universal evolution and the real and living creator god [yes thats right!]

Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by _Z_, Feb 25, 2008.

  1. _Z_

    _Z_ from far far away

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    universal evolution and the real and living creator god [yes thats right!] :eek::)

    is evolution universal? The expansion of the universe is equally an evolution, the periodic table can be seen as an evolution of the elements ~ from the start of the big bang elements formed as the universe cooled...

    Generally speaking evolution can be seen as a set of patterns [like trees of species etc] which like laws come before that which follows them/works by then/utilises them. in both cases we have to ask what makes the laws by which all things go by, and why is the universe so beautifully designed?
    This doesn’t mean you have to have a creator god, i don’t even know how a god or anything else can make laws of the universe. however existence itself has/belongs to infinite intelligence which would be a faculty of the ultimate nature and being.

    Something has to be that which shapes existence, i can draw no other conclusion that this shaping has to occur in the primary state before and after a given universe [outside of it]. this could simply be the workings of infinity, but surely that itself would be ‘god’ as i see it i.e. it would possess all that we are at the very least!

    It then follows that all patterns and potential evolutions are cast before the singularity goes bang ~ hence evolution is gods workings.
    up until now i have always said that ‘creation’ is an invalid concept or an impossible notion, because we don’t see any creation we only have evidence and observations of transformation of what is already there.

    i am now starting to see where this is flawed, creation would necessarily be external to existence as a baby is from its mother ~ once born. there is a strange state between the birth of a universe and the death of an old one [if it is cyclic], there must necessarily be an absence of physical existence otherwise the one would get tied up with the other in terms of time, dimension and the limited or conserved nature of energy etc.

    within this gap lies infinity and hence god, everything that went before i.e. in the previous incarnation of the universe, would be wrapped up in the emptiness and form the foetus of the next. within that space laws and principles are changed to form the ‘new model universe’, this would occur necessarily so as to avoid exacting repetitions of each version.

    creation is literally a miracle [the reality and the very form of] and hence the universe is too.

    ps. and my idea of the ‘humanative’ is true [that humans were set to happen and occur throughout the universe and possibly in any universe before or after this one.
     
  2. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Z!! Nice to see you again :)
    If you turn it on its head you begin to see that evolution is not at all mysterious but inevitable. Perfect copies of anything are an impossibility. No matter what you look at from an individual molecule to a tree species it cannot remain unchanged and static forever. Taking the tree as the example the fact that the species it belongs to will evolve into one or more other species over time is to be expected. For it to suddenly turn into a carrot would be weird. This astatic nature of all things when multiplied amongst all possible scenarios gives an essentially infinite potential. In reality it is governed, or regulated by what is possible in the local environment. So the tree could become a carrot but only using classical constraints within evolution theory. Chief amongst them in this case being time.
    But evolution theory is designed to describe the changes that take place in things that can reproduce. In the wider universe we see a lot of recycling but not reproduction. So whilst I appreciate what you are describing I feel it is a bit of a false trail to follow. The molecular changes we see in a stellar crucible are governed not by random mutation but by the variances of heat and pressure. Its really not at all like evolution.

    Given that if there was no God we would expect to see a lot of randomness driven mostly by 'cause and effect' then I would most definitely conclude that God does not exist. The fundamental laws that govern our local universe are very probably just as vulnerable to small changes in the wider locality as say an ocean current is to sea temperature fluctuations. Some are beginning to think, for example, that there is a lot less dark matter in the universe than was estimated but rather gravity and mass may hold different values in different parts of our heavens. If mass and gravity have higher values the suns in such regions would produce elements that are heavier than those on our periodic table. So what we observe even down to the elements are at the mercy of the cause and effect conditions that prevail in that locality. Over a wider area still, roaming into the multiverse, if we extend the same logic then all we see is randomness defined by local conditions. No order except that. And certainly no God.

    Tao
     
  3. path_of_one

    path_of_one Embracing the Mystery

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how that is a lack of order. It's just a different kind of order, driven by local rather than universal conditions. I don't think it's any "less" of an order either.

    I don't see how order or the lack thereof does or does not prove God's existence. As a panentheist, I believe God is in all things, and beyond all things. No particular order is necessary for such. God just is. Once one experiences God in this way, there isn't much in science that shakes that experience because the two are in entirely different categories of perception. Science can't approach the issue of God very well. It simply isn't set up to speak to the issue.

    Whether the universe is random chaos, exquisite order, or something in between... God is there. Why not God in the chaos? In what is random?
     
  4. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    No it doesn't! Outside the quantum veil whole systems may or may not hold sway. There may not be an ultimate anything.

    Chris
     
  5. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Whether we find the primal object of our quest, or not, it will always be an object of our own creation. And if we should arrive at that ultimate destination it will be no accident, as it will be our own footsteps that brought us. But in the meantime.., nostalgia for the "lost" referential controls. The essence of spin neutralization is in the realization that the "pristine" ideal is itself a creation of semantics.

    Chris
     
  6. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    For me, what allows me to conclude as I do is that local cause and effect hold sway, always. There is no universal. On another thread I talk of degrees of magnitude within this 'chaos' but I believe even this kind of mandlebrot set expression of actuality is not nearly so uniform and pretty as our computer generated expressions. And with respect I personally feel that invoking a God of Chaos is like a small print get out clause. Nowhere that I look have I been able to detect any slight hint that anything but the natural progression of processes is taking place. There is no "intervention" to be found. The universe is clinically indifferent to our notions. If 'something' was at play then we could reasonably expect to see some sign of it. We dont.

    Tao
     
  7. Ciel

    Ciel in essence

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tao,
    You may not, but many do.

    - c -
     
  8. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think Ciel has a point brother... This something... What would it look like?
     
  9. cyberpi

    cyberpi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find that God is a better scientist than anyone, and God allowed science to help reveal God to me. Dare I ask a question: What is the purpose of science: because on both ends of that purpose there is God.

    I do find that the Universe is clinically indifferent to our notions. So then like every good scientist, I will not be clinically indifferent to the Universe. That will is thus non-clinical, and different than the Universe.

    Why not God in the chaos, someone has asked. I hear someone who played with light had said: God does not roll dice. My reply to him would be: No but he can let others roll them, and that is dicy enough. As a child a lot was chaos to me, but now there is less that is, so I figure to God there is very little chaos if he made everything that there is.

    Evolution is like a roll of the dice, which brings things into light. Good things like diseases, viruses, and maggots. Why you might hopefully ask. Well if you go to take the jump from Darwin's cliff in that great leap of hope, something has to clean up the mess.
     
  10. path_of_one

    path_of_one Embracing the Mystery

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps the universal that some of us experience is not the one for which you are looking. Absence of personal experience or observation is not absence of existence. Any scientist knows that.

    Well, that is your perogative to see it that way. I experience God in All. So what appears to be chaos or random occurrence to me is actually God, just like what appears to be order to me is also God. Perhaps you are looking for a different kind of God than I have experienced, and of course I can't speak to that. For me, I am simply operating based on my own experiences and observations. I can't speak to others', nor do I particularly think it matters if they agree with me. I'm just pointing out the possibilities. Defining God and then searching for It unsuccessfully only proves that your definition of God is erroneous.

    Ah, but what is the natural progression of processes? I find nature to be "the living, visible garment of God." To a panentheist, nature IS the face of God.

    Do you mean that God does not intervene into natural processes? Or into our lives? Or ???

    I think God has no need to intervene into natural processes- there is no supernatural. God is in natural processes, and whether something is interpreted by a human to be natural or supernatural is irrelevant.

    Could you explain this further? Are you saying the universe is clinically indifferent to our conceptualization of God? If so, I would agree. The universe is a manifestation of God, and our definitions and notions really have no impact on what God (or the universe) is. However, having certain notions does have the capacity to change our experience of the universe and our interactions with it.

    No offense, but you don't. Some do, including me.
     
  11. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    And this is why we are here talking in the first place. The expression goes that the leopard never changes its spots, but in the case of beliefs its a whole different kettle of fish. My own, and from what I read, those of several others have remained far from fixed through life. I dont know about you, if you have changed yours, but I bet you a close analysis would reveal a lot more about you than it would about God. Belief is a very personal thing. So personal in my experience that when its 'cause' is not indoctrination it can reveal the psyche like nothing else. This is why atheists get such a rough ride from those of faith.... because to explain atheisms stance on belief you really have to get into the psychology of religion. This is of course extremely problematic and causes the kind of emotional responses that make meaningful dialogue almost impossible. Who wants to hear that everything they hold so dearly is an delusion? How do you put forward that possibility without appearing arrogant and insensitive? Its a tightrope. But science does have very good research to back the proposition that the sense of belief is the result of certain physiological and psychological factors, that it is a side effect of our ancestors developing a big brain. But that's a whole other thread.

    I do truly appreciate the point you make, and make my posts in the full knowledge that I may be wrong. But I am not here to discuss such things from anyone else's point of view and so I propose what I currently believe in my own way. How else should it be!

    Anomalous. Inexplicable. Finite. Effect without explainable cause. Daffodils with signatures ;)

    Tao
     
  12. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think if we "look around us!!!" (You've heard of the show Tao my brother :D) We'll see those things are here :\

    Sincerely
    Confused.com
     
  13. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    To make such statements you have to be committed to that belief. The purpose of science is not singular, its method is.

    Einstein is sometimes quoted as a famous atheist, sometimes as a man of God. Truth is he was probably as torn between the two as much as any man could be. Being able to calculate the fundamental laws as he did he had a mind of vast ability to answer the question for himself, but he couldn't. So what hope do any of us have without blind faith?

    Chaos is not our inability to make sense of things. Its an effect of random chance in infinitely complex systems. For there to be a God that was in control then It would have to be able to calculate everything simultaneously and be able to make changes. To have set it all in motion at some point in the past and for all we see to be "his plan" It would have had to calculate on an unimaginable scale. If that had been the case and It got the velocity of a single atom at any given time in the history of the universe wrong, then it may all look entirely different. Chaos theory's most startling observation is just how fast a complex system breaks down. Setting it all in motion and leaving it to run is so improbable a choice to make that I cannot believe it. Proactivity would be visible somewhere, but it is not.

    I dont understand :confused: Are you saying God created evolution just so he could tidy it up?

    Tao
     
  14. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. But that's not what atheistic science uses to validate its claims.


    And they are infallible?

    I do not define God. I have attempted, recently, to define its absence. Subtle change of language but a fundamental difference of approach. I never chose to take this position. I arrived at it only very recently, previously I was more agnostic and genuinely open to the idea. Even today I do not close myself off to the possibility. Rather I go with the best scenario that the available evidence points to at this time. I am not dogmatic. But I do wish to stand up for the values that are not intended to insult anyone, but to simply state truth to the very best of my understanding. I attempt at all times to apply the scientific method because it has no bias, no preconceptions to uphold. In the post on this thread to which you first responded I set out a scientifically based proposition that did not require any 'faith' to validate it. Nor any God. But your response was full of the emotions of belief. I described systems observable by anyone, you what you "feel". You can measure examples of what I propose, but I cannot measure your belief. So you will measure what I say and finding it correct impose your belief upon it. Adding an unmeasurable to it does anything but make it valid. There is no measurable unexplainable intervention in the systems described. They are all explainable as the natural progression of cause and effect in a chaotic universe.



    I explained in my reply to Cyberpi why I think chaos excludes the notion of God, order, divine planning or whatever you may wish to label it.



    Anywhere!!




    To be honest it was a poor choice of adjective. Sometimes you get them when you post at 6am as your first coffee is brewing ;) The gist of what I was trying to say is that the universe does not care about what we do or do not think. It was here long before us and will be here long after we are gone.


    Equally, no offence, I believe that you believe what you do for reasons other than those you think.

    Tao
     
  15. Ciel

    Ciel in essence

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tao,
    To be honest I doubt your point of appreciation of any post of a different view to your own. Except it enables more of the voice of Tao. The point was your use of the royal "we". And you speak from your own reckonings and connections as I do. So who is this "we"?

    - c -
     
  16. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a very important point. And if the notion of God is not an ideal then nothing is!!

    Tao
     
  17. _Z_

    _Z_ from far far away

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    hi tao, just call me zebedee [magic roundabout lols].
    the microcosm is a lot more constrained than the macrocosm, heat may be a major agent as things unfold from the big bang, yet they still follow a path from hydrogen onwards to heavier elements and evermore complex isotopes etc. what i am looking at is the patterns that exist on both levels and from whence they came.

    in a sense stars etc do reproduce, as their energy goes to forming new stars as our energy forms new children. hmm bit of a stretch i suppose :p.

    sure, nevertheless there still is the periodic table and a myriad of other patterns and laws, we may say that they all happen by chance yet all the way down the line the law comes first i.e. before its effect. moreover everything is an aspect of the whole being acted upon! you have bodies [e.g. planets and stars] and they have an effect on the whole entity of existence [gods physical body] producing gravity. you set an object in motion and possesses momentum [which did not exist previously], you take away one form of energy and it is equally replaced by another [energy conservation]. everywhere we look there is the whole entity being acted upon, multiplied by a set of universal laws, principles and patterns.

    ‘humans’ will appear elsewhere in the universe because evolution will take a course that will eventually find humanoids of some kinds, just as it will find rodents, dogs and cats of some description. the form of all primary things already exists [perhaps in terms of infinite potential], the world to some degree follows or tries to arrive at those forms whilst at the same time builds off them to find new forms.
    see here for where i am coming from on that last point:
    http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/the-ultimate-perfection-8734.html

    path of one, hi ~ long time no see. :)

    i would question if there really is chaos too. all i see is order but there are many kinds of order which produce an effect that appears to be chaos. my god is an anarchist so he/she/it produced a free universe and everything is set to those ends. i guess that when watching TV he just don’t like repeats lols [i.e. absolute order would be endlessly repetitive].
    CCS
    there must be an ultimate! can we not say there is infinity if not then what is beyond things or beyond that? then add; an infinite amount of monkeys with typewriters would soon write every law of science.
    why is there the ‘quantum’? you see the idea and the law always comes first.

    ciel
    i agree, and would add that we see god everywhere without exception, thus everything that is ‘at play’ is gods work?

    tao again

    i agree with you here. as i see it he makes laws etc and then lets them play out, sometimes there are necessary consequences. indeed when i say ‘lets’ i feel it is more the case that he can only set the patterns, once in motion there is nothing anyone or anything can do to change it.

    if god was like merlin the magician and he made himself into a bull, he cannot be anything else without changing it to something else entirely. as for the universe it is the bull, it cannot be anything else until there comes a point when all can change ~ and for that we need the phoenix.
     
  18. _Z_

    _Z_ from far far away

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0

    when we conceptualise god this is true. god may not be a pristine ideal. we create such ideas via semantics because there is no other way to deal with them, that doesn’t mean god is just an idea or just a word, indeed he is something beyond description > absolute simplicity X infinity [inc infinite intellect and ‘being’].
     
  19. path_of_one

    path_of_one Embracing the Mystery

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps you could elaborate on your methods of validation. My understanding of science (and a lot of others' understanding as well) is that atheism or theism has not much to do with science. You can't validate either the existence or non-existence of God through scientific methods. There is "proof" that supports either belief. Ultimately, it just isn't a very good mechanism for the task.

    What I am also pointing out is that it is one's way of conceptualizing God that impacts whether or not God is observable (either to the self or to other beings). If I define God as Nature (or, rather, that Nature is part of God and the rest of God is not observable), then I am defining my God in a way that is observable on two planes. First, the processes and systems of Nature can be studied through science. Second, any underlying spiritual connections between myself and Nature can be experienced by me, but not observed by others. (Well, you can observe some connections objectively, but that is a digression I won't get into at the moment.)

    No more or less than your thoughts on the matter. We are both of us fallible. That is why I remain open-minded to virtually any possibility. I don't particularly think atheists are wrong for being atheist. If they are being honest to their own experience, so be it. I think atheists are wrong for presuming to think they have figured it out and the rest (most) of humanity is delusional. Yes, I do find that arrogant. And I find Western science arrogant if/when it presumes to be superior to other cultures' ways of knowing. There is more than one way to approach the universe- to manipulate it, to study it, to understand it. Western science is one way among many, and it has its advantages and disadvantages. As an anthropologist, I simply cannot get on board with the mindset that somehow a small group of (mostly) Westerner, (mostly) white, and (mostly) mid-to-upper class folks have figured out that God is a delusion and the rest of the peoples of the world are simply stuck in wishful thinking. I find that to be ethnocentric and condescending toward others.

    Saying God cannot be found in chaos is not, in part, a definition of God's supposed attributes?

    Definition of absence is, by extension, defining what you expect to see. If you define the absence of God as random chance, then you are implying that God would yield order (and order that you can observe and is universal).

    I am proposing that whether or not someone experiences/observes God depends on how you are defining God (or Its absence). I observe God where you observe natural processes. I am not observing different processes from you, but I am exploring them in different ways- in a way of interaction, connection as opposed to only observation.

    As do I. I just have different evidence, apparently. Or a different interpretation of the evidence I have.

    What is "best" is necessarily defined by each of us for ourselves. Hence, the problem of atheism (or religion, for that matter) defining what is "best" for others. I think to define what is best for another human being is kind of patronizing.

    I fully respect that. I know quite a few atheists and I respect that, given their own evidence and interpretation, that is their honest assessment. Given my evidence and interpretation, I came to different conclusions. I don't find the atheist position insulting for an individual. I find it insulting when anyone thinks they have the Right Answer (whether it is a religious or atheistic one) and then thinks the rest of the world is delusional. Similarly, most atheists I know feel it is insulting that religious folks tell them they are "lost" and such like.

    Really? There is a ton of literature on the scientific method and Western science more broadly, its cultural bias and the biases that it inevitably incorporates when it is implemented by people. It's a regular topic of conversation in cultural anthropology, since we've studied enough cultures to see that other cultures may practice science differently, which can be more or less effective given the goals of the individual. The scientific method and indeed the entire paradigm of objective science has a rich history that is grounded in Western culture and was designed for certain types of investigation. And it has always been plagued by the bias that necessarily occurs both in any system that is culturally bound and in any system that relies on people to implement it.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the scientific method and I use it for research. But I recognize its biases and cultural history, as well as my own biases when I use it. But we can be aware of our own biases and then work with them honestly in science.

    First, your scientifically based proposition was defining God in certain ways (or the absence of God in certain ways). I was pointing out that by defining it, you are already putting forth untested assumptions, which is not good science. I wasn't saying faith was necessary to validate or not. I was pointing out a flaw in the design of your statements.

    Second, I actually wasn't being very emotional at all. I was simply saying that I've observed/experienced something different from you. You can't tell me what I've observed/experienced, because it is outside the range of what you know. There is nothing emotional about that statement.

    Of course I can't measure my belief and I wasn't talking about that. I was saying that each of us is defining God (either by Its presence or absence, we indicate our conceptualization of Its attributes). By my definition, even stuff you observe is God (natural processes). By your definition, nothing counts unless it is observable by all people equally (I think, you can correct me if I am wrong) and is evidence of intervention or universal order. Two separate definitions yield two separate sets of assumptions and two different conclusions. Because there is no "correct" definition of God, it's kind of a moot point. I wasn't arguing you must accept my definition, but rather pointing out the other possibilities- that your definition could be wrong. What you are looking for as evidence could be wrong.

    Similarly, if you define God in a way that doesn't fit into my experience, I would say I have not experienced that God.

    My point is that it is not necessary to have a measurable unexplainable intervention in systems for God to exist. The absence of it does not disprove God in general, but only your version of God (i.e., something that would have an unexplicable intervention in systems). Your assumptions are defining your outcome as much as your evidence.

    I think God, order, and divine planning (which in itself is nebulous in meaning) are entirely different things. I read the response to cyberpi, but I don't have the same exclusions and whatnot that you do. I don't tend to think of God in terms of order or planning, but rather in terms of connection and creativity. It is in connecting with other beings that there is God. It is in the natural processes of creativity (including destruction) that there is God. Fundamentally, for me, God is in the connecting and the ever-present changing of the universe, the constant transformation. The singularity behind it all is God, too.

    That helps a ton. And I totally understand about 6 am. I'm barely up at that point, much less typing. LOL On this, I sort of agree. I think the universe responds to what we do/think (as it is not monolithic, but made up of smaller entities). Whether or not it cares is another matter. Certainly, elements of the universe (for example, myself) cares about what other beings do/think. So, by extension, I would say at least some of God cares. Other parts of God shows different types of attributes. It's sort of like I think God exploded into a whole bunch of pieces of God, each unique in attributes, and there is more to God than this explosion too.

    I think the second statement is more problematic. Who are "us" and "we"- me and you? We're just part of the universe, we don't really ever "go." We transform. Now, I believe in spirit and I think that transforms, but you do not. But even the stuff you do believe in, doesn't go. It transforms. "You" and "me" become dirt and later, other stuff. We continue indefinitely. This is partly what I am talking about with connection.

    OK. I think I am best qualified to explain why I think the way I do, just as you are best qualified to say why you think the way you do. For example, I do not tell you that you are atheist because you are jaded, or cynical, or are "lost" or trying to run from God (all things religious people have told my atheist friends, unfortunately). I take your word that you are atheist because it best explains your own evidence. I'd appreciate the same consideration, but if you really feel that you are more qualified to tell me my own reasoning and thoughts, I won't continue to complain. It wouldn't be the first time and I typically just ignore such patronizing attitudes. After all, I've been in a predominantly atheistic profession for years. I don't mind the discussion, even when it sounds a bit condescending.
     
  20. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Kim,

    I find God concepts useful within certain metaphysical contexts, but I don't see a lot of value in interjecting God into scientific debate. God isn't particularly useful in measuring things. Like you said, God is a sort of metaphor for a special quality of connectedness, not a Swiss Army knife. And if God is this sort of all pervasive cohesive principle which manifests everywhere as a natural feature of everything, then I don't see much point belaboring the discussion of IT. We may as well just ask "what is the nature of super-cohesiveness?" The only problem I ever have is with the idea that there MUST be a God, and it Must have thus and thus attributes, and that allowance Must be made for It.

    IMMHO, metaphysics can serve well as analogy for science, but science should never be seen as analogous with metaphysics.

    Chris
     

Share This Page