For purposes of this OP, God exists and is Omnipotent, and is otherwise as described in the NT.
One of the best fantasy writers of the '70's and 80's, Piers Anthony once quipped,
"God created the universe, Satan caused it to evolve."
Which made a lot of sense to me, when I was a believer. (Back in the '80's.)
So I am thinking a step forward.
Divinely inspired evolution:
We see genes change (like it or not creationists) and this even occurs over your lifetime (that's right, your genetics are not identical to when you were born - in a creationist sense, you are evolving - who knows, some of us might be even be evolving into apes - or is it the other way 'round?).
Anyway, if there is a God who loves us, even allowing for free will, wouldn't his desires for our well-being slowly or very quickly change us into perfect creatures?
God IS omnipotent, (OK God is omnipotent for purposes of this OP), so wouldn't his will, his desires change us, even the world according to what he wants? If he is Omnipotent, and things aren't changing according to his will, why not?
Why or why not? My thesis for this OP is, that since according to the Bible, God wants the best for us, and is all-powerful, the effect of his will upon mankind should dramatically change mankind - genetically, psychologically, or otherwise.
Submitted for your consideration and elaboration.
Divinely inspired evolution
Moderator: Moderators
Post #311
[Replying to post 308 by Zzyzx]
Yes, it was. It seems the trade was also involved in enriching many other dimensions of our experience as well. And that proves my point, that we are all on the quest for enriched experience.
Yes, it was. It seems the trade was also involved in enriching many other dimensions of our experience as well. And that proves my point, that we are all on the quest for enriched experience.
Post #312
[Replying to post 309 by Joe1950]
That isn't completely accurate about gravity. Sure, all creature always did experience it, but we didn't really know anything at all about it, until guys like Newton came along, and even Newton was deeply puzzled as to what it is. And then Einstein came along and challenged Newton. We didn't now anything about space bending, until Einstein and company came along. Hence, by your own logic, it would appear "gravity" is a concept "forced" on us.
There are two objections I have to your argument about the watchmaker. One is that if there are laws of nature, they have to apply to all of us. So if I find that any "watches" we create require a creator, then I am compelled to assume the same is true in nature.
My other is that we need to be clear on what is our knowledge base. Now, I believe all knowing is analogous knowing. To know, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Now, if there is one thing we know best, it is human existence. So unless there is some analogy, some uniformity between us and the rest of reality, we haven't got an inkling what is going on. Anthropomorphizing and projection are the solutions, not the problem.
That isn't completely accurate about gravity. Sure, all creature always did experience it, but we didn't really know anything at all about it, until guys like Newton came along, and even Newton was deeply puzzled as to what it is. And then Einstein came along and challenged Newton. We didn't now anything about space bending, until Einstein and company came along. Hence, by your own logic, it would appear "gravity" is a concept "forced" on us.
There are two objections I have to your argument about the watchmaker. One is that if there are laws of nature, they have to apply to all of us. So if I find that any "watches" we create require a creator, then I am compelled to assume the same is true in nature.
My other is that we need to be clear on what is our knowledge base. Now, I believe all knowing is analogous knowing. To know, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Now, if there is one thing we know best, it is human existence. So unless there is some analogy, some uniformity between us and the rest of reality, we haven't got an inkling what is going on. Anthropomorphizing and projection are the solutions, not the problem.
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #313
.
tying bundles of herbs to stable doors to keep the witches out
commonly used as a monetary source
Spices were used to camouflage bad flavors and odors
Concerning the latter, how is it 'enriching our experience' to use spices to conceal the flavors and odors of decomposing food? In pre-refrigeration days meat, in particular, did not keep well and would likely be unappealing after a couple days. Thorough cooking might reduce or eliminate its potential to cause illness but it would be likely to smell or taste bad – unless camouflaged by spices.
Kindly show readers how the claim applies to ALL humans. Throwing out claims and blanket statements 'willie nilly' and refusing to substantiate them (with sources more substantial than repeating opinions or testimonials) is generally not highly regarded in reasoned and honorable debate.
Yes, of course – 'enriching our experience' to include:hoghead1 wrote: Yes, it was. It seems the trade was also involved in enriching many other dimensions of our experience as well.
tying bundles of herbs to stable doors to keep the witches out
commonly used as a monetary source
Spices were used to camouflage bad flavors and odors
Concerning the latter, how is it 'enriching our experience' to use spices to conceal the flavors and odors of decomposing food? In pre-refrigeration days meat, in particular, did not keep well and would likely be unappealing after a couple days. Thorough cooking might reduce or eliminate its potential to cause illness but it would be likely to smell or taste bad – unless camouflaged by spices.
I do not accept the claim that 'we are ALL on the quest for enriched experience'. If there are exceptions, then ALL is incorrect -- as pointed out in viewtopic.php?p=858516#858516hoghead1 wrote: And that proves my point, that we are all on the quest for enriched experience.
Kindly show readers how the claim applies to ALL humans. Throwing out claims and blanket statements 'willie nilly' and refusing to substantiate them (with sources more substantial than repeating opinions or testimonials) is generally not highly regarded in reasoned and honorable debate.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Post #314
[Replying to post 313 by Zzyzx]
I don't throw things out whilly nilly and I do not fail to substantiate my claims. If that is what you think of me, then I am sorry of both of us. If that is where you are at, then I feel obliged to bow out of any further dialogues with out. So which is it? I don't want to talk with people who do not respect me or whom I somehow have managed to seriously disappoint.
I gather from this post, you feel there are counterexamples to my claim and then you want to address those. OK, here is my response.
The examples you provided all prove my point. Why keep away witches? Well, they were believed to bring great harm; and when you are harmed, you capacity for enriched experience is greatly diminished, if not eliminated because you are destroyed.
Why acquire money? Because of all the things you can do with it, all the enriched experiences you can have, travel, fun, more power, etc.
Why avoid very foul-smelling food? Well, obviously, because people seek a more beautiful eating experience. Also, it was believed that something foul smelling was evil, dangerous, and that if you did away with the bad odor, it would be OK, healthy. Correct or not, the idea here is to avoid harm, diminished experience, stay on your quest for enriched experience. That's why people, such as myself, will take foul-tasting medicine.
Of course, I can think of cases where people have eaten rely foul-smelling food to broader their consciousness, deepen their understanding of others, feel more deeply into them. Alfred Russell Wallace recorded all sorts of foul tasting and smelling food he ate in order to become one with native cultures that ate such food.
I don't throw things out whilly nilly and I do not fail to substantiate my claims. If that is what you think of me, then I am sorry of both of us. If that is where you are at, then I feel obliged to bow out of any further dialogues with out. So which is it? I don't want to talk with people who do not respect me or whom I somehow have managed to seriously disappoint.
I gather from this post, you feel there are counterexamples to my claim and then you want to address those. OK, here is my response.
The examples you provided all prove my point. Why keep away witches? Well, they were believed to bring great harm; and when you are harmed, you capacity for enriched experience is greatly diminished, if not eliminated because you are destroyed.
Why acquire money? Because of all the things you can do with it, all the enriched experiences you can have, travel, fun, more power, etc.
Why avoid very foul-smelling food? Well, obviously, because people seek a more beautiful eating experience. Also, it was believed that something foul smelling was evil, dangerous, and that if you did away with the bad odor, it would be OK, healthy. Correct or not, the idea here is to avoid harm, diminished experience, stay on your quest for enriched experience. That's why people, such as myself, will take foul-tasting medicine.
Of course, I can think of cases where people have eaten rely foul-smelling food to broader their consciousness, deepen their understanding of others, feel more deeply into them. Alfred Russell Wallace recorded all sorts of foul tasting and smelling food he ate in order to become one with native cultures that ate such food.
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #315
[Replying to post 312 by hoghead1]
If you believe the entire universe is the product of intelligent design, then there is no reason for you to have noticed the watch at all in the first place. What makes it stand out? You need a natural world for the watch to spark your interest.
The problem with the watchmaker analogy is that it is self contradictory. For it to even begin to work, for you to notice the 'watch' at all, requires that the 'watch' (or whatever it is we are talking about) be in some way different to its surroundings. If we are talking about an actual watch, then it is a small object made of metal that just screams intelligent design, as compared to its surroundings.So if I find that any "watches" we create require a creator, then I am compelled to assume the same is true in nature.
If you believe the entire universe is the product of intelligent design, then there is no reason for you to have noticed the watch at all in the first place. What makes it stand out? You need a natural world for the watch to spark your interest.
I disagree of course. I don't imagine there's a human shaped entity in charge of gravity. I just picture gravity as warping space time.Anthropomorphizing and projection are the solutions, not the problem.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
Joe1950
Post #316
The reason or purpose of science?hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 307 by Zzyzx]
Arguing science isn't interested in providing us greater depth and breadth of experience is essentially your opinion and you have given nothing to back it. So explain to me just why do we have science? To me, the obvious answer is to broader our experience of ourselves and others. Now, if, as you seem to contend, that isn't the reason for science, then what do you think is?
.
First, science and technology go hand in hand. Advances in one area depend on and lead to advances in the other.
Science seeks to help us understand and explain the physical world. Science helps us develop theories about how and why the physical world is the way it is. Science helps us control the physical world for our benefit, generally speaking.
Understanding and controlling the physical world broadens our experience. That is more a byproduct of science than an actual reason for science.
-
Joe1950
Post #317
I don't think you are responding to my post about gravity. The "law" of gravity existed whether or not people understood how gravity worked. An infant thrown off a roof will be subject to the "law" even though he cannot understand it. Because it is a natural, physical phenomenon it does not matter if anyone understood it or not. No one "forced" the concept on us; scientists figured it out. that is what science does. It helps us figure out stuff. As I said in my post, the "law" of gravity is not a "law" in the legal sense of the word. We should not confuse the two uses of the word "law".hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 309 by Joe1950]
That isn't completely accurate about gravity. Sure, all creature always did experience it, but we didn't really know anything at all about it, until guys like Newton came along, and even Newton was deeply puzzled as to what it is. And then Einstein came along and challenged Newton. We didn't now anything about space bending, until Einstein and company came along. Hence, by your own logic, it would appear "gravity" is a concept "forced" on us.
There are two objections I have to your argument about the watchmaker. One is that if there are laws of nature, they have to apply to all of us. So if I find that any "watches" we create require a creator, then I am compelled to assume the same is true in nature.
My other is that we need to be clear on what is our knowledge base. Now, I believe all knowing is analogous knowing. To know, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Now, if there is one thing we know best, it is human existence. So unless there is some analogy, some uniformity between us and the rest of reality, we haven't got an inkling what is going on. Anthropomorphizing and projection are the solutions, not the problem.
Regarding the old argument about the "watchmaker". As I said in my post, a "watch" is a physical, man made object. Of course it has a maker. Just because one physical thing has a maker it does not follow logically that the universe has a maker. That is a fallacy. Manufactured goods are, by their very nature, manufactured. Unless you can provide some evidence outside the realm of speculation that the universe was manufactured, the analogy of the universe to the watch does not hold.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #318
[Replying to post 303 by hoghead1]
Now that is a serious stretch (and completely wrong ... the bolded part that I emphasized). You're saying that mutations can't lead to something different than existed in the past ... for the reason that something different has been created ... then conclude that the new "something different" must have a divine source because you have declared it to be that way using the erroneous original claim as the basis. This is exactly the same thing many anti-evolutionists do. They redefine evolution and claim it must explain the origin of life, then turn around and claim that the whole theory of evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life, which evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with (except in their own, custom redefinition of the subject done to support their case).
By definition, mutations lead to something different. It may be only a difference in one base pair, or section of DNA that has no functional or phenotype effects, but something different is created. In other cases the differences can be dramatic, and over time mutations can cumulatively lead to new species or even reptiles from fish. To claim that something different cannot result from the past simply because it is different, then follow that with the claim that therefore a god is involved, is the opposite of a scientific method approach to science. If the first premise is wrong, then any conclusions based on it are highly likely to also be incorrect.
Sure, errors can occur. So first question, Why? Why doesn't the past just repeat itself? Something has deviated from the past. That means a new possibility has entered the picture, a possibility to transcend the past, do something different, not repeat the past. OK, where did this possibility come from? It can't come from the past, because it is something different from that. Hence, it comes from a transcendent source of creativity, i.e., God.
Now that is a serious stretch (and completely wrong ... the bolded part that I emphasized). You're saying that mutations can't lead to something different than existed in the past ... for the reason that something different has been created ... then conclude that the new "something different" must have a divine source because you have declared it to be that way using the erroneous original claim as the basis. This is exactly the same thing many anti-evolutionists do. They redefine evolution and claim it must explain the origin of life, then turn around and claim that the whole theory of evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life, which evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with (except in their own, custom redefinition of the subject done to support their case).
By definition, mutations lead to something different. It may be only a difference in one base pair, or section of DNA that has no functional or phenotype effects, but something different is created. In other cases the differences can be dramatic, and over time mutations can cumulatively lead to new species or even reptiles from fish. To claim that something different cannot result from the past simply because it is different, then follow that with the claim that therefore a god is involved, is the opposite of a scientific method approach to science. If the first premise is wrong, then any conclusions based on it are highly likely to also be incorrect.
Post #319
[Replying to post 310 by hoghead1]
[center]
Falling in love with your very own speculations about speculations.[/center]
But it's ridiculous to say that you know the MIND OF GOD.. even IF this god even EXISTS in the first place.
The ONLY thing that you are doing here is SPECULATING...
You sure seem to LOVE your particular speculation, don't you?
[center]
Falling in love with your very own speculations about speculations.[/center]
Some humans are NOT on this so called "quest".
But it's ridiculous to say that you know the MIND OF GOD.. even IF this god even EXISTS in the first place.
The ONLY thing that you are doing here is SPECULATING...
You sure seem to LOVE your particular speculation, don't you?
Re: Divinely inspired evolution
Post #320[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
Very provocative questions. The short answer is, like his minions, does not accept the utility of evolution; does not understand the concept; is resigned to the two dimensional good vs. evil.Anyway, if there is a God who loves us, even allowing for free will, wouldn't his desires for our well-being slowly or very quickly change us into perfect creatures?
God IS omnipotent, (OK God is omnipotent for purposes of this OP), so wouldn't his will, his desires change us, even the world according to what he wants? If he is Omnipotent, and things aren't changing according to his will, why not?
Why or why not? My thesis for this OP is, that since according to the Bible, God wants the best for us, and is all-powerful, the effect of his will upon mankind should dramatically change mankind - genetically, psychologically, or otherwise.
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?
One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley
Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.
One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley
Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.
