|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 21, 2004 14:44:26 GMT -5
I didn’t mention chaos theory . . . unless Darwinism at its core is based upon it. But perhaps it is. Darwin’s evolution was random, purposeless, and planless, was it not? So I find Darwin inadequate. I argue for design because of the complexity of the universe – because of the symmetry and patterns. My design happens to have an initiator. I don't think darwinism is random or purposeless. All things have an evolutionary path. Therefore, I don't see it as being random. As I have said, I neither support nor discount the existence of a supreme being (still searching to find "the way" I guess), but no matter how far science goes in determining the origin of the universe/mankind ...... religion can always go one step further and say "But what caused that? ... Don't know? ... well I thihnk it is God" I am fine with that as well. Good question. Logical? Probably not, though I see Santa Claus and a supreme deity who we call God as two different beings. Santa Claus is based on a legendary identifiable person, and his legend has been supported through many the generations encouraged by a consumer mentality. God as Supreme Being is non-identifiable although postulated as mythical, based only on faith (some might suggest blind irrational belief). But you might also ask if it is logical to believe in romantic love. Sometimes logic has nothing to do with what we believe or how we act. They are both beings that it takes faith to believe in, and are symbolic of a greater good. I would argue you though that church (and therefore the pursuit of God) also has a consumer mentality. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 21, 2004 15:08:17 GMT -5
Chasing God is as pointless and as amusing as watching a dog chase its tail.
Be here now. Acknowledge that which is ever present.
God does not require buildings, institutions or even communities. People do.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 21, 2004 15:39:16 GMT -5
Chasing God is as pointless and as amusing as watching a dog chase its tail. Be here now. Acknowledge that which is ever present. God does not require buildings, institutions or even communities. People do. The dog may not be able to catch its tail, but at least it can see it. God is either nonexistent or invisible (well, if nonexistent then also invisible except in the imagination). |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 21, 2004 15:49:47 GMT -5
The dog may not be able to catch its tail, but at least it can see it. God is either nonexistent or invisible (well, if nonexistent then also invisible except in the imagination). God is not a finite being. God created time and space. On Science and God |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 21, 2004 15:56:28 GMT -5
transposition has caused problems. As you say, science has not found evidence . . . yet. It may do so in the days and years ahead. The search for knowledge has led us far and will continue to do so in this and in other areas as well. A question for the ages . . . as is the Adam and Eve discussion (where did the women come from so the sons could marry?). I guess they bred like rabbits! And I find it equally difficult to see this intricate world coming about by random chance. Remember her perfection when she hits 2 ;D There are no incremental additions to finding God, no scientific advances that shed more light: God is either there or not there. The discovery (if ever achieved) must be total and all at once. The problem with proving creation of the universe is that there are no experiments to duplicate it. Creation (and creationism) is therefore reduced to theology, not science. According to some of the ramblings in the Old Testament, Eve was Adam's second wife (remember Lilith?). Cain and Abel were not their only sons. There may have been daughters. Adam and Eve may not have been the only human toys God put on earth. So much to conjecture about! So much information to have to pass down via storytellers before the Hebrews learned to write! And why would anyone want to pass it down? Who cares who begat whom? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 21, 2004 16:03:44 GMT -5
Maybe the universe is not unique (parallel universes?) Maybe it is not the first one. Maybe another being created God so that God could create this particular universe. Maybe Sam Pollock is the true Messiah. Who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 21, 2004 17:32:55 GMT -5
Maybe the universe is not unique (parallel universes?) Maybe it is not the first one. Maybe another being created God so that God could create this particular universe. Maybe Sam Pollock is the true Messiah. Who knows? The Maple Leafs won their 24th Stanley Cup in the Bizzaro Universe. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 21, 2004 17:56:06 GMT -5
Maybe the universe is not unique (parallel universes?) Maybe it is not the first one. Maybe another being created God so that God could create this particular universe. Maybe Sam Pollock is the true Messiah. Who knows? God only knows. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 21, 2004 17:59:41 GMT -5
The Maple Leafs won their 24th Stanley Cup in the Bizzaro Universe. Sounds like the other place has been frozen over for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2004 9:48:01 GMT -5
I don't think darwinism is random or purposeless. All things have an evolutionary path. Therefore, I don't see it as being random. Have I missed something? I acknowledge that this isn’t my area of expertise, but does not Darwinism speak of mutations that either work or do not work (the ever popular black and white moths story)? Is this not random? Surely some moth did not say oh, the trees are soot-covered – we must now mutate a gene that promotes dark wings. And not all mutations work . . . is that purposeful? Ultimately that’s it, isn’t it? And you either accept/believe the possibility or discount it. How you respond to the question will should influence everything you do after that (in a positive, compassionate way, of course). God does not require buildings, institutions or even communities. People do. You will find no argument with me there. Institutional religion (church) has indeed a consumer mentality. Buildings and programming have in too many ways taken over what the church is supposed to be: a place of encouragement and support for people's needs (physical, social, and emotional as well as spiritual). |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2004 9:50:22 GMT -5
There are no incremental additions to finding God, no scientific advances that shed more light: God is either there or not there. The discovery (if ever achieved) must be total and all at once. The problem with proving creation of the universe is that there are no experiments to duplicate it. Creation (and creationism) is therefore reduced to theology, not science. As I’ve said, it is a faith proposition. Theists believe; non-theists don’t. You (that’s the royal “you”) can’t see the existence of a Supreme Deity/God; I can’t not see the existence of one. Philosophical debate will not change a person’s mind to a faith belief or, I guess, away from one. Actually, Lilith is not mentioned in the Bible at all. She is mentioned in the Gnostic (non-canonical) legends and in some Rabbinic legends. The Old Testament/Torah is Jewish history and an understanding of their world-view. There is indeed a lot for conjecture. And they care who begat who, because their history is built on it. As a Christian, I’m not so concerned. My focus is the life and death of Jesus, which I acknowledge is questioned as well. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2004 9:56:04 GMT -5
Maybe the universe is not unique (parallel universes?) Maybe it is not the first one. Maybe another being created God so that God could create this particular universe. Maybe Sam Pollock is the true Messiah. Who knows? Max Tegmark does! Scientific American, May 2003 article Infinite parallel universes. But of course, because we cannot see them, because they are so far away, we must just accept their existence by faith. God we cannot accept by faith; other universes we can. Hmmmmm. AFAIAC, the scientific inquiry must go on, and should not be feared. We have much to learn. In spite of all of the evil science has foisted on us, good has also come from it (flush toilets, for example). Inspired by God, of course.  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 22, 2004 10:07:58 GMT -5
Have I missed something? I acknowledge that this isn’t my area of expertise, but does not Darwinism speak of mutations that either work or do not work (the ever popular black and white moths story)? Is this not random? Surely some moth did not say oh, the trees are soot-covered – we must now mutate a gene that promotes dark wings. And not all mutations work . . . is that purposeful? The ultimate underlying principle in the theory of evolution would be that things evolve because there is a need to evolve. If there is no need, then there is no evolution. To me that is purposeful. Take man. Science can prove that we did not always walk on 2 feet. But when we didn't we also weren't the dominate species on earth. We evolved to walk on 2 feet because there was a need. There was also a need to survive, and man evolved to develop logical thought processes. We discovered fire, and we have been evolving technologically ever since to the point where we are now the dominate species. Now take the turtle. It evolved to the point where it could live on land and water in prehistoric times and stopped. There was no more need to evolve. Being the only dinosaur to survive the ice age was the end of its need. Maybe we are looking at it from two different angles. Sure there might be a random aspect to evolution, but there is also a random aspect to theology. God is good, god created all, god kills, god tempts ...... it is random as to why bad things happen for no reason to good people. The leap of faith is the biggest leap, but you can take it at any point in your life. The person who takes the leap of faith at confirmation is not seen as any different than the person who takes the leap on his death bed. Random? The main thing is to live your life doing good, respect others, and enjoy yourself. To me whether you believe or not that should be enough in anyone's eyes. As a side note: According to myth/bible satan/Luther was an angel who revolted against God. Do I have that right? Who created hell? And if you believe in a supreme good being does that predispose you to believing in a supreme evil being? (for balance) I know the answer will somehow involve free-will but it would be interesting to hear your viewpoint |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 22, 2004 14:17:24 GMT -5
Some parallel resources: www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse1.htmlwww.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universeWell, God does greatly inconvenience us by demanding adherence to a moral code that restricts many of our baser and more childish behaviours. It's not uncommon for a child to rebel against his parents. Of course it's also not uncommon for this type of child to wantonly break things and be unable to put them back together. Then someone else gets blamed for things not working, and they get beaten up for it, and...then the crying begins in earnest. Hmmm, I wonder how often God has resisted the impulse to flush the universe as we know it? |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Dec 22, 2004 14:56:51 GMT -5
The more flexible our definition of God, the more harmony between religion and science.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 22, 2004 14:59:19 GMT -5
The more flexible our definition of God, the more harmony between religion and science. Is science really that rigid? It seems that in recent years science, physics in particular, has been bending toward the Light, as it were, and is leaving the fossil-thumpers behind to duke it out with their religious counterparts. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 22, 2004 16:46:05 GMT -5
The more flexible the definition of anything, the easier it is to reconcile it with anything else. The indiscriminate blurring of lines is hardly advantageous.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 22, 2004 17:06:07 GMT -5
The more flexible the definition of anything, the easier it is to reconcile it with anything else. The indiscriminate blurring of lines is hardly advantageous. Agreed. Fortunately both scientists and theologians tend to be very discriminatory. And yet there is a merging of foci. |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Dec 22, 2004 17:59:41 GMT -5
Allow me to rephrase.
If your idea of God is a rigid, literal one (Old Man with a beard who snapped his fingers making the Universe and Us then presented his specific Commandments), you're setting yourself for conflict with other belief systems. Similarly, if you're a scientist who demands absolute proof before suspending his disbelief, you're discounting unproven possibilities.
A broader definition of God (forces of nature etc) allows room for the spiritual and the scientific. Look down a microscope or through a telescope and witness incredible forces at work. Undeniably vast and complex forces. Surely something is at work, whether concious or not, and there is an order and there are rules.
But that leaves us asking how, where, when, why did it start? Are Creation and the Big Bang the same event, merely different interpretations? And what came before that, and so on, and so on.
In this sense, science and religion ask the same questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2004 19:06:41 GMT -5
science and religion ask the same questions. Indeed they do. Different disciplines, searching for the same answer: how? Some scientists say it just happened; others (well-qualified, not quacks!) say God. But the search does not (or at least should not) end with a sstrong period. That's all I'm saying. I just look to a Creator. By faith. No proof. I don't like the word interpretations, but sure. This is an everexpanding universe, which means we will never catch up to everything. And I admit that I don't understand this world we live in, but I'm not going to stop my search for coming to grips with it. I refuse -- even as a quasi-conservative evangelical born-again Bible thumper -- to shut my mind off. After all, it is a great mind that my Creator gave me (at least I think it is!). ;D |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2004 19:08:29 GMT -5
I wonder how often God has resisted the impulse to flush the universe as we know it? Probably looks at us and has the urge on a daily basis. But He promised that he would never flush us again. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2004 19:10:01 GMT -5
The ultimate underlying principle in the theory of evolution would be that things evolve because there is a need to evolve. If there is no need, then there is no evolution. To me that is purposeful. I do not deny and do not argue about the nature of evolution – such is obvious in our world (btw, “anti-evolutionary Christianity” only came about in the middle of the past century – many Christian leaders and theologians embraced it when the theory was first posited as proof of the Genesis account of creation!). It is what Darwinism has become that I argue about. Indeed it is the biggest leap . . . but many who decide on their death bed regret not doing it sooner! And not random – choice. I’ve always wondered . . . in a survival of the fittest world, why should I care about others? Unless, of course, I get something from it! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2004 19:11:19 GMT -5
As a side note: According to myth/bible satan/Luther was an angel who revolted against God. Do I have that right? Yes The Creator No. Many people of different religious backgrounds, Christians included, do not like the idea of /believe in an evil personage (Satan as evil personified) or hell. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 22, 2004 19:54:45 GMT -5
I have no opinion regarding the existence or non-existence of God, other than that the God(s) described by most major religions simply don't fit with my experience of the world.
Do we have free will if God already *knows* what choices we will make? How can we?
How can God be described as good when he allows so much evil?
I can't believe in any organized religion any more than I can believe in Santa Clause. Why would I choose to believe in one religion instead of another? That its principles are more closely aligned with my own does not make it correct. Nor does the fact that my parents [hypothetically speaking] were raised by their parents to believe in it. Religions such as Christianity only persist today because of a lot of politics - because of human decisions to propagate/impose them.
A Christian, if born in a different part of the world, would almost certainly not be a Christian. Knowing that he would likely believe just as strongly in some other, possibly opposing religion simply because of a change in location makes me wonder why he believes in Christianity. What makes it more probable than any of the countless religions that have ceased to exist?
The bible was written by men, supposedly with divine inspiration, but so were a lot of things. It's one thing to read it as a philosophical text, perhaps with the belief that it, like all things, happened under God's watch, but to claim it as the exposition of God's will? I can't see any basis for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 22, 2004 20:42:01 GMT -5
Assuming the existence of an all-knowing God, this God permits not only evil but also the suffering of good people. Therefore, what is the benefit to humanity of having a God at all? I'd put this God on trial for callous indifference to Christians as well as to all others.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2004 21:47:44 GMT -5
Do we have free will if God already *knows* what choices we will make? How can we? How can God be described as good when he allows so much evil? Why would I choose to believe in one religion instead of another? A Christian, if born in a different part of the world, would almost certainly not be a Christian. Assuming the existence of an all-knowing God, this God permits not only evil but also the suffering of good people. Therefore, what is the benefit to humanity of having a God at all? I'd put this God on trial for callous indifference to Christians as well as to all others. This has been a blast for me. I don't pretend to have any answers, let alone all of them. In fact, I imagine your questions will lead to paths that I have no hope of trying to answer. But opinionated as I am, of course I will continue to make statements and comments that you can make statements and comments to that I can reply to that you can . . . well, you know. Unfortunately, I must take a hiatus for a week -- I'm about to celebrate! Interestingly enough, much of the western world is in the midst of the same named celebration . . . they just do it differently and for different reasons (keeping the economy moving through rampant consumerism). I am not a theologian nor a philosopher nor a scientist . . . just a person trying to grow in the grace that I believe the God I believe in offers. But pile on those questions . . . and give me some answers as well! Merry Christmas . . . or if you will, Happy Holidays . . . or Safe Saturnalia . . . or whatever! |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 22, 2004 21:54:49 GMT -5
Assuming the existence of an all-knowing God, this God permits not only evil but also the suffering of good people. God permits human beings to choose the manner in which they behave through the exercise of their free will. You have put the creation before the creator. The question should rather be, "What use is it for God to have human beings?" I would put mankind on trial for indifference to God. Wait, unfortunately that isn't necessary. * I now borrow a phrase from Groucho Marx: "Hello, I must be going." Catch you all on the flip side. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 22, 2004 22:04:00 GMT -5
God permits not only evil but also the suffering of good people. God permits human beings to choose the manner in which they behave through the exercise of their free will. I've seen this argument many times before. These 2 statements are not mutually exclusive. The second does not negate the truth of the first. |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Dec 22, 2004 22:39:10 GMT -5
All religions are variations of the same thing. They fill the same need. They explain our place in the grand scheme of things. They explain what is right and what is wrong. A belief system. A structure. Perhaps they offer us a glimpse of our Creator's motives and designs for us. This is a comforting notion when we ponder our relative powerlessness. God becomes the Ultimate Parent. This has been a universal need of mankind throughout history. The Sun. The Moon. Fire. Mother Earth. Thunder Rain Animals Stars Kings Emperors States And ritual helps as well. A fundamental insecurity is soothed by religion. We can live our lives in peace. Faith takes the fear out of living. And this is where I think faith is a healthy, natural state. Humans are designed to question, to adapt, to have fears etc. But we need order. Too much chaos, and we go mad. Given all there is to fear and question, does faith not help 'optimize' a human being, in terms of design? Of course, faith is open to all sorts of perversions. Denial is a necessary survival mechanism. So is generalization. And perhaps initially, so was tribalism. The Christianity is only one interpretation (sorry franko). It was born in a time and place where more than one prophet roamed around claiming truth, or enlightenment or whatever. If I'm not mistaken, Muhammed sprung from the same region about the same time and shares some roots with Judaism and Christianity. Buddha did his thing. Hindus and Sikhs have their thing. People are varied and imperfect. And so must be their interpretations of God. The idea of a caring God who made us in his image is comforting and convenient but vain. Observation might paint God as cold and logical. Or even indifferent or malevolent. Look at nature. Death and suffering. Only the strong survive. Life adapts and continues. One could argue than Mankind is a plague upon the Earth, not a devinely chosen 'offspring". We may be the smartest monkeys, but we don't seem to be in step 'with the program'. The challenge science gives to religion is important. Religion must be tested and must evolve. The Earth is not flat. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Ultimately, why does anything exist? How is it possible. And if there is a God, where did It come from? Meanwhile, back at my desk, I notice I'm out of beer and the stores are closing soon. Also my dog is looking at me. He needs a walk. I walk him and feed him. I pick up after him. Wait a minute.....dog spelled backwards is God!  |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 22, 2004 23:06:32 GMT -5
Good post HabbaDasher. I agree that religion has a useful function and that belonging to a religious community can be beneficial.
|
|
