My Beliefs- GDR

Fair enough, remembering that this is on the assumption that this will actually be accomplished at some point, making it all highly hypothetical. It would show though, that in the one instance where we were able to actually observe the process it did require intelligence.

I agree with that and I thought that is what we were talking about. My point has been that Tom is responsible for the natural events that we observe and that if the right chemicals formed life in a petri dish that would be a natural process.My point then is that in this instance it required intelligence to arrange the necessary circumstances, (process A) for allow for process B to happen naturally.That doesn't prove that intelligence was required the first time for the right conditions to exist, but it would show that in these circumstances it did. It would mean that this has happened only twice that we would know of and that in the one case we are sure of it took intelligence.

....and the materialist just keeps adding natural processes on top of natural processes that just happened to happen trying to explain our existence. A gap requires an opening and all I am saying is that ultimately Tom is responsible for the existence of life with life as we know it not existing prior to that point. That isn't a gap and if you want to call it a gap anyway then you are simply filling that gap with the idea that the idea that we are here because that is how the universe had to be.

Who says that it is all about us. To get back to Christianity for a moment Paul in Ephesians talks about how at the end of time God will being together all things on heaven and earth.Also if I am right and intelligence and morality are derived as a result of Tom then the advances that humans have made are ultimately a result of what Tom did in the first place. Your suggestion is like watching a robotic assembly line and then giving all the credit to the robots.

I'm sorry but I just didn't have more time for this today, but I was glancing through the news in the NY Times and came across this article.
The Core of Mind and CosmosHere is the first couple of paragraphs. The author of the book is a non-theist by the way.

quote:

---

The scientific revolution of the 17th century, which has given rise to such extraordinary progress in the understanding of nature, depended on a crucial limiting step at the start: It depended on subtracting from the physical world as an object of study everything mental — consciousness, meaning, intention or purpose. The physical sciences as they have developed since then describe, with the aid of mathematics, the elements of which the material universe is composed, and the laws governing their behavior in space and time.

​

We ourselves, as physical organisms, are part of that universe, composed of the same basic elements as everything else, and recent advances in molecular biology have greatly increased our understanding of the physical and chemical basis of life. Since our mental lives evidently depend on our existence as physical organisms, especially on the functioning of our central nervous systems, it seems natural to think that the physical sciences can in principle provide the basis for an explanation of the mental aspects of reality as well that physics can aspire finally to be a theory of everything.

​

However, I believe this possibility is ruled out by the conditions that have defined the physical sciences from the beginning. The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order — our structure and behavior in space and time — but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience — how it is from the point of view of its subject without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.

---

If it is alright I would like to reboot and put my views in one post as much of what I’m responding to are essentially the same issues anyway.Part of the issue from my perspective is that you guys take materialistic theories and call it science. Just because it is possible that one day science may actually confirm these theories, does not make them scientific at this point. Possibly one day science will confirm the existence of Tom. Who knows where science will go in the future.We can observe evolution in action through natural selection. I am no biologist but from what I have read the DNA record shows pretty conclusively that evolution is a fact. Fromm what I have read it appears that evolution likely didn’t need tweaking although that is not conclusive, however theisticly speaking it doesn’t make any difference on way or the other.The other big issue seems to be the definition of evidence. I think that a better way of dealing with this is that I should start using the term evidence to only mean something that we can empirically be pretty certain about. I’ll try and remember to use terms such suggestive of for things that we can’t empirically know. I think that it is reasonable that you would say that all we have been able to discover are natural processes and that is suggestive of the idea that there is nothing but natural processes involved in our existence. I would on the other hand say that the complexity of a cell, consciousness or morality is suggestive that there is an intelligent root or plan to life and that Tom, [a generic intelligent planner(s)], exists. Something that is suggestive is an unproven belief or something that is believed subjectively. Straggler would say that not all beliefs are equally valid but that again is subjective as in the example I have used both sides claim that their beliefs are more valid that the other.I’ll just go through all of the posts that I haven’t answered yet and work with specific questions. I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually think that way. If there is a plan then there is an ultimate meaning to our existence. If there is no plan then ultimately all will be gone with no memory of what once was. If there is a plan then we have to think about what part we play in that plan but if there is no plan then ultimately it doesn’t matter what we do.I agree that there is no objective evidence that an intelligence exists but i do believe that there is a great deal that is suggestive that Tom exists. If my wife prepares a great meal for me it is suggestive but not conclusive that she loves me. I believe it without proof as there is enough to suggest that to be the case. Exactly. There is a great deal that is true that science can’t prove. I think that this a case that we don’t have evidence of certain things but we have that which is suggestive such as the things I mentioned earlier in this post such as consciousness and morality.I believe that the apple falls from the tree naturally because everything we know is suggestive that that is the case. Sure. Religions are human institutions made up of people with at least similar views about the nature of Tom. The fact that the Golden Rule is so universally accepted, even though not all that often practiced, is suggestive that it forms the basis for a universal truth whether or not life exists in this universe. Actually I don’t care about going back to the BB. It doesn’t really matter to me whether or not Tom is responsible for the BB. My point is that he is responsible for life and how it arose and that is the first cause I was referring to. I agree that we can study evolution just as well in a naturalistic universe as a divinely created one. Scientifically we can’t tell the difference anyway. In a naturalistic world everything has a cause, whether it is natural selection or an apple falling from a tree. If organic life came into existence as it was caused by the right combination and the right chemicals and the right environment then there needed to be a cause for those for the chemicals being there and for the right environment, which then needed a cause and so on. I don’t know how far you want to go back but ultimately there has to be a first cause and I don’t see how you can have a first cause that is naturalistic as there would have to be nothing causing it. Remember in a totally natural world everything has a cause.

The example I would give you is simply that there are only natural processes with no intelligent input responsible for the existence of life.Here is the definition for materialism

quote:

---

a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter
b : a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress
c : a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused compare historical materialism
2
: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things

---

If that doesn’t apply then I’ll use whatever term you want me to. There seem to be so many levels to the term atheism that seems to cause problems so I hit on materialism. ... which is exactly what you do when you attribute life to nothing but natural processes with no intelligent input. All natural processes including evolution are suggestive of a plan. It is the plan that is suggestive of a planner not the other way around. .. but it is fine for you to say that the fact that science has only found natural processes is not only suggestive that only natural processes exist but it is evidence of it. There seems to be one rule for theists and one rule for atheists, materialists, agnostics, believers in absolutely nothing or whatever you want to call yourselves. No. I subjectively decide based on what I objectively know, in the same way that I subjectively come to the conclusion that Tom exists based on what I objectively know. I objectively know that conscious life exists for example.As I said before. Every natural occurrence that we know of scientifically has a cause. So, even if you find the process that began evolution then that process also needed a cause and once again it is turtles all the way down.

Sure, I’m fine with hypotheses.Science only looks for naturalistic or empirical conclusions so what do you expect? Again, science can’t prove that my wife loves me. All I can do is consider what is suggestive of that and from my subjective conclusion. I’m repeating what I said to oni but when I consider all that is involved with the complexity of life and particularly in terms of morality and emotions I find it suggestive that there is a plan and a planner. Because it is subjective others such as yourself will come to different conclusions. I believe that someday science may very well find that passing through a worm hole will find other dimensions/universes, and that in those dimensions/universes there is an intelligence that is in some way interlocking with our own 4 dimensional universe. Now my theistic views are scientific theories and can be considered science. Not quite. We can observe the things that we do know and consider what it is suggestive of even though it can’t be proven. You are making some assumptions there. First off I’m a Christian. Part of the Christian faith is that ultimately all of creation will be re-created so that includes both of us. Yes, I think that this life is going to in some way determine what happens then, but I don’t see myself as deciding that anyway. It is my understanding, which is Biblical, that it is about the heart. I can’t will myself to desire selflessness. I can act altruistically but if I am only doing it to give me a better spot in the new creation then nothing has changed in my heart. So no, I didn’t become a Christian because I wanted it to work out well for me. I became a Christian because I believe it is true as I laid out in the OP.I’m a theist as it does appear that this world is evolving progressively towards something which I find suggestive of a plan — thus a planner. I’m a Christian because after hearing both sides of the issue I find that the suggestion that the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event much more convincing than that it was something else. That combined with personal experience is the reason that I am a Christian.

You can call it an argument from incredibility all you like but the fact is that in the view of many including myself, although there is no empirical objective evidence, the world as we experience it is in so many ways suggestive of a plan requiring a planner. Nonsense. Sure the thread is about my beliefs but either we are the result of an intelligent planner or we are the result of nothing but non-intelligent natural processes. There is no objective evidence for either position and so the two views have to be compared. You can’t just discuss one position or the other in a vacumn. As soon as you deny my position it automatically puts you in the other camp. You keep going around this one. Yes there is no evidence as you understand the word evidence for a designer. There is a designer or there isn’t, and it is my view again that the world we experience is very suggestive of a designer and IMHO the natural processes themselves are highly suggestive of a designer. That is your subjective opinion. Why is that? The extinct species have just evolved into new species and apparently in many cases more advanced species. There are certainly different ideas about the nature of Tom but the one thing that is consistent is The Golden Rule which, if he exists should tell us something about his nature. I have no way of knowing that she loves me when she makes me dinner. Maybe there is an ulterior motive, however, although I can’t know it, it is an suggestive of the fact that she loves me. You can go back to whatever point you want but our science tells us that nothing happens without cause. A billiard ball will sit forever on a the table until something happens to make it move.It’s turtles all the way down.We know from science that there is much more to our reality than what we directly perceive. I’ll requote that headline is SA.

quote:

---

Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter — An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own

---

Now I realize that is theory and that the author is not talking about a place for Tom. However theoretically Tom could exist as part of a greater reality with multiple time dimensions meaning that conceivably our universe with just one time dimension is part of something greater with more than one dimension in time resulting in life without any boundaries of time.I agree that is very highly speculative but at least it is one way of considering a first cause from a theistic perspective where it isn’t turtles all the way down as it is with your proposal.

I may have been too subtle for you. I realize my views aren't scientific but the point is that they are just as scientific as naturalistic theories that have no scientific basis.

The point was that the by saying that some day science will answer the questions that can't be answered now is not science. It is strictly speculation and is no more scientific than what I proposed.Again I ask. Science has shown us that everything that happens in a naturalistic world has a cause and yet many here are quite happy to say that our existence happened without an initial cause.

Well then the fact the evolutionary process bears the appearance of design is evidence.It is one way or the other. Making dinner gives the appearance that my wife loves me but it still take a subjective belief about what I experience and observe just as what I experience and observe in life, (amongst other things), lead me to believe in a designer. In both cases it is either suggestive of or evidence for the conclusion reached. I think I explained that in my other posts. I know it’s not science. The point was that what you guys are saying is science isn’t either. Actually I didn’t. First I said this: Then I said this:The first sentence is simply one reason that I am a theist which does not require that the plan is what we would think of as good. It is in my case Christianity, (others could come to the same conclusion by other means), that leads me to believe that it is a good thing.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that scientists would say that what is observed within the realm of QM only appears to happen without causation. However if you believe that there is no physical causation for what is observed in the study of QM are you agreeing that the metaphysical exists?I really enjoyed reading the Hawking article and will go over it again. Thanks.Actually as far as causation of the universe is concerned I’m not sure that it needed one as I have come to the view that there is more than what we perceive and that likely the universe just always was as part of something more.I’m more concerned about the cause of life and of the conscious perception of our reality, which may very well be tied up with the origins of our universe as we perceive it. Christian thinkers like nearly everyone else of that time believed that way. They didn’t have modern science to inform them. We know a lot more now. Definitely our theology should be informed by our science. It is no different than people believing that we were the result of instant creation whereas the vast majority of people including Christians believe that we have evolved over millions of years.

If the universe is part of a universe with more than one time dimension then I agree that our universe does not need a first cause as it always existed.However, we still need a cause for life and particularly for conscious life. The fact that life evolved is a separate question. Also see my last reply. We both agree on the objective evidence. The question is essentially why the objective evidence exists and why we perceive it the way we do.

My point in saying that was that, as you seem to agree, evolution gives the appearance of design and so that is evidence. Others were saying that it is not evidence so I went with that it is suggestive of design. In either the case of evolution or my wife loving me though, it is still a subjective conclusion whichever conclusion we come to. You’re right in a sense that a plan does not have to require immortality. However, a plan does imply that there is some sort of end point even if we are just here for the amusement of a designer. If we do accept the likelihood of a designer then it makes sense that we would want to discern as best we can what the plan is and then we are forced to form our subjective beliefs on whatever information is available to us. Yes and so then you wind up needing an infinite number of natural causes to explain the existence of life and it again, is turtles all the way down. But you agreed that everything that happens in a naturalistic world has a naturalistic cause and now you are saying that there is no causation in the world of QM. The universe as we perceive exists and there are IMHO reasonable grounds to believe that it has always existed. Life still had to emerge and evolve regardless of whether or not Tom created the universe or not. The important question is whether or not Tom is responsible for life whether or not he is responsible for the existence of non-living matter.My own view is a bit like that old philosophical question about the tree falling in the forest and there is no one there to hear it so does it make a sound. Ignoring the question of other life forms hearing it I would argue that it doesn’t because it would only create movements in the air that aren’t sound until they are perceived that way but a brain. I think that possibly the universe is like that and it only exists in the way that we perceive it because we perceive it. If that is true then as some writers that I have read have suggested it is consciousness that is the fundamental aspect of our universe.