God Idea

[dogchow108]

i think the system has just given up on my soul.

Artificial intelligence??

does the offspring of the horse and the donkey not belong to any species?

I dont necessarily mean to say that the offspring or the parents do or don't belong to a species, just more of a way of illustrating that the concept of "species" is very vague. This makes speciation a helpful tool in either education or confusing people, depending on what your motive is.

To answer your question, though, i was referring to the offspring in its lack of ability to reproduce, and to the parents in that they are morphologically different but produced a viable offspring.

i wonder what the scientific community would look like today if the catholic church had embraced the practice.

yikes...

The thought of a religious authority controlling scientific practice is just scary.

[zachsan]

Why can't i give you rep points!

i think the system has just given up on my soul.

A horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, but it is alive and functional otherwise. So are they the same species or no? There's been a lot of debate. And largely, it depends on how you want to approach the issue. I would define a species as a population of animals that have the ability to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring which in turn can produce offspring with the same capabilities.

does the offspring of the horse and the donkey not belong to any species?

Generally, one big difference i have always seen between religion and science is that scientists are willing to wait for evidence while Theists always have "all the proof they need". Typically, this leaves a situation where science does not necessarily impede on religious teachings, but religious teachengs are generally firmly opposed to scientific findings.

it's interesting to think about, especially when you consider that religion and mysticism gave rise to science. science tries to expand, whereas religion tries to stay the same. and the desire of religion to remain the same led religious scholars who weren't satisfied to create science, which eventually broke off from religion entirely. i wonder what the scientific community would look like today if the catholic church had embraced the practice.

[dogchow108]

ok, i realize all of this was posted more than a year ago, but for the sake of the record, i have to simply mention something about evolution, as it is (well, was) being repeatedly mischaracterized in some people's (read: lipster's) posts.

evolution is not just a theory, at least not in the way the word is being used on this thread. we know that evolution happened. if you walk out of your house in the morning and there's snow on the ground, that means it snowed. you don't need to limit yourself to theorizing that it snowed. coming to immediate conclusions based on evidence, that's just good old-fashioned science. coming up with an explanation that unites known phenomena and proposes an answer as to how they work, that's a theory.

darwin's theory of evolution - that is, that evolution occurred through natural selection - is a theory. it takes the known fact of evolution, provided by archaeological record, and presents a theoretical model to explain its mechanism. the theory of evolution through natural selection unites known phenomena - evolution, death and reproduction - to provide a possible mechanism for evolution. natural selection occurs, that much is clear (strong animals live and weak ones die), but it's still only a theory that natural selection was the only force behind evolution. another mechanism could have been the interference of a god or superintelligent alien.



the argument of atheists is simply that either natural selection is probably sufficient to explain evolution in and of itself; or, if it's not, then that it certainly isn't necessary to propose the existance of a god to explain the rest. the scientific thing to do would be to say "we don't know" and attempt to find out more; not say, "it was god", so we don't need to study it any further. scientists certainly aren't settling with "it was natural selection".

Why can't i give you rep points!

I agree. Some things are not a matter of belief. The way i see it, the more evidence you have for something the less reason you have to believe it. How can you believe in something when there is so much evidence for it?

As for Natural selection:

One need not see Evolution just in terms of natural selection. The general definition of evolution is a change in gene frequency over time in a population. This does not need to happen "naturally", either. It can also happen when people selectively breed cows for milk/beef. This past semester, we had a population cage of fruit flies, that each group of 4 students was to monitor. Each group had different ratios of wild (normal) to mutant flies. Not only did the gene frequencies change significantly in all the cages, but they all went in the same general direction. The mutation was one that caused underdeveloped eyes- and guess what: the gene frequency went way lower than we started with for every group. Change in a poultation's gene frequency. In nature, this happens "naturally" (in other words, due to natural pehnomena which cause environmental changes that the gene is or is not compatible with). In different experiments, some people actually lost certain genes in their populations altogether- extinction.

I think that the biggest misinterpretations of evolution are based on the following two things: Ancestral forms and Speciation.

Suppose you are looking at a spider web, from the very middle. You decide to take one strand and follow it all the way out. In terms of ancestral lineage, you have followed one line from a source that had also formed many other lines. What this source has undergone is a phenomonom called Adaptive Radiation. A perfect example of adaptive radiation is that of the first Jaw elements in fishes. Some of the earliest known fishes were jawless, and appear to have been filter-feeding bottom-dwellers with hard, bony outsides. Evolutionary biologists generally tend to agree that the first Jaws come about from elements of the gills. Either way- once you have moving jaw parts which allow you to eat other fish, this opens up all sorts of doors. You have pressure to become more motile and light. Better developed fins and lighter skin are traits of some of the later aquatic animals. Also, there are different levels of the ocean that can be inhabited. See my drift? One really cool way you can see these adaptations is by looking at the embryonic development of fishes. In fact, embryology has come to play a vital role in our understanding of the evolution of animals.
Anyway, what does this have to do with adaptive radiation? Condiser this: A jaw need not be a mouth full of big teeth (although that did come later...). The importance of a moveable jaw was the fact that a fish can expand the mouth and cause water to rush into its mouth. This is an adaptation so significant that it has remained present in just about every fish alive today- actually, a more correct way of saying it would be that the trait was beneficial enough to the bearer to have completely replaced the other feeding mechanism in terms of frequency. This movement from one ancestral form to many, many new ones is called adaptive radiation. Evolution can work on this. Not all new species live on forever. Elements in the environmant: salinity, pH, temperature, currents, terrain, predators (or the lack thereof), and many many more things are responsible for selection. Think back to the web, and how you followed one line from the middle. That is one lineage that you selected as you went outwards. it could have gone in many different directions, but it ended up coming out the way it did.

As for speciation, this is a bit of a hot toipc. Mostly because there is a lot of debate of what a "species" is to begin with. Is it morphologically based? Is a species a species because it is reproductively isolated from other "species"? Whaty does "reproductively isolated" mean, anyway? By that do you mean the gametes wont produce a fertile zygote, or is it simply the case that me being in the US and one female of my particular interest living in Australia make us differnt species? A horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, but it is alive and functional otherwise. So are they the same species or no? There's been a lot of debate. And largely, it depends on how you want to approach the issue. I would define a species as a population of animals that have the ability to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring which in turn can produce offspring with the same capabilities. You can consider dispersal/physical barriers between such individuals depending on how you approach the issue. I, personally, see physical seperation as a vital factor in Evolution. However, physical seperation need not be permanent. So, while i would not consider physical seperation a part of my definition of a species, I still recognize its importance in the process of speciation.
This brings me to my point about Speciation and Evolution- Evolution is not necessarily a product of speciation. Speciation, however, is most certainly driven by certain evolutionary factors.

As for evolution altogether- the idea of Evolution preceeded Darwin. By a lot. In fact, we know that the idea of change in living organisms was present at least as far back at the ancient Greeks. Darwin is unique because he proposed an idea as to how this occurs. This is one thing that makes the pocess of evolution observable and, most important, testable. For the importance of testing an Empirical claim, see the thread "effects of directing the Qi". Zachsan pretty much nailed it on the head there.

When many people thing of evolution, they defensively recoil at the thought that they evolved from a monkey. Not only is that childish and arrogant, it is also incorrect from an evolutionary point of view. A monkey is a highly specialized animal. Primates, generaly, are specialized and have evolved to suit very particular lifestyes. It is VERY unlikely that any primate today evolved from another primate existing today. An even loose understaning of Adaptive radiation and speciation will bring about a rather practical assumption- there was an ancestral form, at some point, which had something that was beneficial enough to have caused that trait to radiate. Humans are probably one result out of many that came about from such an adaptive radiation.

the question for theists, however, is always that of source- so where did it all come from. The logical scientific answer for that shuold be something like :

* scratches head * "I dont know."

The usual Theistic response is "You're completely wrong and it was all my invisible man!"

Generally, one big difference i have always seen between religion and science is that scientists are willing to wait for evidence while Theists always have "all the proof they need". Typically, this leaves a situation where science does not necessarily impede on religious teachings, but religious teachengs are generally firmly opposed to scientific findings.

[zachsan]

ok, i believe i can fly. seeya later guys, i'm out the window...

[LeiYunFat]

If you believe it to be true, it is true; if you believe it to be false, it is false.

This thread is HUGE. And by huge I mean, Holy crap, that is too much to read.

[zachsan]

ok. just to clarify, i was talking about animals.

[Asger]

evolution is quite a simple thing. It applies not only to animals, but to everything in this world; What was is what died, and what is is what survived. The phenomenal world is impermanent, thus evolusion applies to everything we know or will ever know.
The thoughts of our minds undergo the same process.

I have not yet found anything that is not impermanent. If you do, plz email me ok?

[zachsan]

ok, i realize all of this was posted more than a year ago, but for the sake of the record, i have to simply mention something about evolution, as it is (well, was) being repeatedly mischaracterized in some people's (read: lipster's) posts.

evolution is not just a theory, at least not in the way the word is being used on this thread. we know that evolution happened. if you walk out of your house in the morning and there's snow on the ground, that means it snowed. you don't need to limit yourself to theorizing that it snowed. coming to immediate conclusions based on evidence, that's just good old-fashioned science. coming up with an explanation that unites known phenomena and proposes an answer as to how they work, that's a theory.

darwin's theory of evolution - that is, that evolution occurred through natural selection - is a theory. it takes the known fact of evolution, provided by archaeological record, and presents a theoretical model to explain its mechanism. the theory of evolution through natural selection unites known phenomena - evolution, death and reproduction - to provide a possible mechanism for evolution. natural selection occurs, that much is clear (strong animals live and weak ones die), but it's still only a theory that natural selection was the only force behind evolution. another mechanism could have been the interference of a god or superintelligent alien.

the argument of atheists is simply that either natural selection is probably sufficient to explain evolution in and of itself; or, if it's not, then that it certainly isn't necessary to propose the existance of a god to explain the rest. the scientific thing to do would be to say "we don't know" and attempt to find out more; not say, "it was god", so we don't need to study it any further. scientists certainly aren't settling with "it was natural selection".

[zachsan]

wow. i completely missed this thread and disagree with just about everything i've read. oh well. happy holidays...

[Greenknight2]

Don't he would want to water down the "truth" so to keep people weak, only so he could take more pieces from them?

If I was god, and I don't think I am, I'd say, I've come to kick butt and chew bubblegum and I'm all out of the Gum. Wouldn't you want to get back what was rightfully yours?

I think people are making it too complicated. Keep it simple, don't you think that the same ideas are used all the time? Just the bigger things become the more complicated they are?

Is death real at all? Or is it just an illusion of what to keep us weak.

[Greenknight2]

God

Personally, I think it depends on your frame of reference. If your an ant, and someone has you in it's fist, well that might be your god. Personally, I think the nature of the universe can be thought of as legos. Now with a single lego type, one can make infinite combinations and it all depends on how far away from the design you get. The farther away the more it looks unique. Well what if a kid stole some of your lego pieces? Wouldn't you want them back? I think God does.

If I was satan, I would want everyone to be weak so I could steal there lego pieces. So I the other person couldn't put it together. I would want to keep them divided and I wouldn't want let them get together. It's really not that complicated.

[Kandyan Dancer]

If god made all things, pre ordained by him why the Buddha asks:
according to the supreme deity men will become murderers, theives, unchaste, liars. abusive, bablers, covetous and malicious and perverse in viewe.

A bodhisatta questions the divine justice thus: (Brahma is the all-powerfull creator/distroyer in hinduism)

"He who has eyes can see the sickenning sight,
why does not Brahma set his creatures right?

If his wide powers no limits can restrain,
why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

Why are hos creatures condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?

Why do fraud, lies and ignorance prevail?
Why trimphs falsehood- truth and justice fail?

I count you Brahma one th'unjust among,
Who made a world to shelter wrong."

The Buddha states:
"If there exists some lord all powerful to fulfill in every creatures bliss or woe
and action good or ill;
That lord is stained with sin. Man does but wok his will."

Namo buddhaya (homege to Gotama buddha)

---------------
Pujemi buddham, dhammam, sangham, kusumenanene ca hotu mokkham
puppham milayathi yatha idhamme, kayo tatha yathi vinashbavam.
(even as these beautiful floweres i offer the buddha will die away, so too will all component things- they pass away, are pianladen, and all things conditioned and unconditioned are soulless)

part of the flower offering sutra.

[Brother Dharma Action]

there's a whole lot a thinkin' goin' on here.

the question to really ask ourselves is not whether or not god exists but what do we want out of such thinking and beliefs. The experience in the Christian religion can be very powerful. But if we just get caught up in all these concepts and such about it, then what's the use?

Buddhist meditation is devoted to experiencing things as they are and no amount of reading or thinking is going to do you any good. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read or think, but to know that to depend on such things are infact useless when you want a deep understanding of things. The term "god" can be term that many used to describe experience things exactly as they are; however, nowadays people just like to rely on their ideas and maybe even their past experiences of what they call "god."

When we don't dwell in things as they are in the here and now, we can get very caught in those things that once were. In doing this we can tend to be totally blind to life right, to reality that is right under our own noses. The point is to understand oneself and know oneself and the best way to do that is to stop and reflect on what you need.

well, that's all from me at the moment. oh dear, I've already said too much.

[Lipster]

Okay Jess,

Well to be quite honest, I'm not entirely sure what specific points I'm supposed to address. So I'll just outline the argument and you point out the problems you have with it. This is my understanding of the God idea in non Eastern terms.

We're dealing with an infinite omnipotent being or presence, call it what you will. It is entirely perfect, the product of complete infinity. There is nothing but It. For whatever reason, there was a will to create something other than Itself of which its essence could be partaken. So this brings us to creation of physical existence. Physicality is imperfect, finite. Therefore, as I mentioned in a previous post, this being has to restrict itself to allow for imperfection - physicality [or an absence of this completely transcendental essence/nature] - to exist. Thus the act of creation is one of carving and dilution of the existing perfect essence, not of creating something new - there cannot be something new, something other then this essence, because ultimately there is nothing other then this perfect essence.

....that the watch was manufactured and then left in the desert...or, wind had miraculously blown things into the form of a watch. either way, there was a cause and effect to get this thing that at least looks like a watch on the ground. in essence, either way, it is "created."

Sorry if I'm being slow, but I didn't get what exactly your point is here. Does the above satisfy any points with regard to the object being 'created'?

, when dealing events outside our experience, we are talking about an objective perspective. modern science teaches us that a perfectly objective perspective is not attainable, at least now. and since it is within the realm of possibilities that indeed the watch is sand, we really cannot "know."

Hmm, I have a problem with this, but I'll get to it later.

my argument is simply that it is easier and more rational to explain the universe without a Creator God.

Ah, now this is a major point. I'm saying that quite frankly it isn't. IT ISN'T. Firstly, the theory of evolution is flawed, secondly, if you study the actual astronomical figures of probability here, it simply isn't more rational to assume there is no Creator. Anyway, evolution only supplies an alternative view, it doesn't in any way put forward a more plausible theory. If you ignore the actual numbers involved, maybe it does, but then that's just flawed investigation. Anyway, if you believe my point on evolution is incorrect, please say so.

Think about the restriction principle. It could sort out some problems with cause and effect. If you're interested in more technicalities of it I'd be happy.

so, in these sorts of discussions, i prefer to leave intelligence out and explain it in terms of complexity. we have so-called laws of physics that dictate the movement of particles. if we are trying to predict the movement of one particle, just by itself, very very easy. if undisturbed, it will maintain the same vector. now, throw in a few more particles and some sort of boundaries to bounce off....they'll collide with themselves and the boundaries. now you have to break out the calculator and some high school trig to predict what's gonna go on. now, there's the universe. tada! complexity! humans (or anything else that looks like it may have had an intelligent design) are not exceptions to the rule.

Okay, again, sorry if I'm being repetitious, but this is what my point is hinged on.

No, tada, there's not the universe. Complexity is not the whole picture. The originality of this complexity is..

This can get annoying, as it's highly pedantic but very important which is why I'm pushing it. I've heard several answers on why my aforementioned points do not indicate a God. But no one has specifically addressed my point of what life energy is powered by. Forget the complexity of design and where it originated or how; how it interacts and forms and continues - what is keeping reality in existence? All your answers deal with an existing product - how things are/were formed, how everything has no beginning or end - it's a cycle, how evolution has formed it, etc. But what created and maintains physicality itself? Forget the structure of an atom and how together they form particles - what powers the atoms? What allows a bush to grow? Nutrients yes, but where does this energy to allow growth come from? You say that humans are just extremely complex interactions, fine, but what is maintaining these interactions? Where does the power to 'exist' come from? This is a point I'm trying to make. Some may think all this irrelevant, that's another matter. This is one question science cannot, and hasn't attempted to answer.

Again, I wonder why - apart from cynicism built from experience - is it such a problem for there to have been an original creator? Scientifically. Give me a specific reason. My specific reason against it is that if you put the two ideas next to eachother, the God idea is simply more plausible. Yes, the other idea is plausible too, only much much more improbable. I see your point - it's theoretically perfectly possible for there not to be a Creator, but my point is that it's so much more improbable - again, if you study the facts and figures. So my reason is that the God idea is more plausible *because of the probabilities involved*, and I don't understand the threat that the concept of God poses. I mean, you say that it's more rational to explain the universe without a God. Considering the actual figures, please spell out why.

I guess after all this it would bring us back to your original point about 'knowing' anyway, which I'll get to hopefully.

Okay, this is really incomplete, sorry if it's jumbled but I'm running out of time. I'll try and address the other points in another post, especially knowing things and intelligence.

And I realise that this post has been really anthropocentric, and there’s a whole problem of duality that can come in here, but as you said it serves the need of the argument. For the moment. I’ll try and address that too.

Thanks

Peace out

[Lipster]

That used to happen with me too. It drops the login after a certain amount of inactivity. Just get into the habit of copying it when you want to post, click back on your browser twice, login again, paste and post.