Creationism/Intelligent Design

IVNORD wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: Again, you’re shooting from a position of a materialist.  We live in a world that works in materialist ways. Who gave you that world and those ways? I have thought about it.  Very seriously, in fact.  And I've decided that it's trying to bring science to terms with one specific religion, Why one specific religion? And which one? I am talking about a religion-unaffiliated creationism (pick any word you wish) Because the whole idea of six days is a judeo-christian idea, put forth by "moderate" christians looking to make peace with both sides.  I won't make peace with those who  cannot defend their position, however.  As funny as it is, you’re the one who can’t defend your position and provide a plausible explanation of the origins of Matter except for a promise that some day this explanation will be provided  My promise that this explanation will be provided is backed by a significant amount of precedent, while your belief in God is based solely on faith.  If it's not based on faith, please enlighten me, because there is no evidence in God's favor, meaning that all belief in God is rooted in faith.

inpraiseoffolly wrote: IVNORD wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: Again, you’re shooting from a position of a materialist.  We live in a world that works in materialist ways. Who gave you that world and those ways? I have thought about it.  Very seriously, in fact.  And I've decided that it's trying to bring science to terms with one specific religion, Why one specific religion? And which one? I am talking about a religion-unaffiliated creationism (pick any word you wish) Because the whole idea of six days is a judeo-christian idea, put forth by "moderate" christians looking to make peace with both sides.  I won't make peace with those who  cannot defend their position, however.  As funny as it is, you’re the one who can’t defend your position and provide a plausible explanation of the origins of Matter except for a promise that some day this explanation will be provided  My promise that this explanation will be provided is backed by a significant amount of precedent, while your belief in God is based solely on faith.  If it's not based on faith, please enlighten me, because there is no evidence in God's favor, meaning that all belief in God is rooted in faith.

    The amount of precedent is significant indeed. In fact, it’s so significant that it leads to a conclusion that it’s infinite. We discovered the molecule only to find out that there is the atom which in turn consists of elementary particles, etc. Besides, the fact that some answers have been found does not mean all answers will be found, as probability, however high, remains just that, a probability. Meanwhile, you’re building theories on the false premise that you know what you’re dealin with.
My belief in God is based on simple logic that if something can’t come out of nothing it should be made by someone. To me that’s compelling evidence. Note that I have nothing against science. I embrace science as such. I just think of science as part of a predetermined structure

IVNORD wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: IVNORD wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: Again, you’re shooting from a position of a materialist.  We live in a world that works in materialist ways. Who gave you that world and those ways? I have thought about it.  Very seriously, in fact.  And I've decided that it's trying to bring science to terms with one specific religion, Why one specific religion? And which one? I am talking about a religion-unaffiliated creationism (pick any word you wish) Because the whole idea of six days is a judeo-christian idea, put forth by "moderate" christians looking to make peace with both sides.  I won't make peace with those who  cannot defend their position, however.  As funny as it is, you’re the one who can’t defend your position and provide a plausible explanation of the origins of Matter except for a promise that some day this explanation will be provided  My promise that this explanation will be provided is backed by a significant amount of precedent, while your belief in God is based solely on faith.  If it's not based on faith, please enlighten me, because there is no evidence in God's favor, meaning that all belief in God is rooted in faith.     The amount of precedent is significant indeed. In fact, it’s so significant that it leads to a conclusion that it’s infinite. We discovered the molecule only to find out that there is the atom which in turn consists of elementary particles, etc. Besides, the fact that some answers have been found does not mean all answers will be found, as probability, however high, remains just that, a probability. And the existence of God isn't a probability?  Because, in fact, it is... a much lower probability than the probability that there is no God.  Meanwhile, you’re building theories on the false premise that you know what you’re dealin with. Please explain to me how that premise is false? My belief in God is based on simple logic that if something can’t come out of nothing it should be made by someone. What did God come out of.  To say that God has always existed is to get around the question, and shows that you don't have a true answer to the question.  Until you can answer that question, I cannot take anything you say seriously.  To me that’s compelling evidence. Note that I have nothing against science. I embrace science as such. I just think of science as part of a predetermined structure

darkmatter wrote: I know I'm late to the discussion, but I wanted to throw in my opinion on the issue. First, let me say I'm Catholic and I've gone to Catholic school my whole life (minus college).  I have doubts sometimes, but I still believe in God.  Second, I believe in evolution.  I'm a biology major, and I completely support the theory of evolution.  So I'm a big supporter of science. But I feel something needs to be said (and hopefully I'm not repeating anything already stated) on this whole issue: Science cannot disprove God or religion, and God or religion cannot disprove Science. Science has no evidence to show that God does not exist.  Science is only applicable to the physical part of the universe, and God is a spiritual being.  So Science is not applicable to God or the existence of Him.  It's impossible to prove scientifically. Similarly, God or religion cannot discredit science.  The way I believe it and have been taught is that the Creation was just a story, just like Adam and Eve was only a story.  The Bible, otherwise, does not have evidence against the evolutionary theory.  There is no reason science and religion cannot coexist peacefully together.  They do not contradict each other.  I just thought this was an important point that had to be made.  I'm not trying to anger anyone (and I apologize in advance if anyone is offended).  And as a side note, this topic is too colorful, and it gets confusing!  Note from IPOF - you should see the Atheist thread...

I will explain again here why I do believe in God and why it seems to me a perfectly logical conclucion that an entity that deserves this name exist.
When you look at evolution and matter, you not only see the tendency to ever increasing complexity, you also note that parallel with the increasing complexity an increasing level of consciousness goes hand in hand. We don't know much about the consciousness of a stone, but for all we know it is next to nil. A bacterium has some consciousness on a very low level. A plant has a consciousness that is somewhat higher than that of a bacterium. Animals have a consciousness, and last but not least we humans do have a consciousness, and as far as we know our consciousness is the biggest on the planet. The Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis stipulates that the earth as a whole has a consciousness, which seems to be very much in pattern for me, since the Earth as a whole certainly is more complex than any of the creatures on it. Then why not carry this a step further and say the universe has a consciousness, since the universe is the most complex thing that exists at all? How do we know that the myriads of photons and elemantary particles that are perpetually on their way through the universe are not a kind of nerve signals for an incredibly complex mind? Since there is a tendency for larger consciousness in in more complex structures, it not only makes sense to me, it seems to be inevitable. And this huge cosmic consciousness I name "God".
Let us take a look at this God. According to theology God has three main features: God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Since the whole of the universe makes up God in my belief, God certainly is omnipresent. God is omnipotent too, because everything that can happen according to natural laws does indeed happen in the universe. It is no flaw of God's omnipotence that nothing that is against the law of nature can happen. As Augustinus already said: "It is a sin to believe that God is not omnipotent because he can't do the impossible", only I would replace "sin" with "fallacy".
And now we come to the last part: Is this God stipulated by me omniscient too? I think yes, and my conviction is supported by spooky experiments in quantum mechanics like the Alain Aspect experiment from 1985 (see link here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect )
These are the reasons why I believe that something we might call "God" exists, or that the possibilites for it are rather on the opposite side of the scale that Sean Trane offered. In fact the existence of God seems to be logically inevitable for me.
But, and now I come to the big BUT: That does by no means mean I foillow any of the major religions. The God depicted in them is in my opinion nothing but an enlarged father-figure, and I can't believe in it.


Edited by BaldFriede - January 26 2007 at 16:07

dude wrote: If God were to appear and show us how he guides rocket ships when we send them into space, rather than their following phsyical laws, or if he showed us that there were truly fossil rabbits in the precambrian, that would pretty much disprove science. The fact that science cannot disprove God is only a credit for science and against God. Something is a lot more believable when it is disprovable.

But God is showing us how the universe works, he gave us intelligence, curiosity, and the ability to make choices, and he allows us to follow through on them.
reminds me of a story.


A major storm warniong was issued, and regions of land that were likely to become flooded were evacuated, one very religious man refused to leave his house, saying that God willing he would survive. the stormn hit and the land was flooded and the man stood on top of his house, with wild waters all around him. After a couple of hours a boat approached his house and the man inside the boat shouted to the man to get in the boat, but the man refused, saying, God will safe me, an hour later a helicopter arrived at the scene and a ladder was lowered, but the man refused to access the helicopter, saying, God will rescue me. more attempts were made to get the man out of his hazardess position, but the man kept refusing, for god would safe him.

in the end the man died of drowning.

    

Edited by tuxon - January 26 2007 at 16:05

BaldFriede wrote: I will explain again here why I do believe in God and why it seems to me a perfectly logical conclucion that an entity that deserves this name exist.When you look at evolution and matter, you not only see the tendency to ever increasing complexity, you also note that parallel with the increasing complexity an increasing level of consciousness goes hand in hand. We don't know much about the consciousness of a stone, but for all we know it is next to nil. A bacterium has some consciousness on a very low level. A plant has a consciousness that is somewhat higher than that of a bacterium. Animals have a consciousness, and last but not least we humans do have a consciousness, and as far as we know our consciousness is the biggest on the planet. The Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis stipulates that the earth as a whole has a consciousness, which seems to be very much in pattern for me, since the Earth as a whole certainly is more complex than any of the creatures on it. Then why not carry this a step further and say the universe has a consciousness, ince the universe is the most complex thing that exists at all? How do we know that the myriads of photons and elemantary particles that are perpetually on their way through the universe are not a kind of nerve signals for an incredibly complex mind? Since there is a tendency for larger consciousness in in more complex structures, it not only makes sense to me, it seems to be inevitable. And this huge cosmic consciousness I name "God".Let us take a look at this God. According to theology God has three main features: God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Since the whole of the universe makes up God in my belief, God certainly is omnipresent. God is omnipotent too, because everything that can happen according to natural laws does indeed happen in the universe. It is no flaw of God's omnipotence that nothing that is against the law of nature can happen. As Augustinus already said: "It is a sin to believe that God is not omnipotent because he can't do the impossible", only I would replace "sin" with "fallacy".And now we come to the last part: Is this God stipulated by me omniscient too? I think yes, and my conviction is supported by spooky experiments in quantum mechanics like the Alain Aspect experiment from 1985 (see link herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect ) These are the reasons why I believe that something we might call "God" exists, or that the possibilites for it are rather on the opposite side of the scale that Sean Trane offered. In fact the existence of God seems to be logically inevitable for me.But, and now I come to the big BUT: That does by no means mean I foillow any of the major religions. The God depicted in them is in my opinion nothing but an enlarged father-figure, and I can't believe in it.

    You separate matter and consciousness. How about combining those two things? In other words, God is everything. Every single shred of matter AND thought.

BaldFriede wrote: IVNORD wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Then why not carry this a step further and say the universe has a consciousness, ince the universe is the most complex thing that exists at all? How do we know that the myriads of photons and elemantary particles that are perpetually on their way through the universe are not a kind of nerve signals for an incredibly complex mind?     You separate matter and consciousness. How about combining those two things? In other words, God is everything. Every single shred of matter AND thought. I do not. Read my post again.

    I just did. To me it looks like separating. But I like it anyway as we all attempt to imagine how everything works. The problem is we don’t know for sure.

BaldFriede wrote: I tried to explain that consciousness grows the more complex a structure becomes. an electron is less complex than an atom, so an atom has a higher consciousness than an electron (though we are still talking of very low-level consciousness). the more complicated a structure becomes, the higher the consciousness. did I make myself clear this time?

    No. Soory I didn't get it. The way I understand it is a material unit has consciousness, which is immaterial. So consciousness of the highest order, still immaterial, rules the world.

    Jean and Friede,

You said the same thing three times. Here’s your original post

BaldFriede wrote: Since there is a tendency for larger consciousness in in more complex structures, it not only makes sense to me, it seems to be inevitable. And this huge cosmic consciousness I name "God".

The way it looks the universe is a separate entity, and its consciousness is a separate entity too.

Hope I made myself clear. Other than that I like your picture of the being. Not to the extent that I would accept it as my own but ....