Erm, you're not talking about ESP and supramystical forces and the global superconscious now are you?
while I give neither any creedence as there is no evidence directly suggesting they exist, you cannot simply dismiss them off hand and crack wit.............
spooky action at a distance. Recorded and repeated via the scientific method......still no clue as to how it occurs. Information is instantaneously (faster than the speed of light, which by all accounts nothing should move faster than) exchanged via some as yet unknown means. While the ideas of ESP or a superconcious are a bit out there as of our present understanding of the world, it is no further out there than spooky action at a distance.........something we know to be fact and still cannot explain. Any decently intelligent proponent of ESP would argue that the information is exchanged via the very same unknown means that allow the spooky action at a distance to take place. We do know there is an instantaneous form of communication that takes place of which we have no understanding of how it works. That is fact...scientific method...tested, recorded, repeated.
Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the teachings of Buddhism there is a level of awareness that is called the 8th level of consciousness. This is the place were all cause and effect (karma) is stored. This is were the intelligence of the universe lives and interacts with its self. The blue prints, as you call them, are the product of billions of years of evolution. This process is indeed intelligent, but it is not from an outside source like a Christian god. It is the universe expressing its self in the only way that a universe like ours can. We are the eyes and ears of the universe looking upon its self.IMO the problem with the interpretation of ID as a precursor to the argument for a Christian god is that a Christian god is inherently separate from the universe. There is nothing outside of the universe. The universe is complex beyond all comprehension, and complex systems, like the universe, act in ways that seem to parallel living being. Therefore, it is not a contradiction to view the universe as a living being, while maintaining the cold reality of the universal laws of physics.
Let me get this straight. So everything that exists is one large entity for Buddhists, with a centralized realm of consciousness where all the intelligence this large entity encompasses exists? Like some sort of brain? It seems that your argument is only a statement that the universe, viewed as a living thing, could have evolved as it has, and so that view is correct. Also that this process fits with your personal beliefs and so is more probable than the creationist view, which you do not fit with your beliefs. Is this an accurate summation?
Plants grow, it is a natural process. I plant a flower in my yard that did not exist there previously. The flower spreads and is found in various yards in the neighborhood, as well as in untended areas of the environment surrounding the neighborhood. I then move, and you move into the area. You assume that this flower has, at some point in time, come to grow there with out a persons direction, through inference based on the fact that the flower exists in many yards as well as in the wild areas around. You could probably find a scientific reason for its existence that takes me the gardener out of the picture. But the fact is I planted it there. An entity creating things is not a larger jump than assuming that I planted the flower. While I appreciate the need for proof, there is no proof that an external entity did or did not aid in the development of our universe. I believe that planting a flower and the flower growing can be explained scientifically. Why could the method used in a creationist stance not be explained scientifically?
Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Regret
Let me get this straight. So everything that exists is one large entity for Buddhists, with a centralized realm of consciousness where all the intelligence this large entity encompasses exists? Like some sort of brain? It seems that your argument is only a statement that the universe, viewed as a living thing, could have evolved as it has, and so that view is correct. Also that this process fits with your personal beliefs and so is more probable than the creationist view, which you do not fit with your beliefs. Is this an accurate summation?Plants grow, it is a natural process. I plant a flower in my yard that did not exist there previously. The flower spreads and is found in various yards in the neighborhood, as well as in untended areas of the environment surrounding the neighborhood. I then move, and you move into the area. You assume that this flower has, at some point in time, come to grow there with out a persons direction, through inference based on the fact that the flower exists in many yards as well as in the wild areas around. You could probably find a scientific reason for its existence that takes me the gardener out of the picture. But the fact is I planted it there. An entity creating things is not a larger jump than assuming that I planted the flower. While I appreciate the need for proof, there is no proof that an external entity did or did not aid in the development of our universe. I believe that planting a flower and the flower growing can be explained scientifically. Why could the method used in a creationist stance not be explained scientifically?
"Is this an accurate summation?" Yes, very good! However, there is one thing I must add, what I have described is a model of how I see the universe, and as a model it is inherently incorrect. The true nature of reality cannot be understood by humans.
Your second part: I understand your point, but the idea that God is separate from the universe does not make any sense to me. I realize that it doesn’t have to make sense to me, but I have to go with what I can understand.
“Why could the method used in a creationist stance not be explained scientifically?” The scientific method is intrinsically skeptical and does not mix well with the assumed principles of Christianity.
Evil Dead....action at a distance can be explained by quatum mech and sypersymmetry. A though is an electrucal impulse (with our current understanding). In order to get the same thought (and this is way out there and sketchy) You would have to have a series of suppersymetric electons traveing the same path in the brain, but also, the one's person's brain would have to be formed exactly as the others. This is most likely close to impossible, considering each brain forms its own connections. ESP is not credible.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Is this an accurate summation?" Yes, very good! However, there is one thing I must add, what I have described is a model of how I see the universe, and as a model it is inherently incorrect. The true nature of reality cannot be understood by humans.
I think I agree. I might modify your statement as such though: we may be unable to fully understand the true nature of reality. Since we do not know the true nature of reality, we cannot know if we would be unable to understand it. We just do not currently seem to understand it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"Your second part: I understand your point, but the idea that God is separate from the universe does not make any sense to me. I realize that it doesn’t have to make sense to me, but I have to go with what I can understand.
I think I should clarify my stance. God is separate from the universe in the same manner that we are separate from the universe. Given more knowledge, it seems we come closer to being "one" with the universe. God, from my belief, has a perfect knowledge. It would follow that he is "one" with the universe.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"“Why could the method used in a creationist stance not be explained scientifically?” The scientific method is intrinsically skeptical and does not mix well with the assumed principles of Christianity.
Skepticism does not necessarily deny creationism. Scientifically I am skeptical of the claim that there is not an organism in existence that would not be capable of setting up an ecosystem and inhabitants as exist on the Earth. It assumes that we are currently pinnacle of the scientific community. Given the size of the universe, it would seem a poor assumption that more scientifically advanced entities do not exist. God, would fit a more advanced entity, and approaching him as such does not deny his divinity. The assumption that there is not an entity significantly more advanced than humans would seem a better choice to approach with skepticism.
I am curious as to the assumed principles of Christianity that do not mix well with science. I may have differing views on these principles due to my stance as a Mormon. I believe that there is a high probability that my views could fit with a mainstream Christian view in regards to creation and intelligent design.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Regret
Given the size of the universe, it would seem a poor assumption that more scientifically advanced entities do not exist.
Originally posted by Regret
I believe that there is a high probability that my views could fit with a mainstream Christian view in regards to creation and intelligent design.
The mainstream Christian view is that creation/intelligent desing are true.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Regret
...I am curious as to the assumed principles of Christianity that do not mix well with science. I may have differing views on these principles due to my stance as a Mormon. I believe that there is a high probability that my views could fit with a mainstream Christian view in regards to creation and intelligent design.
One main point would be that the bible is fact. So, the Earth is only 6,000 years old and it was once covered with water during that period. Both points are not supported by scientific evidence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Alliance
This is a facinating point. Odds are totally in favor of millions of planets in our galazy having life. The issue here is contact. To send/recieve/return a message take literally forever and interstellar travel has so many physical barriers to overcome, the likelyhood that you would actually contact one of these alien entities is very low.
This is assuming that another, intelligent entity could not move faster than we are aware of. I believe that even 100 years ago men would have stated that it was impossible to travel around the world in the time it takes us to do so now. For us to say something is impossible, is making the same fundamental error that held science back during the dark ages. Just because we seem to have come to a ceiling as to rate of speed, it does not mean that there is not something we do not understand that could decrease time requirements on all forms of travel. The world at one time was flat according to science. Everything revolved around the earth at one point in scientific understanding. Just because we are more advanced does not make it impossible for us to be ignorant all the same. Contact may be more probable than we anticipate at our current level of scientific advancement.
Originally posted by Regret
I am curious as to the assumed principles of Christianity that do not mix well with science. I may have differing views on these principles due to my stance as a Mormon. I believe that there is a high probability that my views could fit with a mainstream Christian view in regards to creation and intelligent design.
Originally posted by Alliance
The mainstream Christian view is that creation/intelligent desing are true.
I do not believe that Shaky was referring to creation/intelligent design. I assume he is referring to aspects of Christianity that do not mesh well with science and are intrinsic portions of our views on creation/intelligent design
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
One main point would be that the bible is fact. Both points are not supported by scientific evidence.
Assuming that the Bible is not fact does not disprove creation or intelligent design. Your attack would be on Christianity and Judaism. The assumption that it is or is not fact is the same as assuming no creation/intelligent design based on the Christian God because you do not believe in one. It isn't evidence, and does not in and of itself mean that it did not occur in that manner.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, the Earth is only 6,000 years old and it was once covered with water during that period.
The issue here is time. I believe that the theory of relativity makes it clear that time is relative to the subjects involved. If God traveled in some manner that man could understand during creation, then it is possible that creation took any amount of time during creation relative to the Earth from the Earths relative frame of reference. Also stating that on any given "Day" things were created can be a reference to God's frame of reference during the periods of creation, since the belief is that he stated the manner of creation that exists in the Bible. Time does not reflect an inaccuracy in the text of the Bible, just not a reliable measure of the time required during creation from our frame of reference.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Both points are not supported by scientific evidence.
The Bible's accuracy is not disproved by science, it merely is not proved thus far by science.
The time example does seem to be supported by science, if God moved objects that were unable to move at an instantaneous rate. Often in the bible it states that in the form that something earthly exists it is unable to do things that God is able to do. It is possible that the materials he used in creating the earth were also unable to attain the level that God exists at, and therefore God took a mortal time in creation that would require following our scientific requirements on travel.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Regret
Assuming that the Bible is not fact does not disprove creation or intelligent design. Your attack would be on Christianity and Judaism. The assumption that it is or is not fact is the same as assuming no creation/intelligent design based on the Christian God because you do not believe in one. It isn't evidence, and does not in and of itself mean that it did not occur in that manner.The issue here is time. I believe that the theory of relativity makes it clear that time is relative to the subjects involved. If God traveled in some manner that man could understand during creation, then it is possible that creation took any amount of time during creation relative to the Earth from the Earths relative frame of reference. Also stating that on any given "Day" things were created can be a reference to God's frame of reference during the periods of creation, since the belief is that he stated the manner of creation that exists in the Bible. Time does not reflect an inaccuracy in the text of the Bible, just not a reliable measure of the time required during creation from our frame of reference.
The Bible's accuracy is not disproved by science, it merely is not proved thus far by science.
The time example does seem to be supported by science, if God moved objects that were unable to move at an instantaneous rate. Often in the bible it states that in the form that something earthly exists it is unable to do things that God is able to do. It is possible that the materials he used in creating the earth were also unable to attain the level that God exists at, and therefore God took a mortal time in creation that would require following our scientific requirements on travel.
I am not attacking anyone.
You are interpreting the bible fugitively and are opened to the possibility of other interpretations. This is not the kind of mind set was talking about.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intelligent Design
Originally posted by Regret
Let me get this straight. So everything that exists is one large entity for Buddhists, with a centralized realm of consciousness where all the intelligence this large entity encompasses exists? Like some sort of brain? It seems that your argument is only a statement that the universe, viewed as a living thing, could have evolved as it has, and so that view is correct. Also that this process fits with your personal beliefs and so is more probable than the creationist view, which you do not fit with your beliefs. Is this an accurate summation?
That is not a Buddhist belief, it is a personal belief of Shakyamunison.
Originally posted by Regret
Assuming that the Bible is not fact does not disprove creation or intelligent design.
Considering that Creation Science is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, yes it does.