Give it your best shot.
But I do not think you are a willing listener.
Ierrellus,
I’m going to put this to you very simply.
Do you define god as good?
Now, here’s the deal:
I live fully in the spirit world on a scale I can explain to you, but you don’t currently understand.
I’ve never seen god.
Can you please direct your comments to him though his own post, and not piggy back on my post.
Ecmandu,
I do not define God as good, but describe God as the totality of all that exists. “Everything that lives is holy,”–Blake
I do not understand what I cannot know.
Besides this thread is about the possibility of teleology in creative evolution. It is not a who or what God is thread, although it suggests part of God’s activity.
In that sense only is the idea that what it does is what it is. But that is a limitation I would not ascribe to God.
What don’t I currently understand about your spirit world? And if I don’t understand you currently, will I be able to understand you in the future?
God is felt, not seen.
Where have you been for the past 24 pages of the thread?
Science already has a good word for that - it is called the “Universe”.
Creative evolution eh?
Think about it this way.
Many argue that an infinite being had forever to perfect existence.
There’s a problem with that argument.
If existence never started … it will also infinitely continue.
There’s your evolution right there. Existence isn’t perfect.
I think you two should get a room.
Ecmandu can show you where you are getting all this so wrong.
Ecmandu can tell me nothing I don’t already know, The evolution of humans began with certain chemical reactions some 4.5. billion years ago. In that evolution organisms with brains emerged. It is in the minds of the organisms with brains that the concept of God emerged. The concept has continued to evolve from its primitive understanding to its current place in the world today. If God is forever, why didn’t he get it right and have a perfect universe? Perfection is in the mind of Man. The whole argument is a strawman. We are still evolving.
Get a room? There you go being childish again.
Ecmandu,
You are not arguing against me as if this entire thread is my idea. You are arguing against Michael Dowd, Francis Collins, Henri Bergson, C. S. Lewis, C.E.M. Joad, Malcolm Muggeridge, to name a few who support theism and/or creative evolution. Id say I’m in good company. Who are your sources of ideas?
I’m an enlightened being. I don’t need sources.
Here’s the deal dude. All of us sentient beings, including the sidewalk! Were never born and never die. We all chose to incarnate in this particular iteration of the current plan to keep us from being bored.
I know how to make existence perfect. I need Spiritual support for this!!!
We spent so long making this plan that it’s hard to get people to understand structural problems.
They’ve been in the current plan for so many trillions of years that they’ve become conditioned in the Pavlovian sense to ignore me.
And by the way, I have alot I can teach you, just like you have a lot you can teach me. Although, granted, my lessons are more valuable than yours.
You can teach me your middle name, I can teach you how to make a perfect plan for all beings.
Yes you are ierrellus both. He thinks fiction will help him out.
Fallacy ad vericundium.
It’s not as if these characters are in agreement anyway.
Of course they are not all in agreement, yet each has something to say about aspects of this thread. I mentioned the author of the book I’m presenting, a scientist who believes in God, two philosophers and two Christian apologists. No fallacy here in mentioning support for ideas. BTW what are your sources?
You lost me with your messages being more valuable than mine. This may be true for you. but not for the needs of a world hellbent on its own destruction.
Yeah!! tutut.
Ecmandu, don’t you know that Irreleus is more important that you, after all he beleives in the Catholic God.
If Catholic means universal, then yes. I believe in the catholic God.
Belief in God? Both C, Joad . philosopher, and Antony Flew, devout atheist, came to believe in God. I’m in good company.
I need no source to know that the moron Muggeridge is not inagreement with Lewis, Bergsom or Dowd.
Dowd is not even in agreement with himself
It doesn’t.
And here’s an example of just how “OPEN MINDED” Muggeridge is.
You might want to consider what John Cleese says about Popper and closed minds, since he is the most rational person on the panel.
But there is a very good reason you are incapable of having that thought.
Sculptor,
Nowhere did I indicate that these sources of ideas were in agreement with each other. I noted that each presented some aspect of ideas presented is this thread.,e.g., is there a God?, is evolution creative?. etc., etc.
How do you come to know Malcolm Muggeridge? I’ve read his book, “Jesus Rediscovered”, not googled him. He and Lewis were Christian apologists.
Bergson believed in creative evolution, claiming that its goal was freedom.
Antony Flew became a deist in the tradition of Spinoza, Einstein and Sagan. He claimed he came to belief in God because he could find no natural explanation for why DNA could produce organisms that reproduced. Of course Dawkins accuses him of creating a “God of the Gaps.”
It is you who are tilting at windmills, showing little concern for what was said in favor of what you wish to say. Before you parse my sentences, please have the respect to read them. Also, if you wish to speak to Ecmandu, address him,. not me.
Tutut. Well you did because you chided Ecmandu with them. You presented your phalanx as a groups of people that stood in support of you, when in fact nothinof the sort is true.
There is a world of bullshit in “etc, etc…”
I’ve lived in the Uk since 1962. He’s a bit a a joke.
Hitchens took him apart after he witnessed the divine light in some over exposed Kodac film. It’s all very sad and highly amusing, dear Boy!!
Many people, have many crackpot ideas.
Freedom for the COVID virus to rumpant?
Freedom for tumours to have the right to grow?
It’s just fanciful and all a bit poetic.
So, NOT god in any meaningful sense. Not creative evolution. Not conscious.
He’s in your side of the fence, not mine.
You two look the same to me.