by sunscapes 9 Replies latest jw friends
Abaddon said:
whether you believe in the theory of evolution, and if not, why not?This is the dichotomous aspect of the argument I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. It is not creation vs. evolution, rather, it is any number of creation theor-IES vs. any number of evolution theor-IES. In fact, I could (and do) believe in an aspect of creation AND evolution at the same time!
When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers ... we are ripping the foundations of justice from beneath future generations.
or even a theory that noone has dreamed of yet.
As you say, dichotomized thinking. Two options, thats it.
This is the dichotomous aspect of the argument I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. It is not creation vs. evolution, rather, it is any number of creation theor-IES vs. any number of evolution theor-IES. In fact, I could (and do) believe in an aspect of creation AND evolution at the same time!
You lost me?
For me, I accept evolution. The evidence is so overwhelming, despite what creationists say and I use to be one. I'd Condemn evoultion at the drop of a hat. When I studied evolution... I found it depressing. Yeah, Evolution is amazing, it's fascinating...but I find it completely incompatible with a loving God. Evolution is cruel and brutal and a God that would use such a process doesn't really give a damn for me, so may as well not exist.
I cant see how evolution and creation can be compatible really
Hi Zev, I agree that the violence inherent in predator-prey cycle wipes out the whole idea of a loving creator.
Sunscapes and RefinersFire, Just because there are theories of evolution and creation doesn't mean there might not be other alternatives not thought of or discovered yet. A and B don't have to be true; there could yet be C, D, and E. Good points.
Pat
I think that this is possibly a case of you viewing that quote in terms of black and white, although to be fair I think I could have phrased it in a clearer way, but I cannot make every simple question one containing several subordinate subclauses and definitons of words. I have stated quite catagorically in posts that even if the theory of evolution were definative, if there was evidence for god, I would believe. So I don't think I am thinking in black and white.
By theory of evolution, I mean, as you will observe in posts that touch on the subject, that I am very happy to accept this consists of a variety of theories, and is not fixed, as new discoveries are made, or techniques are developed that allow old discoveries to be analysed in greater detail, leading to the refinement of theory.
However, there is a general consensus on the theory of evolution that allows one to refer to it in shorthand as a single entity, no matter how many strands it might have.
Also, if you read other posts of mine, you will see that I conceed that ultimate origins (god or no god) are essentially a matter of opinion, as the theories of events leading up to the Big Bang are at this time impossible for most people (including me!) to fully comprehend.
So, we have a variety of options;
1/ God as a unconcerned creative force. It made, using naturalistic techniques. Maybe it guided these natural processes. It went away. There is no evidence for this.
2/ God as a concerned creator, who made it like it says literally in religious books. There is a host of evidence against this.
3/ God as a concerned creator, with the creative myths of religions being allegories of this creation, with naturalistic techniques, such as evolution, being used in this creation. Maybe it guided these natural processes. There is no evidence for this.
4/ There is no god. There is no evidence of this, but, as has been extensively discussed, one would not expect there to be evidence of something not existing.
If you think 2/ is true, well, I disagree on about every possible level. Literal creationism based on a religious book is not supported by any evidence. Try me...
If you think 1/ is true, why should we care? Wow, there's a creator, but he's buggered off.
If you think 3/ is true, please explain the logic of there being no evidence for this if this is the case, as this contradicts the concept of a concerned god. Other evidence that contradicts there being a concerned god is the huge variety of beliefs and the changing nature of these beliefs.
Theories of evolution are less than two hundred years old and obviously subject to revision due to new data.
The fact there is no absolute theory of god after thousands of years of recorded history, and with no new data to make the lack of closure understanable, makes the concept of a concerned diety hard to swallow.
If you think 4/ is true, I agree that this is the most likely outcome.
As you can see, I am very well able of talking about the shades of grey, and only a short quote can make it appear otherwise. However, examination of these shades of grey still leads me to the conclusion that there is no god.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
I appreciate your comments and clarity, thank you for replying.
One thing that has progressed significantly recently is understanding of physics, photonics and magnetic energy in relation to our evolution. It is entirely possible that extra terrestrial benevolent forces are responsible for guiding us to these advanced technologies; and one could argue that these can be used in our own continued evolution, of sorts. Even learning can be evolution, in the truest sense of the word. A considerable number of scientists do personally believe in higher beings, albeit NOT under religious labels.
When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers ... we are ripping the foundations of justice from beneath future generations.
sunscape:
It is entirely possible that extra terrestrial benevolent forces are responsible for guiding us to these advanced technologies;How do you figure that? So, in other words benevolent aleins started evolution? Well...it may be 'possible', but I don't think it's very probable. I mean, it's possible that this life is just a dream, an ilusion, and I'll wake up tomorrow in paradise somewhere surrounded my a 1000 muslim virgins!!!!...yeah right!
sunscapes; I am interested in your response. You seem very eager to believe in or to discuss invisable benefactors. By invisable, I mean things that are unprovable.
God, aliens, neither of these are provable in any way.
My arguements regarding god you have read above. My arguements regarding aliens are as follows;
1/ Unless travel at superluminial speeds is possible, we are unlikely ever to meet aliens. If we do, it will be in the form of an automated probe, or if the alien race's technology and biology allow it, a scout ship which would hold it's crew in some form of suspended animation whilst travelling between stars. Alternately, this has or is already happening, and we are going to meet the alien equivalent of the Mayflower at some point. This will be unpleasent for us.
However, if FTL travel is not possible, it is unlikely, given the likely frequency of planets of similar habital qualities, that aliens would bother to invade a planet with sophont life, as it would just make the extraordinary difficulties of such an enterprise even more extraordinary.
It has to be said there is no evidenece for such scouting activity or automated probes, other than that of the most anecdotal nature.
2/ If FTL travel is possible, then we will meet aliens at some point, unless by some vastly unlikely chance there are no others, or we destroy ourselves before meeting them. Some people argue this has already happened.
These claims vary in their nature; a) aliens guided human evolution, and may still be watching; the '2001: A Space Oddessy' idea; b) aliens are infiltrating human society or spying on us, preparing for an invasion; c) aliens are observing humans to decide when to allow us to join a peaceful federation of planets; d) aliens are studying us as we would study chimpanzees; e) teenage aliens are stealing their parent flying saucers and are parading up and down in front of pig farmers in Alabama wearing alien suits and going 'gleep geep' as a form of prank or teenage high-jinks, probably taping the encounter and sending it to the 3D show "Z'kj;kj;kj;~gdiw#qefho@iwe22+afesas", which consists of such clips.
a) is making god into aliens and is unprovable.
If FTL travel is possible, there is a realm of manipulation of physical laws yet to be discovered. A civilisation that could wharp space could observe unobserved. Thus b), c) and d) are unlikely, and there is no evidence for them.
The only one that matches the available 'evidence' is the last option, e), but all such evidence is anecdotal.
Based on this, we probably haven't met aliens yet. If we do, they will probably contact the UN formally first, or if they are not friendly, make the kick-ass delivered to the Taliban in Afghanistan look like a blow..., er, like something very nice.
I find gaining a greater understanding of what can be known to some extent accurateley far more profitable and enjoyable than basing my hopes on things that live in the sky we can't prove (a loose term that fits god and aliens). Of course, idle speculation can be fun, but I keep bouncing off walls of likelihood.
However, when I see someone jumping from a discussion of one insubstansiatable belief to another, I find myself wondering what is so terrible in their life they have to stare at shadows. I hope I am wrong.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
Abaddon,
A good response and a very patient one, I thought. It seems to me that if people spent time learning about the wonder of nature through the marvelous mechanism of science, they would be filled with wonder and awe, far more enjoyable than can be obtained from idle speculation.
As you pointed out speculation and fanciful ideas can be fun, but they are no substitute for a "state of the art" understanding of reality.
Keep up the good work.
Now HERE is something state of the art...
http://www.ufonasa.com/galaxy_clock.htm
Gravity frequencies are electromagnetic waves, which include "visible light" as just one frequency bandwith of electromagnetic waves. In this Galaxy Clock, the light speed is a relative constant speed and gravity is a relative measure that is gradient and therefore not constant. Each gradient measure of gravity is constant in its own particular frequency.
Because light speed is the only constant in modern physics, the constant distance light travels per second (186,282 miles per second) will be used as a measurement on 10 wheels radiating out from the relative center of the Galaxy Clock. On each wheel, the same distance that light travels per second will be used starting from the "0" position and moving counter clockwise from the outer most wheel towards the inner most wheel.
The straight line connecting the "0" position of the outer most wheel to the center of the inner most wheel represents Gravity Force, Space and Time. The distance from the "0" position to the "1" position is the constant distantce used on the Galaxy Clock for the distance light travels per second. The distance is constant because it represents the only constant in known physics: light. Each count on the Galaxy Clock uses the same relative distance regardless of the size of the wheel it is moving over.
The diagram above of the Galaxy Clock goes from 0-12 counts. We can see that the Gravity Force, Space and time line becomes curved and actually grows in length (if we uncoiled it) by the time we get to the 12-count position. The growth and curvature of this line represents the increase in Gravity Force, Space and Decrease of the Time it takes for Gravity to conquer space distance.
Discoveries in metaphysics lately will just astound you...and we've seen nothing yet!
