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.
A processor is necessitated only to satisfy human thinking. Other than filling in gaps that people don't comprehend, the need for a "processor" doesn't exist.
Self-organization is the principle by which things come into being according to science. ...
[...]
You say:
"A processor is necessitated only to satisfy human thinking. Other than filling in gaps that people don't comprehend, the need for a "processor" doesn't exist.
Self-organization is the principle by which things come into being according to science."
Who are doing the thinking here, humans isn't it?
And who are doing science, humans isn't it?
Anyway, science might say that self-organization, etc., but there is a program that activates the supposedly self-organization of things.
Who is the author of the program?
And Who supplies the power enabling things to self-organize?
And Who supplies the power enabling things to self-organize?
No one.
These answers don't provide any information, but that is because you're asking the wrong questions. Replace Who with what and you might get a better response.
"A processor is necessitated only to satisfy human thinking. Other than filling in gaps that people don't comprehend, the need for a "processor" doesn't exist.
Self-organization is the principle by which things come into being according to science."
Who are doing the thinking here, humans isn't it?
And who are doing science, humans isn't it?
Anyway, science might say that self-organization, etc., but there is a program that activates the supposedly self-organization of things.
Who is the author of the program?
And Who supplies the power enabling things to self-organize?
Pachomius
You're assuming the universe is a 'program' and needs an external creator. This is not so.
They are compatible if they remain in their proper spheres. If they mix they are not. A creation account is dogma, an evolution account is theory-two different genus. If these are transposed; evolution becomes dogma and creation becomes theory, then science and religion swap roles. Religion seems to want to adopt science for direction, but when the theory changes (such as the developing theory against a free will notion-the loss of the transcendent subject), science leaves religion in a lurch (religion still hanging on to the ol' free will notion). Science seems to have a tendency to dogmatize its theories, and when the theory changes, religion laughs at it (such as the very unscientific notion that evolution is here now until the last trump). There was an ol' saying, "the mark of a first rate mind was the ability to hold two contradictive ideas in the mind at the same time and still function." One would like to hold three, but be that as it may, the days when men could do this are long gone and the race has specialized its thinking into one category-and that passes for intellegence-there was another ol' saying. "specialization is for insects."
We might be generally guilty of dogmatizing our ideas, but it's because the debates are so often one-sided as regards logical interface. New scientific findings are smuggly held against scientists, as though we're all confused. Non-scientists, in their lack of understanding of how science works, don't realize the newer stuff is an improvement over the older, providing better, more valid explanations.
After all, what has religion brought to the table in the past 100 or 200 years that's new and potentially applicable as a rational explanation to new discoveries? Pretty much "nada", and so we smugly sit there with our array of pretty interesting, documented and often reproduceable results, versus braying denialism, and what do we then tend to conclude?
Nolo contendere, in most cases. I agree; that breeds some arrogant contempt, but then again, some of it's justified.
You are confusing the categories here, I personally am grateful science is theory, air-conditioning is an improvement over the box fan. It should never dogmatize itself, as it has it own essential progress and theological concepts applied there would be disturbing; religion has no need to contribute or confirm scientific work, it has no expertize there-you have to read theology to find the new, its stodginess, egos, idea capital etc, and well quite frankly, I have to say you have not, and yet, I am afraid to report, that you are fairly accurate in your assessment as theology, a rational structure, as really fallen on hard times.
The problem with reconciling religion and evolution (let's not lie here, we're talking the Judeo-Christian faith system) is that the Theory of Evolution discredits Genesis, and to be even crazier, Jesus Christ.
With evolution, we don't need Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve, we don't have original sin. Sin is inherent in humans, which means if God evolved humans, he intentionally created imperfect beings. Imperfect beings that sin. God hates us because he "created" us to sin, and we all know where sinners go. However, since we don't have the original sin (sin is just a religious social control), then Jesus died for nothing. If Jesus didn't die for our sins, and specifically the original sin, well then believing in Jesus gets you nowhere.
Religion is entirely irrelevant to God. QED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPHD
"Natural" is a euphemism for "We haven't the slightest idea it just is" . . .
Strawman. "Natural process" refers to any unthinking unfeeling, i.e., not intelligent process. Since you haven't been able to demonstrate why "natural processes" are intelligent...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic
but this "survival drive" (we have no idea where it came from) creates "competition" (we have no idea why it should) and the ones that "win" are "selected."
Limited resources create competition. If two organisms both require the resources, logically, only one can claim it. That which is able to claim it in the best\easiest\greatest\pick-your-adjective way will "win" or "lose," depending on your chosen adjective.
Is evolution a process that leads to new species, according to the proponents of the theory of evolution?
If it is not a process, what is it then?
But you who deny that evolution is a process, do you know that evolution leads to new species of life, according to the proponents of the theory of evolution?
I define God as the maker of everything in the ultimate terms.
As you postulate evolution which is a process who or what is the processor? Ryrge
I don't postulate a "processor". Just the process. We've seen it to be a self-functioning system. You assume that management component as necessary, where in fact it's proven to not be. As we learn and publish more facts about it, Christians combine those observable achievements with an obedient and suitably "awestruck" attitude of automatic godly acknowledgment, whereas I and millions of others educated in it's intricacies simply see more evidence of it's sole capabilities absent any impossible manager.
"Natural" is a euphemism for "We haven't the slightest idea it just is" . . . but this "survival drive" (we have no idea where it came from) creates "competition" (we have no idea why it should) and the ones that "win" are "selected."
Oooooohhhh.... you couldn't be more mis-guided and essentially wrong, Mystic. "Natural" simply means it happens by means other than some implausible and highly concocted supernatural alternatives, concocted, and poorly, after the fact, following illiterate conclusions mired in a lack of understanding of true "natural" processes. You see a naturally occurring incident through the lens of human arrogance and a mandated human perspective.
Example: "Competition" simply means one organism is better suited, and thus is more successful in feeding or nesting or hiding or running or predating. No "system" required; it just IS. No need to categorize or pigeonhole or define it in human terms. It just IS. But by that fact, it also, naturally, achieves a logical goal, which is again, a human determination. So we assume there must be a Godly director.
Sorry. It's a cold, hard logical world that does not need our blessing nor interpretation to operate. And I'm also sorry to see that, time and again, you profess so little respect for or understanding of nature!
Those ancient biblical stories depend on institutionalized stupidity, orchestrated obedience (why else all the threatened "punishment" modes?) and thoroughly contradictory scripture to propogate and maintain a fast-dying paradigm.
"Natural" simply means it happens absent some outside direct inexplicable and totally implausible intervention and participation. "Natural" means that, for a number of definable reasons, it is directed, but by simple logic and the characteristics of the system. You seem unable to grasp that things can happen absent complicated guidance.
It reminds me of Obama who recently said he promised that government "would do everything necessary to keep Americans safe from terrorism", when in fact it was the natural responses of those folks in the Detroit plane that downed the "undie-bomber". No intervention required, but Obama tried to claim it, as though it's not possible without big government. Or big religion. It's also obvious to me that big religion is thoroughly frightened right now of it's potential loss of influence.
I'm also reminded of Jack Nicholson's immortal line about truth and our ability to handle it.
Truth must be infallible. This is powerful statement. Most of the world can not handle nor could they even conceive of the Truth.
"It's been said truth is like the bright sun and the naked eye cannot gaze directly upon it for more than a few seconds. Just so with our individual minds; it can't behold the truth unless it is veiled in some way, be it ceremonies or symbolisms."
Organized dogmo-theism uses parables, allegories and unfettered symbolism to veil that which man can not hear. Not that religion is trying to deceive, but man cannot generally conceive of the power that he has, to observe and deduce. Better that the Church claim such ultimate insight before it leaks out that man can learn on his own!
If it hadn't happened this way, many individuals might not have seen their 20th birthday, because the masses might have stoned them to death! The people could not "handle the truth."
This has been demonstrated over and over by the facts and existence of Evolution, which so many react to like it was "The Devil's Spawn". How sad, huh?
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.
