Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like Mr5150's thoughts and as usual Arqu (I can't get your username right) and NoCapo offer very interesting thoughts. I'm not indicating Mr5150 and I will agree but the point is not to agree just share thoughts. So, these are just my thoughts in relation to everything posted so far.
My conception of God is that God has infinite intellect in a sense he is the supreme scientist. This is going to sound new age but it is consistent with Catholic thinkers, God came about as both a consequence of the Universe but also set the patterns for the Universe. OK, the idea is nuanced and by that I mean my conception of God is that he came to be when the Universe came to be but because of that he is able to set the principle laws of the Universe having come about with the Universe. The only way I can make the concept clearer is that just as we, Humans, are born from our parents we take properties on of our parents as well as differences that are uniquely our own.
So, what is God's dilemma with infinite intellect, the laws of the Universe set in place, he wants to bring about life like himself. Why? Because while the Universe might be an interesting place if you're the only one in existence it is a pretty lonely place. So, how can he do this? Remember, he is the supreme scientist he is not a magician or a sorcerer he just can't conjure into existence from nothing. However, because he has infinite intellect he can figure out how to create life, like himself created from the Universe, from those materials in nature and within the Universe to give birth to more life. Again, this is all premised on infinite intellect which implies complete understanding of the Universe in all its subtle detail and nuances. So, while he has infinite intellect in a sense he has to work with the material at hand. So he is not flawed, but the material at hand may cause flaws. However, it is the best he can do. In that regard he creates the building blocks of life where possible and allows it to evolve knowing it will lead to certain imperfections and unintended consequences. However, overall it is the best design. Just like a modeler can pick up patterns and forecast the direction things will go, God with his infinite intellect can model it from the beginning, forecast the direction it will go. The problem is that it has to progress over time to get there.
Sounds similar to a new book out on amazon, Digital Universe Analog Soul. The Creator is protrayed as a type of scientist.
Sounds similar to a new book out on amazon, Digital Universe Analog Soul. The Creator is protrayed as a type of scientist.
Well, I've never read that book. However, while I was looking at the reviews I think one posted he was Catholic at one point. If that is the case, my suspicion is that he is putting his own interpretation onto already known Catholic theology.
It is an interesting theory. I think it departs significantly from the traditional Christian understanding of God, though. Your variation seems a lot more like a smart but lonely alien. It is not omnipotent, it is not entirely complete in itself, it exists within the universe as opposed to creating it ex nihilo.
Again the real question is why postulate it in the first place? What observation is this god-hypothesis addressing, and how would we know if it was not true?
-NoCapo
I didn't go into complete detail; for me the defining characteristics are infinite intellect and eternal state. I'm not indicating God is only those two but to me those are the principle ones that are important to me, which again probably reflects my own biases anyway. However, this is just my own speculation which is well within Catholic theology. And you are oversimplifying it a bit, but who cares. However, it doesn't matter lets get to your real question, which is a good question.
"Again the real question is why postulate it in the first place? What observation is this god-hypothesis addressing, and how would we know if it was not true?"
OK, I'm not imposing my denomination on you but a mantra I grew up with as a Catholic and which most Catholics grow up is, "to know Him, to serve Him, and to love Him." It is implied that it goes in that order or at least that is how I interpreted it. By this I mean you can't properly serve someone you don't know and you can't properly love someone you don't serve. And again don't get caught up with the concept of serve it's not a state of slavery or an indentured state, rather it is the sense that you love Him so you love his goals and are readily willing to help Him achieve those goals through service--keep in mind we also have the concept of Public Service which also is not an indentured state.
A lot of times people with Faith or without Faith gets stuck on the, "knowing Him." Because they get stuck on the, "knowing Him," they either don't know how to properly serve Him or they decide not to serve Him and this prevents the outcome of loving Him.
So, "what observation is this god-hypothesis addressing," what this speculation, which you kindly referred to as a hypothesis but really it is just speculation, is addressing some fundamental issues people who lose Faith have about God. For example, the author of this article tends to make the argument, "well if your so perfect why aren't we?" Well, a simple reply to that is look it from his perspective. My sense is that in God's infinite intellect and wisdom he's not an all or nothing thinker. By this I mean when confronted with the dilemma of creating life he didn't say, 'whelp, it's not going to perfect all the time so why try." Thankfully he doesn't think in those terms because well we wouldn't be alive. Instead a more rational thought is, "it's not going to be perfect all the time, but it's the best design, the best concept, and over time they can get better at it if they choose, they can fix it if they choose."
Realistically speaking though, the vast majority of the people alive today are born physically fine. This author points out, "well look at that, look that, look at that," and makes mistake of obsessing over exceptions instead of the rule or the majority. That is not to indicate the exception aren't important, they are from a spiritual perspective but it seems to me a more healthy response is instead of hating God, who personally didn't do anything to cause those imperfections, a more healthy and spiritual response is to help the exceptions--scientifically, spiritually, compassionately...etc..
That is only one thing this speculation addresses. However, how do we know if it's true. It's just speculation. It's my own meditations on life. There is no reason to accept it as truth. Like all meditations its meant to help widen the mind to different possibilities and different ways of thinking.
Sounds similar to a new book out on amazon, Digital Universe Analog Soul. The Creator is protrayed as a type of scientist.
Oh, I apologize you made a follow up comment and I think it was deleted. It was a good question and a good address. Here is what I did. I did a search of the author to see if I can get more background on him. I happened to chance a Catholic discussion forum where he himself addresses concerns Catholics have with his ideas--he uses his own name as the username and gets into a discussion with other Catholics.. I hope it doesn't violate forum rules if I link to the discussion, my intention is not to and it is relevant in this regard:
Realistically speaking though, the vast majority of the people alive today are born physically fine. .
Setting aside the idea that something an materialize at the same time as an event yet somehow control the mechanics of that event, which I find rather baffling, let me ask you if you have ever met any person that me, you or anybody else would consider as absolutely 100% perfect?
Does 'fine' to you just mean no obvious or disabling conditions?
Since your excuse seems to be that god can't do everything right, what qualifies it to be a god that deserves worshipping?
It is a good try, but eventually it boils down to this. An interventionist god will leave marks on reality, evidence that it is tweaking and changing things. A non interventionist god is indistinguishable from no god and thus can safely be discounted. For those that believe in an interventionist god, where is the evidence of its hand? for those who believe in a non-interventionist god, why bother?
-NoCapo
I agree, which is why I consider that theistic evolution is not really credible. The efforts to try to prove the fingerprints of God with complexity or DNA codes don't convince me, because of this annoying (for theists0 'There is probably some perfectly natural scientific explanation - but we don't know what it is, yet' position. Annoying for theists, as I say, but, given the amount that science has shown that was previously considered inexplicable without a god having done it (instinct, for instance) it is a position thathave earned itself come credit.
Thus, I agree with you that some convincing evidence of the handiwork of God ought to have been detectable, though it is hard to think just what.
My point was more to explain the argument theist evolutionists use to keep afloat the idea that a god could still be involved in evolution, rather than to justify it as credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
It feels right and true.
That does sound like an emotional (which is to say faith -based) position rather than an evidence -based one. That said, I don't have a beef with it unless some effort is made to argue that there is sound evidence to support theistic evolution.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-06-2014 at 04:29 AM..
I think god and evolution can be easily reconciled. Because generally all believers do when looking at things like evolution is either deny evolution OR simply say "Evolution is how god did it". The latter is a "reconciliation" of sorts, at least in the mind of the believers. It gives a way to accept both.
That is the issue with having this floating word "god" without any clear definitions or attributes. You can simply tailor it to fit whatever reality throws at you. As such it is essentially "reconciled".
What you can not reconcile however is the methodologies of science with there being a god. Because the methodologies of science require that you substantiate your theory. The Theory of Evolution is heavily substantiated. The claim there is a god however is devoid of any and all arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend it even a modicum of credence.
Evolution is a substantiated Theory, the god hypothesis is pure and baseless fantasy. THAT, at least, is not so easily reconciled.
I guess the fact that DNA is basically a written code doesn't work for you. This has being purposely ignored by the atheist camp for years.
As far as predictable behavior goes, if I knew your game, do you suppose I would act like a machine or a dog, or would I use my freewill to mess up your controlled experiment to predict my next move, just for giggles?
I note your contention that DNA codes is good evidence for God. This has been discussed before and the idea of a code, is overdrawn by God -believers looking for evidence. It really comes down to a collection of biochemical that have evolved to retain information and trigger reactions. The idea that this represents a sort of written biological software is a rather misrepresented picture by proponents of Intelligent Design trying to make nature look like a machine (1) . I agree that it is one of the better arguments for ID, but like abiogenesis, where it may still be possible to argue that a god might have needed to do it, it is also equally valid to argue that a god might not be necessary.
If, Mr 5150, that falls into your category of 'ignoring' a 'fact', I have to say that you are not really being fair to us atheists.
(1) there was one attempt to try to 'prove' that it was a software code by claiming that it was a 'language'. This turned out to be a rather far -fetched attempt to apply Zipf's law to DNA. It was the old story of beginning with the conclusion and looking round for anything (the more sciency -sounding the better) that appeared to support it. That is why ID when applied to either Creationism or theistic evolution fails to stand up as sound evidence.
I can't decided if this thread is worth my time. It's like this woman is making up some kind of god and then saying it can't exit, because of how she views evolution.
Does that not constitute a "Straw-Man" argument?
You're right; her version of what "theistic evolution" means sounds more like Intelligent Design.
It was mildly interesting. Her point(s) rely on belief in an interventionist God. Admittedly, most believers have that sort of God in mind but certainly not all of us do.
How is an interventionist deity in general (i.e. without specifically also positing a specific religion to be true or that religion's god to exist) any more in conflict with evolution than with gravitation, plate tectonics, or fluid dynamics?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
