COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, May 12, 2008

Purposeful Evolution Pt 3 of 3


Last of a three part series

Energy comes in many forms: heat, light, gravitational, electro-magnetic, etc. but there is no universally accepted view as to the exact nature of energy. Sometimes it acts like a wave, sometimes it acts like a particle. However, the fact remains, what energy is and what makes it go are a complete mystery.

There is randomness in the behavior of matter but material movements are not entirely random. They must obey the Laws of Physics. There is a point at where the Laws of Physics cannot be calculated. Below this point, material behavior is so subtle that it cannot be accurately predicted. There will be a range of possibilities and we make a calculation of the probabilities of one outcome over another.

Matter, coming together to form an organism by chance is beyond calculation. So, we end up with a range of probabilities about possible outcomes. The probability that matter would come together to construct an organism randomly is, statistically, nil. Nonetheless, the organism does come together. The only known force to interfere with the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur is intelligence.

Intelligence exists in organisms. Evolutionary theory say that every characteristic possessed by organisms has evolved. Therefore, intelligence evolved. That means that intelligence had antecedents. How intelligence and its antecedents may have contributed to the creation or development of organisms needs to be acknowledged. To deny the role of intelligence in any theory of evolution is, at the least, short sighted.

Dr. Barry Sears once commented that the human body was like a "vast biological internet." Think of all organisms, and anything else that may process information, as components in a vast cosmological internet. In my opinion, this vast cosmological internet is The Mind of God.

God created us. He operates through us. What role has He determined for us in the evolution of the universe? Humans are the leading edge of God's current capabilities. And what has God been doing, through His agent, Man, for the last few thousand years? Advancing civilization, I would observe.

Man can build a civilization because of the four main attributes he possesses: brain capacity, manual dexterity, a moral sensibility, and the power of choice. All of the artifacts of civilization are possible because of Man's technical prowess. This prowess is due to the first two of these attributes: our brain and its ability to do mathematics, and our opposable thumb which allows allows us to build tools.

But a civilization is more than the sum of its artifacts. Civilization becomes "civil" through its behaviour. The behavior that is necessary to allow us to construct an advanced civilization would not be possible without the other two major attributes: a moral sensibility and the power of choice. These four major attributes not only allow Man to build the various forms of civilization but, in my opinion, made it inevitable.

Evolution by chance only acquires abilities "on demand"; the process of random selection has no foresight. Clearly, humans are an example of anticipatory design. We have "evolved" abilities in advance of need. But, to what end?

Is advancing civilization that end? Is that our purpose? I would answer, "yes." This is the only inference I can draw from Man's history. If so, what do we mean by advancing civilization and how do we do it?

As I turn away from philosophy and toward politics, those will be the central questions that I examine.

Postscript:

Before I form an opinion about anything I try to marshal as many facts as I can. Where there are no facts, I try to make reasonable assumptions. Where there are no reasonable assumptions I rely on "insight."

Facts are dry and cold things. They have no flavor. When I raised my children I immersed them in Biblical stories, stories from Greek mythology, and Aesop's Fables. I consider all of these tales to be allegorical but they are no less true for that. But the truths in them are accepted because they are palatable. The people who wrote these stories not only had the gift of insight but they wrote stories that were sometimes delightful and always satisfying. Furthermore, they had gleaned most of the truth about God before the science of physics was ever dreamt of.

People who are my age get occasional glimpses of the Grim Reaper lurking in the shadows. I can assure you that we do not seek comfort in The Laws of Physics. So, while I am always trying to ferret out the facts, facts, per se, do not satisfy the soul.

Darwinism is, in my opinion, a complete waste of time. It is nearly devoid of facts in its central thesis and is unsatisfying to boot. Creationism, while not literally true, has deep insight into the nature of things.

Does Intelligent Design belong in science class? Clearly, the answer is no; it is an incomplete hypothesis with untestable aspects to it. Does Darwinism belong in the science classroom? The answer to that is also no. It is statistically impossible and it is only in the classroom because, decades ago, Darwinism was used as a stalking horse by philosophical nihilists who were trying to drive Christianity from the schoolhouse. In the battle between Darwinians and Creationists, you know where my sympathies lay.

41 comments:

  1. "Energy comes in many forms: heat, light, gravitational, electro-magnetic, etc.."


    Bob,

    Here's a little secret the universe has yet to reproduce:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFtv5qe5o3c

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's the second installment:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX1fiE0U1qA

    ReplyDelete
  3. One of the big screw ups of the late 1500's & early 1600's that came from Francis Bacon's work with Renee Decartes was the classification of knowledge--the tree of knowlege. That tree of knowledge that francis bacon produced placed theology next to witchcraft as a subbranch of philosophy.

    But God studied properly is Nature's God--as referred to in US founding documents and in the bible. God resides outside of nature--or those things that can be ascertained by a subgroup of philosophy--science.

    ie science presumes that man is the measure of all things--ie philosophy. That's bottoms up from the infinitely small/weak.

    Whereas theology presumes that God is the measure all things--that's top down from the infinitely large/powerful

    "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."

    – Bertrand Russell, (From The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, Lecture II)


    Theology starts from exactly the opposite direction. It starts with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it and ends with something so simple and obvious that its hardly worth stating.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Man can build a civilization because of the four main attributes he possesses: brain capacity, manual dexterity, a moral sensibility, and the power of choice."


    I think the most important attribute is imagination. To image the future is to create the future.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is photo print of decartes tree of knowledge. You can enlarge it by clicking it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. C. S. Lewis once said, "When you argue against God, you argue against the very Power that makes you able to argue at all."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Novus Sanguis is co-founded by Professor McGuckin and his team in Newcastle University, Great Britain, and the Foundation Jérôme Lejeune in Paris, France.

    In 2005, Prof McGuckin and Dr Forraz demonstrated for the first time the existence of pluripotent cells in cord blood. This stem cell group have a similar profile to embryonic stem cells.

    ...

    In 2005 and 2006, Professor McGuckin published other important results: the first creation of a mini-liver in 3 dimensions from cord blood stem cells. Although cells in the body develop in 3 dimensions, this process is very difficult to reproduce in a laboratory.


    Regenerative Medicine

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a very esoteric subject. So, to all those who have responded I offer thanks.

    Charles said:

    "God resides outside of nature--or those things that can be ascertained by a subgroup of philosophy--science."

    I disagree with this sentence.

    If I were to ask you: "What was there before there was anything?" I believe you would answer, something.

    I am going to refer to this "something" as God but refer to it as you wish.

    If this is true, then God could only have made the material world from His essence.

    Now comes the crucial question: Is the material world, after Creation, a thing separate and apart from God or is it still part of God?"

    If it is the first, then God is unknowable and Man is separate and apart from God. If it is the second, then God is, at least, potentially knowable.

    If the universe was made from His essence and the laws governing the universe came from God's nature then it (and us) cannot be separate and apart from His essence and His nature.

    I have argued my case in Pt 2 that God is not and can not be something separate and apart from the universe. Therefore, the universe is God and everything in it are extensions of Him. Further, God not only made a knowable universe, He gave Man the capacity to know it (and Him).

    Ultimately, whichever way you view it, this becomes a matter of faith.

    As for the nihilists: Let me relate this story about Russell.

    He is in jail. The jailer asks him what his religion is?

    Russell responds, "Agnostic."

    The jailer says, "Well, we all worship God in our own way."

    Russell remarked that the episode kept him amused for a week.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If the world is going to truly combat greenhouse gas emissions, China and India have to be part of the fight, the chief economist for the Paris-based International Energy Agency said Tuesday.

    ...

    Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy analyst with Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, said the run-up in oil prices has changed the nature of energy security, which once focused on protection against oil shocks.

    ...

    Randall Luthi, director of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which oversees offshore U.S. production, said the security picture needs to include more access to U.S. areas currently off-limits — such as off the West and East coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.


    Climate Change Battle

    ReplyDelete
  10. viktor silo, you said, "If the universe was made from His essence and the laws governing the universe came from God's nature then it (and us) cannot be separate and apart from His essence and His nature. "

    Well, the essence of the I AM is existence. It is probably not correct to say things are made from his essence; rather, we say God let pass to the things he imagined a small part of his essential activity (existence) and things were made from no-thing.

    Tolkien referred to God's essential existence as the Imperishable Flame, and when the world was made, a portion of this Flame (the Secret Fire) was set at the heart of it.

    I know that is loopy stuff from a fantasy book, but Tokien was a Christian author who put divine truths into his writings.

    ...Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

    ...when they were come into the Void, Ilúvatar said to them: 'Behold your Music!' And he showed to them a vision, giving to them sight where before was only hearing; arid they saw a new World made visible before them, and it was globed amid the Void, and it was sustained therein, but was not of it..." (J.R.R. Tolkien)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Li Jiulin, a top engineer on the 91,000-seat National Stadium — known as the Bird's Nest and the jewel of the Olympics — was conducting an inspection at the venue when the quake occurred. He told reporters the building was designed to withstand a 8.0 quake.

    China's massive Three Gorges dam, the world's largest about 350 miles (575 kilometers) to the east of the epicenter, was not affected, said a Ms. Diao from the information office of State Council Three Gorges Construction Committee. The area around the enormous dam remains increasingly precarious as rising waters in the enormous reservoir have led to landslides.

    The quake was China's deadliest since the most devastating in modern history, which killed 240,000 people in the city of Tangshan, near Beijing in 1976.


    Central China

    ReplyDelete
  12. “Not all those who wander are lost.”

    ReplyDelete
  13. Katchoo said...
    viktor silo, you said, "If the universe was made from His essence and the laws governing the universe came from God's nature then it (and us) cannot be separate and apart from His essence and His nature. "

    Well, the essence of the I AM is existence. It is probably not correct to say things are made from his essence; rather, we say God let pass to the things he imagined a small part of his essential activity (existence) and things were made from no-thing.

    I read and thought about your second paragraph many times. I do see any fundamental difference between what you said and what I said.

    Let me re-phrase the first paragraph in physical terms:

    If the matter in the universe was made from energy and the laws governing that matter came from the nature of energy, then the universe (and us) cannot be separate and apart from this same energy.

    Let me re-phrase your paragraph in physical terms:

    Well, the essence of the human existence is existence. It is probably not correct to say things are made from energy; rather, we say energy passed on to matter a small part of energy's essential nature (existence) and matter was made from energy.

    We are both saying that before there was matter (thing), there was energy (no thing). Matter took on its characteristics from energy.

    Energy, then, has all the characteristics of matter, albeit in latent form. One of these characteristics is intelligence - which is what these writings are all about.

    In all three pieces in this series I am only asking:

    What is the nature of intelligence?

    What are its antecedents?
    and
    Does intelligence have an effect on the course of evolution?

    In Pt 3 I try to convey my sympathy for attempts of people to imagine the universe and its meaning through stories. The stories by Tolkien are among my favorites.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The newly-detected bridge connecting Abell 222 and Abell 223 would be part of this missing baryonic matter. Matter in the Universe is distributed in a web-like structure, and clusters of galaxies are the dense nodes of this cosmic web.

    For 10 years, astronomers suspected that the missing baryonic matter is hot gas at very low density permeating the filamentary structure of the cosmic web. Because of its low density, detecting this hot gas was a very challenging task.

    This discovery was made possible because of the very fortunate geometry of the two clusters. As seen from the Earth, the filament connecting the two clusters is aligned along our line-of-sight, so that the entire emission from the filament is concentrated in a small region of the sky, thereby making its detection possible.


    Missing Matter

    ReplyDelete
  15. viktor silo said...

    If I were to ask you: "What was there before there was anything?" I believe you would answer, something.
    ///////////
    Well I'm not smart enough to know or even surmise ultimate truth but I can tell you that historically Jews & Christians have believed that the universe comes from nothing or ex nihilo.

    This is how its put at Wikipedia.

    Ex nihilo is a Latin term meaning "out of nothing". It is often used in conjunction with the term creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing". Due to the nature of this term, it is often used in philosophical or creationistic arguments, as many Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that God created the universe from nothing. This contrasts with "creatio ex materia," which is creation out of eternally preexistent matter, and "creatio ex deo," which is creation out of the being of God.

    A number of philosophers in ancient times attained a highly developed concept of God as the supreme ruler of the world, but did not develop a concept of God as the absolute cause of all finite existence. Before the biblical idea of creation, myths envisioned the world as being preexisting matter acted upon by a god or gods that reworked this material into the present world. Only in the Bible and the religious thought that developed out of its world-view do we see the formulation of ex nihilo creation.[1]

    Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.
    (2 Maccabees 7:28, 100 BC)

    << Genesis 1 >>
    King James Bible
    1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
    ///////////////
    It was a big international sensation back in the 1980's --15-20 years after the discovery of the big bang that physicists realized that they had come to the same place that judeo/christian theologians had been for millennia .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now comes the crucial question: Is the material world, after Creation, a thing separate and apart from God or is it still part of God?"
    /////////////
    Both. In christian theology God is considered to be both immanent and transcendent. Once again see Wikipedia for a primer.

    Certainly, Chrisian theology holds that Jesus himself is both fully Man and Fully God.

    I think there is a profound tension in the idea that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. But its probably no weirder than quantum mechanics idea about superposition. ie tell it to Schrödinger's cat.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Charles said: This contrasts with "creatio ex materia," which is creation out of eternally preexistent matter, and "creatio ex deo," which is creation out of the being of God.

    If you have eternally pre-existent matter, this works the same as an eternally pre-existent God. The problems crop up when people talk about things coming into existence, which means they were caused. Then you get a chain of causes which you need to follow back, and it's like the thing about the world resting on an infinite stack of turtles.

    ReplyDelete
  18. David, about your stack of turtle analogy, the difference is that eternally pre-existent matter never racks itself up like billiard balls in a nice neat triangle like we had at the beginning. The universe is running down off a store of order. Only intelligent thought can rack the balls up to start the game. If you play the game, even for an infinite time, the balls just get more and more randomly scattered, or end up in pockets (which corresponds to black holes).
    I think this is what Viktor Silo was getting at.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Okay, Kat, if you're so dang smart, where did the pool table come from?

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Does Intelligent Design belong in science class? Clearly, the answer is no; it is an incomplete hypothesis with untestable aspects to it. Does Darwinism belong in the science classroom? The answer to that is also no.

    This is the most reasonable conclusion one can make about the issue.

    It is statistically impossible and it is only in the classroom because, decades ago, Darwinism was used as a stalking horse by philosophical nihilists who were trying to drive Christianity from the schoolhouse.

    Exactly!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nothing never existed. In my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Viktor silo, as Dennis Miller says, ”I like the cut of your jib.” The three part series on evo v. creative design shows a great mind at work. Thanks for the effort. I hope you weren’t too disappointed with the response.

    BTW – Have you noticed the visceral, reactionary and preemptive attacks on Ben Stein’s movie? It’s always interesting to see atheist or agnostic antipathy toward religion. You would think they couldn’t be bothered with “such nonsense.”

    ReplyDelete
  23. Charles said @ 5: 19


    "historically Jews & Christians have believed that the universe comes from nothing or ex nihilo.

    Ex nihilo is a Latin term meaning "out of nothing"."

    Ex Nihilo is an ancient concept. But it was posited before modern knowledge and can be forgiven because of this.

    Energy, strictly speaking, is not a thing. It has no measurable characteristics. It's true that we think that we have a measure of it but, in fact, we can only measure its effects. However, we cannot measure the thing itself. Not being able to measure it, though, does not mean that it does not "exist".

    Energy exists as a quality rather than as a quantity.

    "Due to the nature of this term (ex nihilo), it is often used in philosophical or creationistic arguments, as many Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that God created the universe from nothing."

    Strictly speaking, they would be wrong. The facts of modern physics and logic are against them. But, were they to be aware of the concept of Energy (Einstein's "E"), the term "ex nihilo" could still be reasonably applied albeit conceptually different.

    "This contrasts with "creatio ex materia," which is creation out of eternally preexistent matter, and "creatio ex deo," which is creation out of the being of God.""

    It is possible that the universe contained preexistent matter. My hunch is that there was none but, in truth, nobody knows. However, the underlying theory: "creatio ex deo", is the theory I put forth in my series.

    You said @ 5;45.


    "Certainly, Chrisian theology holds that Jesus himself is both fully Man and Fully God."

    Except for the "Jesus" part, so do I and it is the central part of my thesis.

    God is the universe. The universe is God. Humans are part of the universe and, therefore, they are fully God. But this is also true for all humans and every particle of matter.

    It follows that I consider Jesus to be the "son" of God, so to speak, but, then, so am I and so are you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. God is the universe. The universe is God. Humans are part of the universe and, therefore, they are fully God.

    This is the premise of "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrne which I see as a rehash of the new age spiritualism of Robert Collier
    *****************
    If one thinks about God as the prime mover and the idea that we are "fully God," does that mean that we are equal to God and therefore also can be a prime mover?

    Color me skeptical.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Carried forward from earlier thread, where Ter posted it:

    Photons of energy are localized waves.

    The Fourier transform of a continuous wave function at one frequency is a spike, and vice versa. It's all just calculus, Ter, but that's probably where the mystery comes in for most people.

    Matter doesn't come together to form an organism by chance, forensically, because the organism's species emerges in an environment containing pressures (including other organisms) which select out unsuccessful genetic recipes and reward successful ones.

    But you get a chicken-and-egg problem, because an intrinsic part of that environment is those other organisms you mention, and where did THEY come from?

    You are correct that man is capable of creating civilization, but you have not provided evidence that civilization is a goal anticipated by a creator.

    A civilization would be a prelude to allowing planet-based life forms to escape into the universe at large.

    ReplyDelete
  26. also carried forward from the previous thread:

    Viktor,

    This one contradictory statement is just one example of why I don't feel a need to offer a comprehensive rebuttal of your thesis:

    "This original something is eternal."

    e·ter·nal Audio Help /ɪˈtɜrnl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-tur-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –adjective 1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.

    o·rig·i·nal Audio Help /əˈrɪdʒənl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-rij-uh-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –adjective 1. belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.


    The sentance is self contradictory hence meaningless.

    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Whit said:

    "If one thinks about God as the prime mover and the idea that we are "fully God," does that mean that we are equal to God and therefore also can be a prime mover?

    Color me skeptical."

    "Fully God" simply means that I am not of any other stuff but God's stuff.

    You are "Whit." That is to say, every molecule in your body is "Whit." Your arms may have a separate identity for the purposes of description but they are "fully Whit."

    That does not mean that your arms are equal to the totality of "Whit" or are equal to the sum of Whit's powers. But they are an extension of you and can't be anything other than you and they submit to your will.

    So, too, Whit, we are an extension of God and can't be anything other than God and we submit to His will.

    Whit, any serious writing needs reading and re-reading to take in its full measure. If you give my material time to digest I think you will find that we agree far more than we disagree.

    But, still, there will be areas of disagreement. These disagreements will be, mostly, in abstract matters. In these matters, there is no correct or incorrect. So we need not quarrel.

    As far as "where the rubber hits the road" I suspect we are nearly indistinguishable.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ash said:

    Viktor,

    "This one contradictory statement is just one example of why I don't feel a need to offer a comprehensive rebuttal of your thesis:

    "This original something is eternal."

    The sentance is self contradictory hence meaningless.

    Sorry."

    The sentence is not contradictory because it only says one thing. However, the statement may be false.

    "Eternity" in one sense is a concept of time - never-ending time. Do you believe time had a beginning? If so, when was that?

    "Eternity" can also be thought of as having no beginning irrespective of time. These two concepts seem to be similar but they are not.

    "Time" as a concept is a rate of movement of something compared to something else that occupies space.
    So, this definition applies to the first case.

    But suppose everything stopped moving? Is time still passing? The technical answer would be "no". But something out there still exists, does it not? And what could cause it to not exist?

    If something caused something else to cease to exist then it must act. Therefore, something is moving and we are back to time passing. And, of course, we are back to something else now existing and so on.

    But if the thing that has become inert doesn't cease to exist then it goes on without end.

    It's a catch 22, Ash. The concept of eternity is a difficult one and we can only use the language that exists. This is an area where words are next to useless.

    What I do is to lie in bed in total darkess and silence and try to imagine it. Still, it will not resolve itself. This is what is called a conceptual dilemma.

    Still, I cling to the concept of "The Original Somthing" as having no beginning and is, therefore, eternal.

    I once had a student who couldn't grasp the concept of Infinity. I said, in class, "Space goes on forever."

    She said, "Nothing goes on forever."

    I said, "Precisely."

    ReplyDelete
  29. Viktor wrote:

    "It's a catch 22, Ash. The concept of eternity is a difficult one and we can only use the language that exists. This is an area where words are next to useless. "

    I think you are beginning to see the light. Your choice of phrase "Catch 22" is telling.

    From wiki:

    "The title, "Catch-22," is a reference to a bureaucratic catch, which embodies multiple illogical and immoral reasoning seen throughout the book; and which itself is an absurd joke"

    You finish that paragraph off with:
    "This is an area where words are next to useless." To which I reply, no, with your formulations, the words are useless. Sorry to be so blunt but the contradictions in terms make the words not "next to useless" but useless. The God you are talking about, the one that is the whole universe, what's the use of this God? How is the universe different without your posited God? It wouldn't be any different, by your own admission, because He is everything. So, take the God out of the equation and nothing changes. Not a useful concept really.

    Now, if you are positing an all powerful all seeing God, then one must deal with the problem of Evil. yikes!

    ReplyDelete
  30. viktor silo said...

    God is the universe. The universe is God. Humans are part of the universe and, therefore, they are fully God. But this is also true for all humans and every particle of matter.
    /////////////////
    you run into language problems here--unless you think of language as an odor. That is everyone has their own BO -- and all odors are good. With the caveat being that there is no accounting for taste.

    However, if you think of language with the same kind of rigor that mathematicians think of math and computer scientists think of computer language--then your proposition above has problems.

    For example, if all things are God and God is all things--then you really haven't said much. Or more precisely, you have said everything and nothing. You have said words that can mean anything. That is as with Shroedeger's Cat on the quantum level things have all kinds of potential positions & energy until they are measured.

    Which is ok. But the universe scales.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Charles, according to the Scriptures, in God we live and move and have our being, but that doesn't mean God is a stick. It doesn't mean God is a cup. It doesn't even mean that God is a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ash

    The point of series is to show that the universe is intelligent.

    We have had religious concepts for centuries that acknowledged that intelligence.

    We have Physics which goes a long way toward understanding the universe.

    By trying to glean the antecedents of intelligence I find a unifying theory between religion and science.

    Of course the universe is no different. It is our understanding of it that is different and that is what I am trying to bring to your attention.

    You are always shitting on people and their efforts, Ash. Maybe, I'm the one who is stupid. So, please post your theory of intelligence, its antecedents, and how it would effect evolution or not.

    You do not need permission to do this from the EB. Just post it here in the comments section. I've never known the EB to deny a comment.

    But, if you don't mind, Ash, I won't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Listen friends, and mark my words in this moment and this hour--

    God is jealous for his name for his name is jealous.



    Nor is this a charming flower to set before a man

    nor one of his commands.



    Yet, without Jesus, this is more than we can love as we desire peace,

    and less than we can know as we desire joy.



    For the sacred fire

    that makes us liars--

    I mean, that separates speech from dreams,

    and separates our flesh from the future--

    is God's power manifested.

    So, in the year and the hour-- for his sake, invest your desire in Jesus.

    Follow his holy fire for right now. Right now he intercedes for us in heaven!



    Some will say we are people of the way.

    We are people of the way.

    We praise his holy name
    Yahweh.

    I am who I am.

    I cause all things to be.

    I am the first cause of creation.

    We praise his holy name
    Elohim.

    And say "Thank you Jesus for your precious blood--

    better, so much better than the blood of Abel.


    How then shall we pray?

    You might say,

    Bless me a lot oh God.

    Show me your kingdom and righteousness

    In such a way that my deeds words & thoughts

    Reflect your wisdom and power--

    And that for the sake of your honor and glory

    So that I will live in your presence in this life and the next

    And may your hand be with me and keep me from evil.

    Sound like an easy prayer?

    I would also pray --

    And let me hear my children praise you.

    And their children too.

    I pray all this in In Jesus name.

    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Charles said:

    Viktor Silo said:

    "God is the universe. The universe is God. Humans are part of the universe and, therefore, they are fully God. But this is also true for all humans and every particle of matter."
    /////////////////
    You said:

    you run into language problems here--unless you think of language as an odor. That is everyone has their own BO -- and all odors are good. With the caveat being that there is no accounting for taste.

    I say:

    Just what the hell is that supposed to mean, Charles? This is just a smart alec remark.

    You say:

    However, if you think of language with the same kind of rigor that mathematicians think of math and computer scientists think of computer language--then your proposition above has problems.

    I say:

    Neither the English language nor any other cultural language can be used with the same rigor as mathematics and you bloody well know that.

    You say:

    For example, if all things are God and God is all things--then you really haven't said much. Or more precisely, you have said everything and nothing. You have said words that can mean anything. That is as with Shroedeger's Cat on the quantum level things have all kinds of potential positions & energy until they are measured.

    I say:

    I have said plenty. I have a bullet proof argument against the existence of alternate universes. I have confined the idea of God to this universe. I have integrated religious and scientific concepts. I have given a good case that intelligence may come to bear on evolution and why this is so. I have argued that energy has latent intelligence. Other than this, of course, I have said nothing.

    I thought we were having a respectful exchange, Charles. Now I know better.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Victor, you wrote in the other thread:

    "Ash, I thought you were better than this. I laid out a complete argument. Do you dispute the facts? Do you dispute the logic?
    If you disagree with me then make your case."

    I've now laid out a few problems with your theory and you are getting upset. Sorry, but you asked. If it isn't clear to you at this point - I dispute the logic.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Viktor Silo said:

    "God is the universe. The universe is God. Humans are part of the universe and, therefore, they are fully God. But this is also true for all humans and every particle of matter."
    /////////////////
    You said:

    you run into language problems here--unless you think of language as an odor. That is everyone has their own BO -- and all odors are good. With the caveat being that there is no accounting for taste.

    I say:

    Just what the hell is that supposed to mean, Charles? This is just a smart alec remark.
    ///////////////
    My problem was the same as yours. I had no idea what you were talking about.

    Man is made for both time & eternity. The great broad problem of the 1st millium bc imho was how do you do that? Because the space between is utterly treacherous.
    They pictured it as gods copulating with humans or animals. The results were beasts like the minatour, that lived in the labrinth below the palace of King Minos of Crete, designed by the architect Daedalus and his son Icarus who were ordered to build it to hold the Minotaur.

    I'm talking in myths here. but the Greeks told good stories.

    and yes you're right human language doesn't approach the logic or consistency of math or computer language.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jesus is the unique example of a successful union of God and a woman. It was an immaculate conception. It produced a perfect man as well as God himself in human form.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Charles wrote, "Jesus is the unique example of a successful union of God and a woman. It was an immaculate conception. It produced a perfect man as well as God himself in human form."

    Charles, I'm not Catholic, but I have learned that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not have anything to do with the Virgin Birth. It refers to the application of grace to Mary when she was conceived in HER mother's womb, such that she was conceived without original sin. Now I personally do not hold to this belief because the bible has Mary referring to God as her Savior, which means she needed a Savior, but I don't want mistaken ideas about what other people believe to spread around.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Katchoo said..
    It refers to the application of grace to Mary when she was conceived in HER mother's womb, such that she was conceived without original sin.
    ////////////
    Most christians think that Jesus was conceived by a union of Mary and the Holy Spirit--but that there was no sex involved. And that no sex was involved is what is meant by immaculate conception.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Charles: Most christians think that Jesus was conceived by a union of Mary and the Holy Spirit--but that there was no sex involved. And that no sex was involved is what is meant by immaculate conception.

    No, Kat is right about the doctrine, but the doctrine, of course, is a false Roman tradition.

    The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain of original sin, in her mother's womb: the dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Here's a Hindo take on these quandries--

    The ultimate or irreducicble reality is 'Spirit' in the sense of Pure Consciousness from out of which as and by its Power, Mind and Matter proceed. Spirit is one. There are no degrees or differences in Spirit. The Spirit which is in man is the one Spirit which is in everything and which, as the object of worship, is the Lord or God. Mind and Matter are many and of many degrees an qualities. Spirit as such is the Whole without section. Mind and Matter are parts in that Whole. They are the not-whole and are the section. Spirit is infinite and formless. Mind and Matter are finite and with form. Spirit is unchanged and inactive. Its Power is active and changes in the form of Mind and Matter. Pure Consciousness is being, consciousness, bliss. Matter as such is unconscious. And Mind too is unconscious according to the Vedanta. For all that is not the conscious self is the unconscious object. This does not mean that it is unconscious in itself. On the contrary all is essentially consciousness, but that it is unnconscious because it is the object of the conscious self. For mind limits Cosciousness so as to enable man to have finite experience. There is no Mind without consciousness as it background, though supreme Consciousness is Mindless. Where there is no mind there is no limitation. Consciousness remaining in one aspect unchanged changes in its other aspect as active Power which manifests as Mind and Body. Man is Pure Consciousness vehicled by its Power as Mind and Body.

    In theology this Pure
    Consciousness is Siva, and His Power is Sakti who as She is in Her formless self is one with Him. She is the great Devi, the Mother of the Universe who as the Life-Force resides in man's body ...


    from "The Serpent Power" Sir John
    Woodroffe (arthur avalon)
    ---

    It is a top-down way of looking at things.

    ReplyDelete