not the guy I was talking about.

It's why I tried to concentrate on using "creator" instead of saying "God."

That guy comes with a lot of useless baggage

Harte

I an understand that, but from what I gather, Will constantly referring to the UB and invoking of Jesus indicates this thread is focused on Yaweh. A couple of posters might be referring to a universal creator but it's not been apparent in this thread. Fir all intents and purposes, the classical Yaweh who let there be light and created eve from Adams rib is well disproven by better answers. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by psyche101

[Aquila King]

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Will constantly referring to the UB and invoking of Jesus indicates this thread is focused on Yaweh.

Will Due Logic:

Reason #1: The Urantia Book.