|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
CS writes: You have a problem with the early chemical reactions that lead to the emergence of life but they were not different enough from ones that you don't have a problem with for you to make the distinction. You think they were somehow different and required an intelligent input, but they weren't. Thanks CS. I'll have to take your word for it. I have to say though that with all of the complexity of a living cell with all of its strands of DNA etc is quite a leaps from mindless particles but then again it is quite a leap from single celled life to Catholic Scientist as well. 
CS writes: Well, we do and we don't. Your body is currently employing inorganic non-cellular calcium metal atoms into new cells in your bones. That's only tangential to the point but its worth pointing out that the formation of new cells from non-cellular materials happens all the time. I love this forum. I didn't know that. That's the new thing I've learned today. Thanks.
CS writes: Regarding the emergence of life, itself, the environment was radically different and there weren't already living organisms to exploit the proto-lifes that would be gradually emerging. The ones that are emerging today are quickly getting gobbled up. If you're asking why we haven't seen it in the lab, that's just because we haven't gotten there yet. But we will one day. Actually I was talking about it happening in nature. The example you used for the emergence of new cells from inorganic materials does require the pre-existence of cellular life though. It does seem to me that when it is done in a lab it will be an example that it took sentient life to make it happen.
CS writes: It could easily be that the emergence of life is an inevitability given the conditions suitable for it. I mean, that's what we see here on Earth... no matter what kind of crazy-ass environment you go to, volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, air pockets under miles of ice, a poisonous cave deep underground that has been sealed off from the surface for millennia.... no matter where you go, if life can exist, then it does. Life seems to be very adaptable, so adaptable in fact that you would almost think that it has been designed that way.
CS writes: Like I said before, this isn't a challenge to your theist position. You just need to slide the bar to the left a little bit so that the emergence of life falls under the Big Plan rather than needing the direct hand of god tinkering with it. That seems to me the position of Christian Biologists such as Francis Collins and Denis O. Lamoureux and as they and yourself just might know more about stuff than I do I guess I'll go along with it. From my perspective it seems that even for God to be able to put together a system that designs itself right from the start seems like a lot, which made me think that tinkering would be necessary. Just goes to show that I shouldn't underestimate God.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: Something (rather than nothing) exists. Do you agree that this is as good a starting point for analysis as we can hope to achieve? If so - Then it becomes a question of what is this 'something' that just exists (i.e. uncaused). Is it a highly complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of universe creation? Or is it something less elaborate....? I'm not sure that I would describe God as a highly complex entity but I'll go with the fortuitous attributes if only because it resulted in me. I have a little different slant on the universe creation aspect. It is my highly speculative theory that our universe is just one aspect of a much more complex and eternal, (always was and always will be), reality and we have just been spun off from that greater reality. In that sense our universe would always have and always will exist but our perception, at least for the present, is that there is a T=0. That at least seems to fit from what I've read from both secular and theistic sources.
Straggler writes: Actually I would suggest that is quite obviously wrong. Think about it. If causality is an internal emergent property of the physical laws of our universe then there is absolutely no reason to expect it to apply to the origins of the universe itself. Think about it..... I pretty much covered that in the previous paragraph. As I see that the physical laws of our universe are sub-section of a much larger set of natural laws in a greater reality. In a lot of ways I hate putting this down because I realize how speculative it is, and that I am looking for consistency with my strongly held Christian beliefs, but I am really interested in how things are and how it all fits together and this provides of a framework to be able to picture it in my own mind. I have no idea if it can help anyone else or not, and it is definitely open to revision.
Straggler writes:
....even if they are completely non-intuitive, and I question the comprehensible part. Who was that said that if you think you understand QM then don't really know about it, or words to that effect .
It may be that we can construct a "Theory of Everything" which is so concise that its underlying formula would fit on a T-shirt. Or it may be that such a theory (concise or otherwise) is simply beyond us. We humans have been around but for the blink of an eye (not even that in cosmological terms). Yet even at this early stage we have developed a model that has allowed us to accurately predict and discover new constituents of matter. In this sense these things are "simple" in that we have good reason to consider them comprehensible, predictable and discoverable. Straggler writes: I agree but that doesn't remove the possibility either.
But why is that either surprising or a reason to invoke mysticism? Straggler writes: f you look at the history of human knowledge you see that it is one long chain of expanding horizons. To the earliest humans lands across the seas would have seemed like inaccessible other worlds full of strange beasts, plants and inhospitable alien landscapes. Moving forward down the centuries and we find humans happily sailing the seas and exploring the most remote parts of this Earthly world but still under the impression that Earth with "the heavens" above (and hell below) constituted the entirety of the cosmos. To us in the 21st century notions of the Solar system, rockets to the moon (and even neighbouring planets) as well as concepts such as galaxies and our Sun as just one star amongst a multitude of such objects are widely accepted and understood. To us it is the far reaches of space and the possibility of other dimensions, parallel universes and suchlike that provide us with the same sense of awe and mystery that our ancestors felt about things we now take for granted. I really don't understand why you consider the possibility of new horizons put forward as a result of scientific advancement as anything other than a continuation of the same pattern we have seen throughout the progression of human knowledge. I don't understand why you think it is justified to insert god into these new horizons in exactly the same way that our ancestors inserted god into the mysteries of their time. Why do you think are you any more likely to be correct with your godly insertions than they were? That isn't what I am doing though. On other grounds I have come to my Christian beliefs. That is my starting point. I see science as way to understand the God that I believe in. Science knowledge increases as we gain new insights and information. I see my understanding of God in that light as well. Over the last number of years all of my beliefs have evolved and things that I wrote when I first joined this forum I would now argue against in light of the things that I have learned since then.
Straggler writes: We know for an absolute fact that intelligence can evolve in this universe. That is the concrete basis for all such speculations. OK, but why is that? Why are we able to even think that way?Are we or are we not teleological beings?
Straggler writes: That other moderately intelligent beings may have developed from simple and humble beginnings as we have (whether in this universe or another - if such other universes do exist) can be speculated on the basis of our known existence. We know for an absolute fact that such develoment of intelligence is a possibility because (Hello!!) here we are!! Conversely the uncaused "just is" existence of a highly complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of universe creation isn't even evidenced as a possibility (never mind an actuality) In a way your statements are contradictory. You suggest that intelligent life can exist in other universes and yet you reject the idea that that other universe intelligence could be capable of being responsible for existence in our universe.
Straggler writes:
...well, ultimately yes. If I told you that your computer was directly created by an uncaused complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of computer creation would you say this was "likely"....? Actually it's all true except for the eternal part. I believe God is eternal but in actual fact it wouldn't take an eternal God to be able to create us.
Straggler writes: Based on the observable evidence both the computer and this entire concept of an uncaused super-intelligence were most likely constructed by a developed but limited intelligence which itself arose from simple beginnings (AKA a human). Actually, even if there was nothing but natural causes I don't see our beginnings as being that simple. If we can create computers from limited intelligence then there is no reason us not to believe that we could be created, as more complex computers of a sort, by an even greater intelligence if we open our minds up to the idea.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thanks for all the information. my whole working life revolved around airplanes which leaves me eminently unqualified to speak on many of these issues.
I have in the dozen or so years spent a lot of my spare time reading books on science and theology and have particularly enjoyed the books that combine the two of them.
CS writes: Like I said, I'm not trying to challenge your belief in God. I'm just challenging your assertions that it took too much chance for life to emerge so therefore you need to invoke God at that point. Francis Collins seems to believe that it is a process, (not to be confused with the ID movement) that involves randomness. I have enjoyed his books. Are your views consistent with his?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: Hold on a minute. In one corner we have a universe containing electrons, quarks et al and the predictable interactions between them. In the other corner we have an eternal hyper-intelligence able to create universes full of interacting particles, a being who is able to design intelligent entities (i.e. humans), a being that can interact on a personal level with billions of people simultaneously, a being who created morality, a being that planned all of this to occur in such a way that his involvement in this process was entirely hidden except for the occasional immaculate conception or resurrection channeled through the super-human he sent to live amongst us 2,000 years ago. And you consider the latter to be less complex and less elaborate than the former and thus more likely to be the 'something' that just happens to exist rather than nothing.... Really? If so I find that astonishing. There is that argument from incredulity again. Life is a process and human history is a process. It seems to me that when I read books like the Robert Wright book we talked about that our understanding of the natural world and the theological or philosophical world continues to grow. I contend that if we limit ourself to scientific knowledge we miss out on a great deal of what we can know, not in the sense that we can prove it, but just in the sense of knowing something through our heart and not just in the mind. That of course raises the question of believing something because I want it to be true. Maybe I do, but there are a lot of things I would like to be true but I don't believe them. I think it was Hitchens who said that he really didn't want there to be a god and that he wanted this life to be all that there is. We are all like that to a degree. With the availability of so much information on the net as well as new information that we find in the "Dead Sea Scrolls" I contend that there is a huge increase in human knowledge that is accelerating our understanding in all fields. There a number of Christian scholars that are refining Christian belief based on wider and newer information. I don't believe that it should be discounted because it can't be proven scientifically. As I have said before things that I said when I joined this forum I would reject today. As as having to believe things in the way that you have put it doesn't seem complex to me. I also have no doubt that what I believe is only a foreshadowing of the ultimate truth and much of what I believe is likely just plain wrong. The only absolutes for me are the resurrection, the fact that God as we understand Him is a god of love and justice, the belief that He wants us to take that love into our hearts and the belief that we are teleological beings and that there is an ultimate plan. Yes I Believe more but that would be enough for me. Frankly so what if He didn't create the world, in the end would that matter if those other things are true. So what, if the God that we worship turns out to be a metaphor for a whole advanced civilization. I'm not saying that I think that is the case but so what if I have it wrong. As long as the my essentials are correct then I will worship God as I understand Him and have a desire to serve His purposes as best I can.
Straggler writes: Science has opened up a world of other universes and dimensions. Why is it wrong to say that possibly that is where we would find God? It does make more sense than having to find heaven by going to Saturn and turning left. Don't forget I am starting with the premise that God exists. But you have placed God in the parallel universes and other dimensions that are the unknown and seemingly imperceptible and unknowable mysteries of today. The equivalent of "heaven" above the sky that seemed so out of reach to our ancestors. So - With all due respect - This is exactly what you are doing. I am not claiming it as an absolute. I am clear that it is highly speculative.
Straggler writes: Fine, but maybe all that is true because this hyperactive agency actually exists. It would be my belief that none of that would be true otherwise but that is JMHO.
The scientific position regarding this (very roughly) is - Yes we are teleological beings. We are teleological beings because we are a socially evolved species. In a social environment there is considerable selection advantage in being able to discern the intents and motivations of the other entities which make up the social environment (i.e. primarily other people). Furthermore there is very arguably selection advantage in overplaying such thinking. One is more likely to survive if one mistakenly assumes conscious intent/purpose when it isn't there than if one fails to recognise it when it is there. This is turn leads to things like hyperactive agency detection which in turn contributes to the human inclination to erroneously invoke the conscious intent of imperceptible super-beings when confronted with things that seem awe-inspiring and mysterious. Straggler writes: Yup. No doubt you will consider this all part of the non-complex plan of the non-complex hyper-intelligent super-being you are invoking to explain the things you find too complex, awe-inspiring and mysterious to have occurred without purpose....... But that is only part of it. I don't say this much but there is something that is part of me that I can't put my finger on that just knows that I am not alone in this life in some way that isn't part of the physical world. I realize that is subjective and that it can be explained away by others but it is what it is.
Straggler writes: No I don't. What I reject is this notion that the 'something' which just exists is a highly complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, moral, vastly intelligent, able to interact with billions of other lesser intelligences simultaneously, capable of universe creation etc. etc. as remotely likely. I would suggest that something less elaborate is more likely.... It's strange but I see my views as being far less elaborate than the idea that all that there is can exist without there being an external intelligence that is in some way involved in the fact that we have life and that He has a purpose for us.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: It was more an expression of astonishment at what seems like blatantly back-to-front thinking. You consider the created (i.e. us) to be more complex than the creator (i.e. God). I find that position astonishing. Really well put and I get your point but I still think that you're wrong.I believe that our fundamental reality centres around consciousness and time.Here is an interesting article by Stuart Hameroff where he quotes Barbour and Penrose essentially saying that our understanding of time flows from our consciousness. The point is that time isn't a reality in the way we experience it. If time isn't just simply the one dimensional thing that we experience but is something more, then the idea that the intelligence that created us being eternal makes a lot more sense, and less complex in that we don't have to consider the creation of that intelligence. So, if God is eternal then we have done away with the turtles. Also we know that our perceived universe isn't all there is and maybe we are just one aspect of an eternal universe. Sure that is speculative but, I know we disagree, I find that solution far less complex than the idea that we essentially evolved from what amounts to nothing.
Straggler writes: One can always say it's "possible" that God exists in the realms that current knowledge places out of reach. One could say it was, at the time, "possible" that God existed across the seas that our ancient ancestors considered uncrossable. Or above the sky that our more recent ancestors considered to be God's unreachable heavenly dwelling place. Now we have you placing God in mysterious parallel universes and the other dimensions suggested by theoretical physics. Whatever arena human knowledge of the day considers plausible but out of reach is where theists seem to place their gods. You are following the same pattern. I agree. Whoever wrote Genesis was using the best science he had available at the time and yes that is what I am attempting to do with my limited knowledge. I assume that as science advances theistic views will change again. Our knowledge of the natural world and God continues to evolve. Am I suppose to disregard new findings?
Straggler writes: If we could reliably discern that which objectively exists by "knowing through our heart" we wouldn't have to bother with the methods of science at all. Unless you are able to discern the objective existence of something more concrete using this method why would anyone think you could possibly discern the objective existence of something as ethereal as god? But I don't claim that it is objective. I can objectively say that I have had these experience which I believe are in some way of God, but that conclusion is subjective. I can't know that in the way that I know the sky is blue.
Straggler writes: So if it's all part of a an elaborate and purposeful masterplan designed by a hyper-intelligent eternal being it's less elaborate than particles interacting without purpose........ Colour me astonished again!! There's that incredulity again. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Zift and welcome to EvC. Good to have you here.
ZYR writes: I'm not saying it can't be the work of an intelligent being. I'm just saying as long as we don't have more accurate numbers, we can't know if it was likely or not for a cell to appear. You are right of course. The likelihood of a cell forming from a soup of particles is impossible to define accurately. I have read figures that the 4.5 or so billion years of this planet doesn’t allow for sufficient time for the evolution of life as we know to have occurred but I’m not at all qualified to speak to that. In spite of what Straggler says I do consider an outside agency for sentient moral life more plausible than the idea that life just happened along from our particle roots.
ZYR writes: As for the rest of the post, i don't have any opinion about it. I made the choice not to believe in anything and say to the question "do you think there is a god or everything is the result of chances?" "I don't know". I'll learn about the world as much as i want or can, but i promised myself to never believe in something. Either there are evidences and i know, either i don't know. And for now, there are no evidences about God existing or not. I guess that there are different levels of knowing. I know that there is an intelligence beyond human that cares about me and cares that I am a moral person. However, I don’t know it in the sense that I know I’m wearing blue jeans right now. It comes from life experience and a few decades of being a Christian and worshipping God as I understand Him. I don’t have all the answers and I don’t see the Bible as being inerrant. I am sure that some or many parts of what I believe are wrong but unfortunately I don’t know which parts those are. I am firmly convinced of the truth of the Gospel accounts of the bodily resurrection of Jesu which is why I am a Christian. If I didn’t believe that I would leave the Christian church and just try to serve God as best I can through other venues. I do think though that it is a good thing to try and sort out what to believe even if you aren’t going to get the kind of certainty that we as humans like. I contend that our desire for certainty is one of the primary reasons that we have people understanding holy books as being inerrant.
ZYR writes: I see the sharks coming for an easy kill, but no believing doesn't prevent me to make hypothesis. Doing an hypothesis doesn't mean i believe it's true, just that it is a possibility. Just as God or no gods are also possibilities. Tell me about it. Just read through this thread.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
