avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Jay Ray
| Quote | | My take is exceedingly taoist. |
Oh, good.
| Quote | | Asking the right questions does no good if you draw the wrong conclusions. |
Sure, what I meant was that as understanding progresses, so do the questions. some questions aren't so much answered as disappear.| Quote |
Interesting. So your thought is that somehow this eternal, concious being was incapable of directly tinkering with atoms and molecules and instead works through lesser intermediaries? If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, then I'd ask how the lesser intermediaries themselves came to be. |
From Tao te Ching, I like #42 the best. If the Tao is so infinite that it cannot even be called one, how is it to make plans? The Tao is the void of Buddhism. To become one, requires some self-consciousness. Now you have two. The duality of two and nonduality make three. Anyway, I'd like to see a good explanation of that passage. From a great power station, you need stepdown units to get structured work done. In the Christian trinity, you have the Source, the Uncreated Energies, and the Organizing Force, which is supposed to be the real creator of this world.
I like my names better, don't you?
Jehovah is a misanthropic doody head. And an imposter. I don't care who hears me say it.| Quote | | Just because something resembles a design does not mean that it necessarily has been. This is a major sticking point for a lot of people. |
There's more analysis than that. I hope you'll look through my previous post to Chris; I excerpted some of the better and more interesting parts of a very detailed set of 5 essays on the evolution of the flagellum.
Oh, and just because it looks designed doesn't mean it wasn't, either.| Quote | Your ID take is a different from theirs. You should take a closer look at what they are saying, and what they are not. It seems like you might have some weighty philosophical disagreements with them.
|
Well, they are Christians. Are you saying that they think method is off-limits?
| Quote | It is exactly what you'd expect if you already accept a set of ideas which are unproven and presume a lot.
Then you say something like this which puts you squarely back in the middle of the YEC arguments. What unproven ideas? What presumptions?
|
Plenty of people have and have had trouble with Darwin's theory without being YECs! I could go through my books, and I should, to present some of them, or perhaps I can just look around and lift some things from the net. But I can't do it now, cause I spent so much time already.
| Quote |
Perhaps you can explain how you square statistical, probabilistic quantum mechanics with a being who leaves little to chance? Why go through all the trouble to create this system which is almost entirely random, when in fact what you really wanted to do was have the universe be what it is today? |
I really didn't mean to quantify how much was left to chance as I don't know. I can't form an opinion about the quantum reality as I don't understand it very well and I think some false claims have been made about particles arising without cause. And philosopically, the question of freedom versus determinism is a very difficult one. I suspect both operate but I can't begin to defend that. And how does the randomness of quantum particles affect evolution theory?
| Quote | "Unfolding" implies that everything is going according to plan. Why do the laws of physics sport this feature? Newtonian mechanics would have worked better for this task.
|
Well no, I don't define the unfolding too tightly. A general plan, yes. The laws of quantum physics, I suspect, work the way they do because reality requires it. Sub-planck length reality, I think, is already another dimension. My little thought. Has anyone else thought about this?
| Quote | | Completion? Completion of what? What goal does the god-verse have in mind, here? Explain how you derive this. |
Because, by golly, it would be a sad place without our intelligence to understand and admire it all. We may not be the end-product, either. But we're getting close. In my opinion, it's all about consciousness, so far as any goal type of thing.| Quote | | What is love without care? Where do you derive the conclusion that there is any emotion whatsoever felt by this eternal, concious, intelligent being? |
Not sure where the love without care came from. Because I said the love was impersonal? It's the best, the only kind! That which we call love, it is conditional. Easily lost. Easily withdrawn. It has requirements. I don't say that the infinite feels an emotion. I'm saying that a life force and love energy are just the state of its being. It's not a passionate love, it supports all things without distinction.
| Quote | | It'll be someone with a more Eastern perspective. (propose a method for ID) Maybe you? |
Why thanks, but I am not a scientist and i cannot do it. Anyway, the banned JAD at least gave it a shot.
| Quote | | Of course there is more than meets the eye. I don't know of a single scientist that would claim otherwise. |
But what I was specifically alluding to was that pure material reductionism is an inadequate explanation of the cosmos.| Quote |
Slow down. What is your evidence that I assess only from a distance? |
Well, I mentioned complexity, and you answer that nature just does what it does. That sounds like not wanting to look to close, being easily satisfied with surface explanations.
The feeling you speak of, that IDists have, is intuition.
You seemed to think that I was disparaging nature because it doesn't compose symphonies (it does, through us) and I explained that I was not and you even posted my explanation, yet still seem to think I was.
The passivity of matter is its perfection.
OK, string hypothesis it is. I like it. I root for it.
Abiogenesis is not the place to start. Abiogenesis really hasn't got off the ground. Better to stick to problems with homology and the fossil record and that sort of thing.
The god-verse is not a supervisor, because if he was, he could also act directly. The Tao JUST IS.
I suppose my views might be somewhat Hindu. Mostly from hinduism I take advaita. But they do have some notions of advanced states of being in which there is only a very subtle separation left between them and God. Everyone and everything has always existed, in one form or another. I don't know why I should know how they were created but they ought to exist. It doesn't make sense to have such a gap between our type of being and god.
I guess frontloading could either be a very general one of creating the universe, laws of nature and elements so that a few planets would probably evolve life forms, or it could be more specific.
A book like Nature's Destiny doesn't think it is probable that other forms of life could have evolved. Many different elements conspire to form the best system, which substitues could not fill. Not that the humans would have to be just like us, but more or less.
I wasn't really meaning to compare frontloading to building a house. You had said something about frontloading not being the kind of process that this universe really is. I think a process can unfold according to a general plan without being boring.
| Quote | Right, otherwise, what use is he?
Use? I think this is about the plan again, right? |
No, not the plan. I mean, if we are to have a god-being, she certainly should possess the property of uncaused existence, or its not much of a god.
| Quote | | And you're saying that neither life nor just plain stuff could happen uncaused. |
That's right.
| Quote |
But this original intelligent, concious creator thing is obviously alive in every meaningful sense. Its certainly more complicated than dead matter. So by that logic, it could not exist either. |
It isn't complicated.| Quote | | One last thing. Do you or do you not agree that electromagnetism and gravity exist? What about the nuclear force? |
Oh, yeah, I missed that. Of course they exist. I wasn't sure what i said to bring that on...we were discussing sticky laws, and we agreed there might be more we don't know about to add to the ones we have.
|
