That doesn’t address any of the questions I asked.
What proof is there that we humans were ever any other creature of awareness that we are now?
I’ve read plenty on evolution, I probably know as much or even more about the theory then you do and I find much fault in origin of species and there is absolutely no proof to support this particular part of the theory other then faith. Evolution is true to an extent and easily provable, but a single cell organisms being the origin of all life on earth and having all the information in the DNA necessary to even mutate to the many possibilities that the environment would require without design is simply a ridiculous leap. Maybe you should do some studding your self and stop leaning on the understanding of others to make up your mind.
Well there’s only the fact that chimpanzees and humans share 96% of all their DNA, confirming that we share an almost identical genetic inheritence, proving Darwin’s theory all but true in terms of where the human family originated from.
Your criticism of the theory, which explores the difficulties associated with assuming that species have somehow mutated from single-cell to multi-cell organisms, was reasonable, or at least it was reasonable until you stated that only faith can support the theory. I can’t even decipher the start or end of that particular sentence, with your grammer being so poor. So I presume that you have rejected a theory which is based on no empirical proof as yet, and then contradicted yourself by assuming that the system has to have been designed despite there being no subsequent proof for what you seem to believe is true either. It may seem a ridiculous leap, but only because scientists at present only have a limited amount of evidence to go by, it’s not as if they can’t experiment on behalf of the Darwinian hypothesis in order to find this proof. But, whether you believe it or not (since you’ve never made yourself clear where you stand), I suppose you can prove, by presenting your own empirical evidence, that the world was designed can you?
Correct your typo errors before posting please. What makes you think that I’m completely reliant on the understanding of others? I’ve not made up my mind full stop, I have only made my own subjective conclusions through an understanding of social and historical facts, and through the theories of those I can relate to.
Sorry, meant Studying and organisms should have been organism, can you understand now, did those two little mistakes make the points completely unintelligible?
Typical response from someone who cannot address the issue rationally, just complain about a few typos instead of dealing with the points made.
And yes I can make a good argument for the idea of design and show many examples to support it, can you do the same for our origin being from a single creature, cuz science cannot. Maybe your smarter then all the others combined and can show evidence that no one else can, go ahead, knock yourself out.
BTW, over 90% of our DNA is common to algae as well, in fact all living organisms have much of the little known DNA in common, what does that prove, that all life has something in common, gee what a revelation, bravo. How about the possibility that all life is of the same spirit, Gods spirit, is that common enough for you? If you believe that we are only this flesh and blood the I can understand your belief that the biological similarities with apes are proof that we descended from that branch, however I can show much evidence that we are more then just flesh and blood.
Hope you can read this and understand since your so easily dissuaded by any flaw.
==============
Does the above statement mean that we evolved from the chimpanzees?I hope not. Or the cat will mutate into a higher form of life and intelligence? I cannot accept this theory because man is as the highest form of creation was made godly or created in the image of God. if God intended to create man as an animal, He would have created men and women together when He created the animals. But no, God created first the environment, then simple plants, simple animals, then complex plants, animals. Then finally He created man in His image. Out of LOVE. Kingdaddy said, all life is of the same spirit and I think that is true.
How did you come to this conclusion? I must say it’s very warm and cozy to hear and probably to believe it, but what sort of evidence was presented to you as an adult that made you believe in this?
Without God man is just another animal, and that just cannot be!
You want evidence that God created first the environment before He created hte living things?
Maybe you can research about the history of the earth. Or research about crystallography. We already have some basic knowledge about the atoms, electrons and matter. Science talks about cohesion and adhesion. And what is it that acts as an adhesion between atoms that form different states of matter? I like Kingdaddy’s statement that all life is of the same spirit.
I also like analogies. The womb prepares itself for the zygote. The new mother prepares a room for her newborn. We need to have the necessary things before we can start on a project. Students study for their finals before they can pass a subject. God prepares the right environment for His created image.
or did you mean my statement that chimpanzees cannot become humans or cats can become dogs. I say it is impossible for a chimpanzee to become a human being. My reason is that man was created godly, created in the image of God. Man was created last, after his environment and lower forms of life. Now maybe cats can mutate into super cats, or dogs to superdogs or man to super man. or ordinary plants to superplants. I don’t know. There are many things I do not know. if you know something, tell me.
we are not just animals but we are a combination of elements, minerals, plants and animals. We are made of C, H, O, N, we have iron and other minerals in our bodies, we reproduce like animals. Don’t we also consume plants and animals in our diets?
All I asked you to do was correct your typos and grammer before posting, it’s not to much to ask and I didn’t at all use it against you in my argument, I treated it as a wholly seperate issue, sorry if you took it that way.
You’ve just said you are able to propose a good teleological argument that is subject to my conditions (based on empirical proof); I’d like to see you try. Conversly, I said that “I’ve not made up my mind… I have only made my own subjective conclusions”, that is ‘thus far’ since life science still has a way to go to prove/disprove new hypothesis, that is through empirical experimentation whilst thiests think that assumption is a rational/acceptable means by which to think-for example ‘Justly’ hopes that we haven’t evolved from tree-dwelling primates such as monkeys despite us sharing the majority of our genes with them and most of us inheriting an instinctive and profound fear of tree-predators such as snakes. ‘Justly’ thinks that you are right but shouldn’t a true thiest say he/she knows that we share the spirit of God before typing the same old Biblical statements which are based on no proof whatsoever.
Yes and maybe you could conditionally presume from those facts that all life came from algae until proven/disproven by science. You find the theory of mutation so ridiculous even though we are say losing our smallest toe, for instance, because we no longer need it for picking up food or climbing like the early homosapiens did, take a look you’ll find that it’s curled substantially inwards.
Yes it’s what common ignorant people assume for many speculative reasons but if this theory from the dark ages was proven wrong, once and for all, every ‘rational’ thiest (who took science seriously) would probably have a nervous breakdown or an equivalent of one.
Since when have I said I believe we are only flesh and blood, for your information I can relate to Aristotle’s idea of a contingent soul (that dies with the body) and I could similarly argue many points for it but I wouldn’t go as far as you do in naming this as a substance (a spirit or soul), or say that I can present ‘evidence’ for it. Oh, and I’m glad that you have suddenly agreed with me that there IS understandable evidence to show that humans originated from a branch of monkeys that lack any or as much self-awareness as us-some monkeys share our ability to use natural materials as tools or weapons (ie. the chimp), and some would even go so far as to call them human through their own research (not that I’m convinced): news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6036281.stm
Why so arrogant and rude, who are you to tell me to correct my mistakes? The very word mistake means it was not on purpose so I couldn’t correct what I didn’t know existed and after you replied it was too late, so why be a jackass?
There is a whole thread where I bring up Purpose and list many of these examples that show much proof that Purpose must be designed and that the laws of nature and physics do in fact show much Purpose in that is useful and repeatable and provable and necessary for life to sustain. This living Purpose is highly unlikely to be from chaos or accident as the repeatability of nature’s laws and consistency and connectivity to so much would be mathematically astronomical.
It’s not the theory of mutation that I find ridiculous, it’s the idea of a single biological source to all life that is ridiculous. The interconnectivity and relations between species is so complex and perfect with an obvious goal of balance and perpetuation of life and environmental continuity that chaos and accident cannot give even a remote probability to explain this. If you cant see that then maybe you should spend some time personally observing nature for some clues.
You cant make a good argument or support your beliefs so now you stoop to direct insults, fine I’ll just dismantle your flimsy foundation of ideas that are based on pure faith in science that doesn’t even deal with ultimate origins or truth. Nothing I has asserted has been proven wrong, if so then you should be able to point me toward that proof with some real world examples in your own words to back up the idea that you even understand this proof and can apply it properly. I’m guessing you haven’t even given any f this much deep thought, your just leaning on what someone else said and don’t have an opinion of your own. Lets test that, I’ll wait for your examples.
[/quote]
Why does the soul (like you even know what a soul is) need to die with the body? What is Life? I will contend and show examples that Life is a energy force that never goes away but instead leaved the body which causes the body to die and rot. This life force I will call a Spirit and I will contend that logically this Soul is married to this Spirit forever so it never goes away. Do you have any thoughts of your own, or are all of your thoughts and ideas from books?
Monkeys using tools, big deal, so do ants, are we genetically related to ants the same as monkeys? What a pitiful argument.
BTW, you should work on your own grammar before you complain about mine, that last paragraph was one of the worst cases of run on sentences I have ever seen, do you know how to use a period?
Humans have never been suited for their environment. Our ability to survive and evolve have been due purely to the evolution of our brain. The only reason we are here today is because of intelligence. We have used to adapt to our surroundings no matter what the case, something that we as animals have proven to be the best at. As our brain evolved and our mental capacity grew, new knowledge was obtained and new discoveries were made. That knowledge and those discoveries were then passed on to other human beings. Without this knowledge and these discoveries, the human race would have been wiped out years ago. Love has never played a factor in our evolution and our survival. In fact, selfishness has been more of a factor than love has. Survival of the fittest.
A hypothetical situation…
When caveman Bob suddenly came to the realization that he could use an animal bone to kill animals, the tool was invented. He then passed this knowledge on his fellow cavemen. This made hunting a hell of a lot easier and drastically cut down on the time spent doing it. With this extra free time, they spent more time thinking than they did before the discovery. This in turn allowed them to think of new ways to improve their living style. Because of their ability to think, and their knowledge, they were better suited for their surroundings. Without this knowledge, they would have to continue eating fruits and the small game they could have caught without a weapon. And eventually, the human race would have been wiped out.
I meant that you should at least take the time to look over your work before posting, since you don’t always seem to make an effort. I’m not being rude or arrogant, on the contrary I’m thinking about people other than me who will want to read your work, it’s not fair on them. As for my last sentence, yes it was long but I split it up by using a hyphon, nothing wrong with that, Charles Dickens wrote much longer sentences.
Yes, you propose a good argument here in logical terms, but many have proposed better arguments which oppose your views, you have not proven anything until you can show empirical evidence that confirms your ideas. I will read your thread on ‘Purpose’ in my own time. The credibility of your argument will of course depend on how you define ‘purpose’. You use the word in the wrong context: you only describe how life works, when instead you should also be describing the fundamental reasons why nature works the way it does (in such a festering and flawed way) if there is indeed a designer.
Therefore you are assuming, as an animal who is actually part of and ultimately bound by this so called ‘perfect’ system (and btw you are in no position to define what is a perfect system), that there simply has to have been a creator of some sort? Are you using your own ideas of how the world works from your own very limited perspective in order to assume that the entire universe must have come about in a similar way, or in a way in which humans can even comprehend? If that’s what your doing purely through the use of human logic (which has its limits) then that is ridiculous, the only thing that we can prove at the moment is that the universe is here and that’s all, no one has demonstrated any groundbreaking proof to prove/disprove the idea that there was a first cause/creator, despite the fact that the existence of the God of classical thiesm has been justifiably made nonsense of by scientists and historians alike.
I have a philosophy in life that isn’t purely based on science, it is based both on the empirical evidence of science (the only ‘truth’ we can all but confirm there is) and my own ethical idea of common sense which I established myself, an existentialism of my own which I doubt any thiest would understand. Hence, I do have an opinion of my own. Here’s an example to support my earlier statement: during a philosphy lesson I had at school this year (I’m 18 btw) I asked a good friend, who happens to be an intelligent and dedicated Conservative Christian, what he would do if he found out once and for all that all his beliefs were untrue and that God in fact did not exist, he replied by saying he would probably have a complete nervous breakdown, and his friends who follow the same deity agreed with him.
What proof do you have for this spirit then? Science demonstrates that you are your body, it has been proven that we are a multi-celled organism that inherently seeks to replicate its DNA, we die during the cessation of all of our vital organs (parts of the body), and the cellular carbon that was us feeds the soil in which we may be buried during decomposition, and the carbon cycle resumes. My idea of what people call a soul is simply how humans portray, communicate and relate to eachother through the concept of unique personality (oh they’re thoughts of my own). There is no proof of a mystic supernatural substance that leaves the body at death but if you think you know better, then go ahead, prove that what Plato said thousands of years ago before any significant scientific discoveries were made is true.
What’s pitiful is that you’ve irrelevantly referred to insects when I was talking about mammals, I never said that other creatures can’t manipulate their environment to a certain extent, you could have argued that beavers build dams, but you can’t deny that we share 99.6% of our CRUCIAL DNA with chimpanzees, hence sharing similar physical and behavioural characteristics.
Now it’s your turn to show counter evidence that chaos and accident could possibly have such a repeatable outcome and connectivity. In your own words please, I couldn’t care less what others think or argue, this is you and I, no one else.
BTW, I concisely summarized the why as to nature’s laws for perpetuation of life and balance with the environment, which can be observed in its present working form to be true, sorry you missed that. The fact that this Purpose is so complex and imbedded into the laws of nature and physics denotes some design and any design denotes intelligence. The fact that our mangling and interruption of natures laws has still not imbalanced it to a point of complete collapse and chaos and in fact is continually rebounding is a testament to the perfection of these laws that seemed to be designed to thwart our ability to interfere, interesting to say the least.
I use the word perfect because it is better then anything we could conceivable design and infinitely more complex, so complex and faceted that we will probably never know the full breath and depth of the mechanics of these laws. Now Perfection is a man made word to explain an idea of something that is without flaw as we could see it and since we cannot see or find any flaws in the laws of nature or physics the word Perfect is appropriate so I stand by that statement. If you want to argue that the laws of nature and physics are flawed you need to show evidence of a flaw, and since you cant you have no grounds to support your idea that it is not perfect, case closed.
The fact that we have the ability to understand and reason with these laws and see the connectivity puts us humans in a different league then all other life that is known and further supports the idea of a greater Purpose centered around humans only. Why would we know or care about the cosmos, how does that fit into the idea of mutation to perpetuate our existence? Add to that the idea of Love and Choice and you have considerable evidence of some design with us in mind and that designer must have a similar personality or likeness in some way.
How short sighted of you, maybe in time when you get a little older you can see the overwhelming evidence and realize that even science is continually pulled toward a ultimate convergence or singularity of source. The Big Bang was one of the earliest theories to try and explain this beginning of the physical universe and all logic and human thought leads to everything having a source. Something does not come from nothing, if you can prove it can or ever has then you will have some support for your argument, until then you are way outnumbered by nearly every brilliant mind humanity has ever known and recorded as well as all observable evidence here on this earth.
So you think you have original thought that no so called theist could understand and this is based on your great knowledge and vast experience of 18 years, how funny that almost all teenagers think they know it all. I promise you this, in 20/30 years you will probably not hold one single belief that you have now as true and you cannot possibly know the collective minds of theist or any group of people and soon you might even realize that there are no such groups of thought that can be categorized and labeled so easily.
Good luck with your education, but experience will teach you much more then any school will and closing your mind and taking the lazy way out by relying on book knowledge to tell you what is fact or true is the road to worthless knowledge that has nothing to do with Truth. The difference between wisdom and knowledge is that the proper application of this knowledge is wisdom and has use as a tool, the other has no use whatsoever.
As far as a ultimate source ever being proved wrong, well that just a fairy tale and I don’t bother to waste my time on such so your hypothetical idea is not something I could comment on. In addition, I don’t narrow my beliefs to such a degree as most religious people do, so I’m in no such danger of being crushed. I have already faced the Truth and it is far scarier then any loss of faith in any idea. All the proof of a designer and a ultimate source is right in front of your closed eyes, if you ever open them you will see and absolutely know it is True.
Your assertions of what science believes life to be are completely erroneous which is a shame since you’re at the age where you should be studding this. Life is not the flesh and blood and cells or proteins. The cells are alive because of an energy force (like the energy of an atom) and that is well known and documented in medical science. What they don’t know is what causes this energy to leave a body or what its ultimate source is, if they did they could make life or fix death some day. What is an atom mostly comprised of, do you know? The answer shows much proof of another dimension that is not of the physical world and I will contend that this dimension is the Spiritual dimension where all of life’s source is from.
Life is not a collection of particles, life is life with or without particles.
BTW my explanation of a soul is as follows and you are not far off but you leave some important things out in my estimation.
Soul = Mind, emotions and will. The will part is dominated by a choice mechanism that is different then any other creature when you combine it with the part of the mind that has knowledge of existence and a built in moral code centered around the golden rule of do to others as you would like to have done to you. This is most unlikely to evolve from an ignorant and chaotic mutation as it has great Purpose and that sets us humans apart from all other creatures. Chaos cannot yield the same outcome consistently without some template to work from and any template by default is designed and thus not entirely chaotic.
But you use an ape as an example to show evidence that we are direct descendants simply because some apes can use a tool. I reply right on topic with the fact that an insect can do the same therefore there is no unique similarities of tool use that links us only to apes. I have already given my example that the Spirit of life (energy) is common to all living things and this can easily explain why all living things have many similarities. Which part did you not understand?
BTW, it’s behavioral, not behavioural. Maybe you could take the time to edit your posts for posterity sake. Thank you.
Kingdaddy, he’s not being arrogant and rude, and his request was perfectly reasonable. It’s not just you, either. A lot of posters on this forum could use a little more care to make themselves readable and understandable.
As to how you do it: you wait to hit the “Submit” button until you have read over what you typed. You read it through, correct any grammatical or spelling errors, and make sure that the wording says what you want it to say. You hit “Preview,” and look at your post as it will appear; any errors are likely to show up more clearly in that format than in the typing window. If you see any, you go back into the screen and correct them. Then, and only then, do you hit “submit.” And afterwards, you read your post over again, looking not only for grammatical and spelling errors but also for words that don’t communicate clearly what you want to say, and make ready to use the “edit” button.
As I said, you’re not the only one, nor even the worst offender. But it would truly help to take more care with your posting. The tools are there for us to use.
Oh, yeah: “behavioural” is a valid spelling used in Britain, Canada, and (I think) Australia. “Behavioral” is American English.
I guessed that you had quite an ego when I looked at the name you give yourself, but this takes the biscuit. As the Navigator has pointed out already, don’t tell me how to speak English, I am English!!! lol
Well I never said that I believed the universe to have come about through a series of fortunate accidents, in order to show evidence that it has I would need to experiment on empirical as well as on logical terms to support that idea. And since I’m just an 18 y.o. student (a fact in which you use emphatically to demean my case), who no longer even studies science, I lack the resources in which to do my own empirical experiment without the help of an expert. Why should I need to when many respectable scientists who hold that view have expressed themselves and their ideas better?
I can only express my very own real opinion in logical terms: supposing I reject like you already have, the idea that the universe has come about, and works through, a series chaotic accidents; what now? What manner of being or power could have originated and sustained all this? Considered as an explanation of the existence of the universe the orthodox Christian religion is too absurd to merit a second thought. But, then, every conceivable hypothesis is also unsatisfactory. To believe that the universe as it is now has existed from all eternity without any cause, like you say, is surely ridiculous. But to say that it was created by a Being who existed without a cause from all eternity is equally ridiculous. Evolution is no more satisfactory, because although it’s undoubtedly true as far as it goes, it still leaves the great question unanswered by assuming the existence of the elements of matter, without a cause! The question remains unanswered because it’s unanswerable.
As for your last comment, it’s not that nature is so perfect to resist human intereference, it’s not an interesting coincidence at all, surely you know that we are part of and bound by this system you call perfect, but which is realistically chaotic, ruthless and indifferent to suffering, we are nature!
You use the word ‘perfect’ to define the way you percieve the Earth’s balance at this present insignificant moment of the universes’ history whilst it is able to support life, supposedly without flaw. If it is without flaw why has the whole of human history been stained with needless suffering and misery, much of which was avoidable on our part, and much of which was not such as natural disasters. Other animals feel pain too so why do think so relentlessly that our needs should have such priority over theirs, they are helpless against us unless we remain in our primitive state but just because we can doesn’t always mean we should exercise such exploitative measures for our own benefit. Could this ‘intelligent’ designer not have forseen the potential/literal unhappiness of his creatures before, during or after creation, how could this being create such a callous, repetitive, clear-cut system? This life force of which you speak is indifferent to the concepts of suffering and love, we live in a dire and festering state of inequality because of the complexities of the world.
My idea of a perfect system is fuelled by simplicity, the simpler things are the easier they are, and any very simple system lacks flaws from both perspectives, needless suffering is eradicated because the competition and complexities are gone, but the ‘balance’ is maintained. The fact that human beings know the terrible things in which they are helpless to stop makes life all the more depressing.
And if something does not come from nothing, what caused the Big Bang/what caused God? What caused the first cause? You would need to explain to me an infinity of causes. Like I said before, every conceivable hypothesis is unsatisfactory, you can look at all the observable evidence on this earth and use every human mind, it won’t help you because the big question is unanswerable as far as we’re concerned, and I stand by my statement, the only thing we can prove is that the universe is here and that’s all.
No so-called-thiest would understand my beliefs because they have not accepted things like I have, they’re apprehensive and focused on what happens at death, they’re always thinking ‘what if’? But until proven otherwise before my very eyes death is death for me, I expect no afterlife, that makes life so much more precious, you could ask an athiest that of any age and they’d probably think it a reasonable statement. I know I’ll have changed by my middle-ages if I live to see them with the benefits of experience and what-not but I already know plenty about religion/thiesm with both my parents coming from Catholic upbringings for instance, things are pretty black and white, ignorance is bliss so to speak. As for liberal believers, they attempt to complicate and thus justify matters by rewriting scripture in an attempt to stop religion dying in a growing society of pagans.
The teleological argument is also purely logical, and if you ‘bother’ to read about the analogy of the watch if you haven’t already, you’ll see the various problems that arise from it. Furthermore, I never said a first cause/ultimate source has ever been proven wrong, it is the God of classical thiesm that has been all but proven wrong.
You’ve finally admitted you’re religious, so what creed do you follow? Surely there’s nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about in telling the people on this board?
Fair enough but you are, during your last sentence, assuming yet again. Just because atoms are mainly comprised of an empty space, full of probabilities, doesn’t mean there has to be a “spiritual” dimension from which this potential energy is transferred into kinetic, your view is based on logic and only so, it is desireable but only relative. I say that this space is an unanalysable speck of meaning from which nothing can be derived.
Intelligence and the evolution of conscioussness as I’ve explained before is what has enabled our selfish genes to survive in a chaotic festering environment. It has been proven that the thing that seperates us from animals is our brain before what you call a soul. The human brain has simulated the environment to such an advanced extent that it has included a model of itself as part of the universe, that is where our selflessness has grown from, our new knowledge and subsequent respect for life, and the realisations of the effects we have on our environment, without conscioussness there would be no objective moral codes.
No, not really, the name was give to me by my girlfriend’s kids but thanks for guessing. As far as the spelling is concerned, it doesn’t show up in my ENGLISH dictionary and this was just one of many mistakes I found and simply pointed it out to show the hypocrisy of you complaining about mistakes that we all make. So get off the complaining about grammar and spelling, we all do make mistakes some times and this is not a gradable paper or thesis.
Just pick a side of the fence and stop riding it. If the universe wasn’t designed nor came into existence by complete accident and chaos from nothing then what other alternative is there? If you can’t argue against design then don’t. If you’re not sure then why so positive and smug about there being no possibility of a designer? I have shown much circumstantial evidence and many examples of the connected logic to the idea of design and you still claim its not even possible and now you back peddle and make excuses about not being able to experiment to prove it. Isn’t there other ways to prove something, why is my connected logic and examples not good enough to support my point? Why can you not show the same kind of support for your points? Do you just like to contradict with no substance?
What makes you think I haven’t considered this, actually I have. I personally see some chaos in operation but there is overwhelming evidence of laws and boundaries so why cannot it be both. Why could a God not create a system that has laws and boundaries and still uses some chaos? This chaos must be confined within the laws however or the whole universe would come unraveled. How about a sudden glitch in gravity caused by chaos, what do you think the affect would be? How can such laws with Purpose not be designed? IOW, chaos needs to be bound by laws ,or the chaos would rip the world apart.
I have to agree somewhat, all religions project human flawed traits upon God and the contradiction simply doesn’t ring true. But how can so many not see this is a human problem not a God problem. I for some reason can separate the two and clearly see where the human ideas end and God begins and have no problem with the idea of a creator that always was without beginning or end.
Consider Infinity, I mean really try to grasp this idea………see its impossible for the human mind alone to understand anything without limits as we live in a world of limits and laws. Now consider that this limitless void of nothing without purpose was inhabited by some form of energy that has always existed and at one point willed the existence of something with purpose to displace this void and this something was all physical matter. There had to be a point before the universe existed or there would be no such concept and reality of Time Space.
Any way you look at it you will have to come to this point of faith that something always was, neither science nor religion can get around this and our mind cannot fathom this properly which to me proves that there is another dimension. What I mean is that when human thought goes as far as it can and hits a wall, yet can see the affects of something unseen and unknown beyond this point then this must be the boundary of where these two dimensions meet. And since we reside in the physical dimension we cannot fully see or understand the other dimension, but we can see the affects which leads us to cause.
Again I agree, evolution explains a lot about our ability to adapt to our environment and to me further supports the idea of design as God would have to design our flimsy flesh with some checks and balances, otherwise we wouldn’t make it in this world very long at all. I don’t believe in a creator that is a puppet master meddling in every affair, there is no need when the laws are designed properly and just because we cannot fully understand them does not mean they are not perfect. The proof is in the pudding as they say and I see no proof of flaws in these laws. Once you understand the meaning of life all this falls together nicely and paints a perfect picture that is recognizable. Now what are the chances of so many things from so many different areas coming together to paint a picture that we (majority) humans can easily recognize and make sense of? This is the Watch Analogy that everyone misrepresents. The fact that a complex mechanism that can be used as a tool for something that is strictly a mental construct which is indigenous only to the human mind (time) and be recognized and understood as well as being useful cannot be an accident. I’m always amazed at how everyone misses the real point of the Watchmaker analogy and it is continually misused and misunderstood. IOW, how is a random accidental device recognizable and useful to our specific mental construct of Time, how could this be a perfect match, what are the odds?
But cannot you see boundaries and laws, how are these purely chaotic? See you cannot have a purely chaotic world or you would have no meaningful structure that is consistent and repeatable to sustain this fragile life, nor would we be able to understand it or predict a pattern in it, total chaos has no recognizable pattern to the human mind.
Yes we are part of nature and bound by its laws of survival but we are more then that, we have a Soul and this sets apart and our will adds another layer to this system. Suffering is mental pain and only humans suffer IMO. Why does it hurt so bad to have your heart broken? Is this not a clue that we are more then flesh and bone?
You keep forgetting about choice. choice is why we needlessly suffer, many are selfish and will step on others to gain for themselves, this is the whole point to this time on earth in the flesh so it is not insignificant, it has great Purpose and that Purpose is to separate the inherently selfish from the selfless because God does not wish to be friends and reside with those who will not allow peace. Don’t we do the same thing here on earth in all societies ever known? What are the odds, is this just a quecedence that this makes sense to the human mind and has proof that we can understand? Wouldn’t God make a system that proves itself in this life so we can believe?
Again, animals feel pain as a survival mechanism; humans feel both pain (physical) and misery (mental) because of this choice mechanism and the awareness of existence. We are in a God class for a reason, how can God fellowship with those who are not intellectually close to him? Do you choose friends or mates that are completely out of your intellectual capability, if you do, do you really enjoy stimulation conversation with them? In addition, as I said earlier “Life is Painâ€, regardless of what you choose but to choose wisely will allow you cope with the pain far more easily. There is a purpose for this pain, sorry you don’t see that. Would a rollercoaster be any fun without the diversity between the hills and dips? Why is it that achieving a goal through hard work and pain is so much more rewarding and guarded then having it given to you? Can you not see that every natural physical law backs up the existence of another dimension where the same structure of laws exist?
The laws of nature and physics are simple if you understand them. It’s the many variables and facets of this universe that makes it seem complex which is a further testament to the perfection of these laws. How can complete chaos devise a set of rules that could compensate for all these variables that would destroy all life in an instant or prohibit it from even beginning? How could complete chaos devise a set of rules that would govern chaos its self?
Also the depressing loss of hope comes from not accepting and submitting to the Truth, this is another natural law to force all to fully accept or reject this Truth, otherwise it would be unfair and some would be separated from God and his good gifts for eternity without proper cause and God does not operate unfairly, you must choose to be separated against all evidence to the contrary. Basically the ones that choose this separation are defective beings by their own choice and can not be allowed to spoil the rest. Again, another parallel between physical and Spiritual laws, physically defective humans are selected to die or not be able to reproduce for the same reason of spoiling the greater good of the rest.
As I explained above, God was always here, nothing caused him and any discipline of thought leads the human mind to this conundrum. I believe that this is the edge of the other dimension, the dimension where the creative force resides and where all of the physical was made from. Even the latest String Theory has a problem with the idea of if Quarks were caused by the expansion of time space or if they were already here before the expansion of one or more Big Bangs. See, same thing, same problem, but science does not deal with the obvious Purpose and how laws and boundaries could be set by pure accident that has a meaningful outcome that we can understand.
First off what I explain is not a view held by any theist I know of so I am not a theist. I believe in much of science and prove all my ideas with real world examples and they all must fit together without contradiction to be true for me. The problem with Death and no consequences beyond the grave to me is that this would leave a gaping hole for those who are cleaver enough to get away with heinous crimes, and believe me there are many that have and will get away with many hideous sins undetected and unpunished by other humans. If this is so then there is no right or wrong or good or bad, it would only be bad or wrong if you got caught at the right time when this act was not considered to be correct behavior. See how unbalanced and chaotic it would be, I could go eat baby’s and do any thing I felt like as long as I was at the right place and right time or cleaver enough to hide it. Does this seem fain in your heart?
Don’t let religion and mans flawed thought spoil the pursuit of Truth for you, no writings by man are perfect and all bibles were written by man. Prove all things to your self with your own logic guided by the earnest desire to actually know the full Truth regardless of the outcome (very scary stuff). Any attempt of manipulating this Truth to benefit you in any way is the road to failure and false information. The problem with accepting this Absolute Truth is that it will show you what you really are and most don’t want to know that as it is very humbling and degrading, but in Gods eyes he cannot get through to you or even be around you if you cannot accept what you really are first, then he can build you up and show you how to operate in his perfect Love.
This is what I meant about salvation, you must break down all of your own desires to actually see this Truth and this usually takes a life threatening catastrophe that will make you give up on all the will and desire to serve yourself. It only takes a moment of this loss of hope for the real Truth to enter and once it does there is no turning back and it will divide everything you see, feel and hear into False or True. Without this reference of Absolute Truth all things are muddled and purely relative, IOW, you are blown by the wind and will never consistently choose correctly as your desires and present circumstances will always interfere and make false look like truth.
As I mentioned earlier, the Watch analogy is almost always misunderstood or misrepresented by those who don’t fully understand it. In its proper form is makes a good point. I don’t know what you call classical theism as there could be many but I was raised Baptist and found much contradiction in the teachings of this version of religion, however most can be accounted for by the teacher not understanding what he was teaching and not the content. I find little wrong with the King James New Testament specifically in the red letters of the supposed words of Jesus, they fit perfectly and make no such contradictions nor do they violate any natural law, in fact they support all the known natural laws perfectly and show how they parallel the Spiritual laws for a greater Purpose. So as far as being proven wrong I don’t know what part your talking about.
Religion is man made so I would not consider my self religious, I don’t go to a church or read a bible or fully believe any particular doctrine Not that I haven’t done that as I have for much of my life, but I have found no evidence of knowledge about Gods true personality in any church or doctrine and as I said earlier, only the teachings of Jesus ring True with all the evidence I can see. So I guess that would make me a Christian wanna be, as I endeavor to follow the teachings of Christ from what I feel to be his Truth in my heart and much of that agrees with what was written. I will say that the ideas in my heart are much more profound and detailed then any writings so I have come to the conclusion that God never meant us to have a bible in the form it is now, only some historical accounts of the life of Jesus to give credence and support to the ideas and Truth he teaches to the prepared heart. IOW, no writings are to be worshiped or thought of as Gods words literally.
Didn’t say it had to be the classical idea of a Spiritual dimension, I meant that this is what I am going to call it as this makes sense to me from my idea of the Spirit world as I know it exists. Many others will probably disagree and all have the right to do so, so call it what you want but the force that holds the electrons into place has no physical properties so in my mind this force resides in another dimension of some kind.
Why are we the only animals that do this, what survival purpose does this serve? Why Love, I mean why put someone else’s desires before you own. Why do we not eat our young when to many kids threaten the lives of the entire family? Why would we sacrifice our lives for someone else outside of our families which would put our own families in danger? Why do we override instinct and do irrational things that are harmful to us and all that is around us. Why do we damage our environment and deplete the natural balance of nature further putting our entire existence in danger. I could go on and on.
To sum up what genetic mutation would cause this if the purpose of successful mutation is survival of the species only? You keep hinting that we are just another animal of higher intelligence but this does not explain why we would ever mutate to have a choice to go against the template of all the rest of nature. Even the idea of a template denotes some design, so I must completely disagree with you here.
Obviously there is more to it then just surviving, yes?