Creation and Evolution (not v.s)

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Omni Rex Draconis


Why not? Isn't that the way you say God happened?

What comes it down to, as far as yoor argument, is chicken or egg. I say chicken, and I say God.
I feel sure you choose the opposite on both. You almost have to; otherwise you're not consistent.

[Omni Rex Draconis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What comes down to, as far as yoor argument, is chicken or egg. I say chicken, and I say God.
I feel sure you choose the opposite on both. You almost half to; otherwise you're not consistent.

That is why the beginning of the universe is as good a place as any to stuff the Magic Man. At the moment of creation, all the rules we have learned so far just break down. And I doubt we could ever gain insight as to what actually preceded it. If you put God there, I will never be able to disprove him.

Whether the universe is eternal or created, and how that can be, is a great mystery. And, for me at least, one that cannot be answered by a few lines of "And God made it so".

[LotC]

You're conflating primitive, uninformed beliefs with reasoned, empirical theories. My fallacy meter is reading 11.25 on a scale of 1 to 10.

[MattBowron]

apologies LotC, what I mean to point out is the similarities in the two areas (spiritual creation) and (scientific evolution) through the state of their 'grand narratives', and I wonder why this is so.

it's interesting that however Sloww mentions the chicken or the egg, because some scientists think that perhaps a posthuman civilization would use increasing amounts of computation, which would reach the extremes of posthumans manufacturing black-hole based computers called Omega Points, which use warped space time to create infinite amounts of computing time in order to solve problems, and thus perhaps make immense simulations.

This is one reason that some scientists think that there is a fermi paradox, because other post-bio civilizations may have gone this way, and if you can say simulate your encounter with other alien races and find out the best interaction without ever interfering in their own development, why bother visiting them and upsetting the capabilities of letting them figure it out on their own?

Also it might interest you to know that some think that this singularity point that the universe came from might have existed as a singularity from another universe, and that therefore in effect the universe could potentially be a manipulated simulation by postbeings.

In this sense, even if the universe is a simulation it is still a creation isn't it? And just because something is created, does that remove the meanings and values that are connected with our existence? The bible says that God created the universe. Arthur C Clarke also stated that any significantly advanced technology may be indistinguishable from magic or the supernatural, and in some cases spirituality has been linked to the supernatural.

It is more these similiarities that I see, seems to more prove the potential of God's existence. Maybe these are the 'wounds we can feel' for us 'doubting Thomases'. Perhaps then in that sense God doesn't mind there being empirical evidence for his existence, although it might not be able to be fully proven, otherwise there would be no need for faith, which is extension of belief beyond the physical.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MattBowron
it's interesting that you mention chicken or the egg, because some scientists think that perhaps a posthuman civilization would use increasing amounts of computation, which would reach the extremes of posthumans manufacturing black-hole based computers called Omega Points, which use warped space time to create infinite amounts of computing time in order to solve problems, and thus perhaps make immense simulations.

This is one reason that some scientists think that there is a fermi paradox, because other post-bio civilizations may have gone this way, and if you can say simulate your encounter with other alien races and find out the best interaction without ever interfering in their own development, why bother visiting them and upsetting the capabilities of letting them figure it out on their own?

Also it might interest you to know that some think that this singularity point that the universe came from might have existed as a singularity from another universe, and that therefore in effect the universe could potentially be a manipulated simulation by postbeings.

In this sense, even if the universe is a simulation it is still a creation isn't it? And just because something is created, does that remove the meanings and values that are connected with our existence? The bible says that God created the universe. Arthur C Clarke also stated that any significantly advanced technology may be indistinguishable from magic or the supernatural, and in some cases spirituality has been linked to the supernatural.

It is more these similiarities that I see, seems to more prove the potential of God's existence. Maybe these are the 'wounds we can feel' for us 'doubting Thomases'. Perhaps then in that sense God doesn't mind there being empirical evidence for his existence, although it might not be able to be fully proven, otherwise there would be no need for faith, which is extension of belief beyond the physical.

What are you saying in layman's terms? Chicken or egg will suffice, but add to it if you feel compelled. Just a little but more succinct.

[MattBowron]

chicken = egg

perhaps

in science

black hole singularity creates universe (chicken) leads to intelligent species capable of manipulating materials to create black holes that will create universes (egg)

in religion

God (creative being) leads to man (creative being)

And therefore egg = chicken

I got the idea from an Isaac Asimov story

The Last Question, copyright 1956

Basically over a course of generations a computer called Multivac becomes more compact, more wide-spanning in its control and more intelligent and powerful until eventually in order to solve the problem of entrophy recreates the universe, essentially becoming God in the process

[LotC]

Originally posted by MattBowron
apologies LotC, what I mean to point out is the similarities in the two areas (spiritual creation) and (scientific evolution) through the state of their 'grand narratives', and I wonder why this is so.

it's interesting that however Sloww mentions the chicken or the egg, because some scientists think that perhaps a posthuman civilization would use increasing amounts of computation, which would reach the extremes of posthumans manufacturing black-hole based computers called Omega Points, which use warped space time to create infinite amounts of computing time in order to solve problems, and thus perhaps make immense simulations.

This is one reason that some scientists think that there is a fermi paradox, because other post-bio civilizations may have gone this way, and if you can say simulate your encounter with other alien races and find out the best interaction without ever interfering in their own development, why bother visiting them and upsetting the capabilities of letting them figure it out on their own?

Also it might interest you to know that some think that this singularity point that the universe came from might have existed as a singularity from another universe, and that therefore in effect the universe could potentially be a manipulated simulation by postbeings.

In this sense, even if the universe is a simulation it is still a creation isn't it? And just because something is created, does that remove the meanings and values that are connected with our existence? The bible says that God created the universe. Arthur C Clarke also stated that any significantly advanced technology may be indistinguishable from magic or the supernatural, and in some cases spirituality has been linked to the supernatural.

It is more these similiarities that I see, seems to more prove the potential of God's existence. Maybe these are the 'wounds we can feel' for us 'doubting Thomases'. Perhaps then in that sense God doesn't mind there being empirical evidence for his existence, although it might not be able to be fully proven, otherwise there would be no need for faith, which is extension of belief beyond the physical.

I'm the last one that will point out a separation of the spiritual vs. the physical. However, I find the Biblical tales to be childish, primitive, and fallacious. Unless there is some common thread within them that transcends the whole "This is the Word and the only Word." aspect of the Bible, I'm not buying it. The only book I've read in the Bible that comes close to what I'm talking about is Ecclisiastes. If you can relate that to the creation story, I'll subscribe to your thread.

[MattBowron]

LotC

I too have heard of the spiritual/material dualism, but personally I don't think the Bible is just the only word.

I know this may be offensive, but I believe that different tales, called grand narratives, are different perspectives based on their context from when they were written.

People of western culture today don't believe a lot in the Bible due to our current understanding of the universe via empirical and scientific data. It also may seem to have little context to our current era in the 21st century why we should pay attention to tales written by another culture over 2000 years ago.

But what I think spirituality and science have in common is that they are about humanity's connection to the world around them, but through different routes.

Science is more related through the physical state, the material state, the world of processes. If you want to know why ice turns to water, or why the sun moves across the sky, or why some physical phenomena occurs within the universe you use science.

But with science, many people feel that with just using science as a basis there is no real cause, the universe may be random for example. A simple warping of quantum mechanics for example, or a simple collission between two branes or an endlessly repeating big crunch/big bang depending on your perspective.

It is this viewpoint that seems that there is no purpose to life. There may be processes indeed but no purpose. And as the meaning of life is one important question both sides are trying to figure out, what is the purpose of life is within it. Within science however a purpose may not be found.

With spirituality however there is, instead of everything being random, everything is connected, in the sense that everything is spirit as the animists believed, or everything is created by the same creator (God) if you're a monotheist. It is more with spirituality that we have the mental ideas of values and morals and concepts that aren't related to the physical world, such as the world of dreams, the world of the soul, and the potential of life after death.

My viewpoint is sort of a marriage with the process of science and the purpose of religion, without being limited to one viewpoint of a single scientific theory or a single religion for that matter.

I hope that clears things up somewhat.

[LotC]

Originally posted by MattBowron
LotC

I too have heard of the spiritual/material dualism, but personally I don't think the Bible is just the only word.

I know this may be offensive, but I believe that different tales, called grand narratives, are different perspectives based on their context from when they were written.

People of western culture today don't believe a lot in the Bible due to our current understanding of the universe via empirical and scientific data. It also may seem to have little context to our current era in the 21st century why we should pay attention to tales written by another culture over 2000 years ago.

But what I think spirituality and science have in common is that they are about humanity's connection to the world around them, but through different routes.

Science is more related through the physical state, the material state, the world of processes. If you want to know why ice turns to water, or why the sun moves across the sky, or why some physical phenomena occurs within the universe you use science.

But with science, many people feel that with just using science as a basis there is no real cause, the universe may be random for example. A simple warping of quantum mechanics for example, or a simple collission between two branes or an endlessly repeating big crunch/big bang depending on your perspective.

It is this viewpoint that seems that there is no purpose to life. There may be processes indeed but no purpose. And as the meaning of life is one important question both sides are trying to figure out, what is the purpose of life is within it. Within science however a purpose may not be found.

With spirituality however there is, instead of everything being random, everything is connected, in the sense that everything is spirit as the animists believed, or everything is created by the same creator (God) if you're a monotheist. It is more with spirituality that we have the mental ideas of values and morals and concepts that aren't related to the physical world, such as the world of dreams, the world of the soul, and the potential of life after death.

My viewpoint is sort of a marriage with the process of science and the purpose of religion, without being limited to one viewpoint of a single scientific theory or a single religion for that matter.

I hope that clears things up somewhat.

Yeah it does. I, however, don't look to religion per se for any answers as far as spirituality is concerned. I find the answers that religion offers to be incomplete and incongruous to what I seek, for religion seems to offer an answer from without, but what I know is from within.

Within this context, offense is theoretically impossible. Any offense you make is to yourself. I think you know what I'm talking about. Are we on the same page?

[MattBowron]

LotR

that's interesting, because it's what happened to me internally that lead to me wanting to write this post.

You see when I was young I got bullied for having ADD, and so that got me thinking, 'why is there conflict?'

I became later influenced by Christian values such as 'love thy neighbour', but I felt negative towards some Christians because in my opinion they weren't showing the same love as Christ through such things as being intolerant of other people and their way of life, while Jesus loved everyone

That's what led me to also finding out about other forms of spirituality, and thus I have a wide range of spiritual friends: Shamanist, Jewish, Catholic, Christian, Islamic, Bahaii, Buddhist, Satanist, New Age, Wiccan, Abrahamist, Agnostic and Athiest.

I also don't try to judge people based on these viewpoints I have picked up, and thus have friends also of diverse life-backgrounds, political-affiliations, and sexual orientations. But I've always wanted to find out why conflict occurs. Call me silly, or sappy, but I personally believe that most people are motivated by a form of love, love towards themselves mostly, but sometimes they love others than themselves. Also every culture is a group, and every group remains a group through such things as understanding, tolerance, support, communication, agreement and love to a degree.

I just don't see why scientists and spiritualists need to have conflict about things. It's not like one's better than the other, they're to me different perspectives about the same thing, which is essentially how we're connected to the world around us and how our actions today affect the world around us and thus alter our future. Whether its philosophical, political, sociological, sexual, spiritual, artistic, ethnic or scientific, people need to connect with the world around them, and I feel that by encompassing and linking the similarities between them, people can get a richer feeling of life in general. It's like going out to get a small entree, and being treated instead to an endless buffet that's all you can eat. I just reckon that by encompassing the different perspectives of life, we're getting a richer view of life and enjoying life with one another more often than not.

Call me an idealist, but that's what I believe, and that's what I hope to write about as an author.

But yes, I think we're on the same page.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by MattBowron

People of western culture today don't believe a lot in the Bible due to our current understanding of the universe via empirical and scientific data. It also may seem to have little context to our current era in the 21st century why we should pay attention to tales written by another culture over 2000 years ago.

That's my beef with lots of radicals today. They take the bible literally. It was written in a different time, culture, context with different knowledge about the world. Imo those fanatics often fail to construe the true meaning of religious scriptures... Knowing the Qur'an by heart, citing the bible at the drop of a hat etc is missing the point. It should be about giving a purpose to life like you say. So, that doesn't mean one has to take everything in it as a literal truth, but rather that one be reading through the lines.

That said,

Originally posted by MattBowron
It is this viewpoint that seems that there is no purpose to life. There may be processes indeed but no purpose. And as the meaning of life is one important question both sides are trying to figure out, what is the purpose of life is within it. Within science however a purpose may not be found.

Science might not find a purpose of life, because there might not be one. Suppose we were still living as an earlier hominid. Would there still be a purpose of life when we have no notion of God or the moral obligation of leading a good life etc? I don't think I've ever asked this question before . What's the purpose to life of creatures that are not sentient? Should there be one?

It's typical of mankind. It cannot accept that there is no true "purpose" of life. Since the beginning of times man has sought this out. Maybe that's even an argument that there should be one, but for me it's simply a side-effect of our ability to think abstractly

Originally posted by MattBowron

You see when I was young I got bullied for having ADD, and so that got me thinking, 'why is there conflict?'

I am somewhat intrigued by the same question. There are many ways you can try and find out why. Be it from a historical(/archaeological), psychological, biological, sociological... viewpoint, it doesn't really matter, because all have some valuable additions to find out more about the causes of conflicts.
I'm just not quite sure I understand how you try to find out this issue by comparing scientific and religious arguments on the origin of our world.

Originally posted by MattBowron


I also don't try to judge people based on these viewpoints I have picked up, and thus have friends also of diverse life-backgrounds, political-affiliations, and sexual orientations. But I've always wanted to find out why conflict occurs. Call me silly, or sappy, but I personally believe that most people are motivated by a form of love, love towards themselves mostly, but sometimes they love others than themselves. Also every culture is a group, and every group remains a group through such things as understanding, tolerance, support, communication, agreement and love to a degree.

That's an optimistic viewpoint indeed. I wish I could share it . That said, couldn't you for example change the motivation to self-preservation. Why is it that everywhere in the world, in every civilization or even the tiniest cultures and communities, there always occurs conflict between groups? Because people intuitively know that in order to protect themselves they need to live in a group. Nobody can pull it off all by himself. Even if you don't wholly agree with the actions taken by your group (be it country, sports team, local community etc) you'll usually sort of tag along because you're still in some way part of it. Which is why it takes a lot of courage to leave your surroundings and do your own thing.
And of course, groups compete over scarce resources so conflicts (whatever the scale) always occur in some way.
It's another viewpoint, I'm just saying eh, not implying you're wrong or anything

Originally posted by MattBowron

I just don't see why scientists and spiritualists need to have conflict about things. It's not like one's better than the other, they're to me different perspectives about the same thing, which is essentially how we're connected to the world around us and how our actions today affect the world around us and thus alter our future. Whether its philosophical, political, sociological, sexual, spiritual, artistic, ethnic or scientific, people need to connect with the world around them, and I feel that by encompassing and linking the similarities between them, people can get a richer feeling of life in general.
Call me an idealist, but that's what I believe, and that's what I hope to write about as an author.

You're right. Spirituality is present in every human being, in whatever form that may be. Not to cause a stir or anything, but it's usually religious zealots who seek conflict. Let's bring up the evolution vs intelligent design debate for instance. It's been sufficiently proven (scientifically) that evolution happens all the time, even today. It's obvious that this should be taught in schools in biology class.

Creationists denounce this widely proven theory and claim that in biology class intelligent design should be taught instead! I can understand that they might want to address the spiritual and moral implications of their viewpoint in religious class, but please don't go and demand that your subjective point of view be taught to everyone in a science class, without taking into account that children of other religions or atheists are also taking class in school.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Traianvs
MattBowron is insinuating that those bible writers knew the same scientific knowledge we have now. At least the comparisons seem to indicate that.

I've heard Hindus use the same reasoning with their religion, whatever it's called. Apparently, all religions are just science in metaphor-like junk.

[MattBowron]

I think I understand where you're coming from DaShi, if you don't mind my saying so.

Take the idea of "maya" from Hindu belief, the idea that physical reality is an illusion and that Brahman is the true reality.

Now there are similar ideas proposed before with Plato, with the allegory of the cave, and also the idea of the world of forms. That is there being a world of perfect forms and our physical world being a reflection of that world of perfect forms, but in the reflection there is this imperfection.

Now take into account the ideas of Buddhism saying that it is the physical world that creates the way of suffering that stops the progression of the soul towards Nirvana.

You could take also into account the tales of Priests and Caliphs within the Judaist, Christian and Islamic texts. Where such things as charity, poverty, celibacy is meant to portray that material desires is what separates the spirit from portraying oneness with God.

Going back to Plato, he mentioned the ideas of the mind being far outweighing those of the body.

This could be linked with other forms of religion,
Scientology for instance states that the thetan is affected by negative events caused from the world, and it is through auditing these negative events that one creates a higher spiritual sense.

Also take into account the idea of Jedism, where everything is part of the force, and that the idea of life and death in a physical sense is an illusion based on the immortality given to Obi Wan Kenobi.

Then take into account Matrixism, where the idea of mind over matter allows Neo to fully connect and influence the world around him and thus live beyond his material illuded death.

Now going to science, science states that from appearance all things appear separate, but are in fact made of the same particles. An atom is not a solid, but is divisible. Things do not really touch, but rather react with their fields of energy, such as electromagnetism. And in essence these particles are immortal, they do not die, and so in essence our inner essence which is energy/matter does not die when we die. We are also not separate from one another, as we are part of this universal event, the big bang, and perhaps according to science all things relate to one another, either through a unified field theory, a theory of everything or string theory.

It's just that what is interesting to me is that there are similarities in what science is stating, as well as what spirituality is saying. Or is it just me?

[Lul Thyme]

Thread is severely lacking in :

[MattBowron]

i agree wholeheartedly, doesn't anyone else have opinions on what i'm talking about?