Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

rosborne979 wrote:

Given the obvious variability of the Earth's rotation, do you think that extrapolating the present spin decay back in time, is a reliable method of determining the earth's age?

I think the real question is -

Do you think assuming the earth is a solid that retains the same shape it had when it first solidified is a reasonable assumption to make? That is the assumption that was made to claim that the earth would be a disk if it was more than several thousand years old.

We have pretty good evidence that the surface changes and moves and is NOT the same shape as when it first solidified but real life wants to pretend we can't measure movement in the earth's crust.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
So, did we ever get any proof for creationism? That was the whole point of this thread.

I don't believe in creationism. However, one question we could ask, is there anyway that God could influence natural events without violating known scientific laws? In other words, if someone proposes that there is a divine power that is responsible for the appearance of man and other creatures, can that be reconciled with the known laws of nature?

It depends on how subtle the divine intervention was. If it was so subtle as to be completely indistinguishable from natural events, then for all intents and purposes, it would BE a natural event. In which case "God" simply becomes Nature.

Anything less than pure nature becomes a flaw in omniscience and hints of capriciousness. If we start going that direction, then we have to consider the possibility of imperfection in the creator.

There really are only two choices here, either the creator is perfect and all powerful, in which case intervention of any type becomes not only inefficient but redundant, or the creator is flawed to start with.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
So, did we ever get any proof for creationism? That was the whole point of this thread.

I don't believe in creationism. However, one question we could ask, is there anyway that God could influence natural events without violating known scientific laws? In other words, if someone proposes that there is a divine power that is responsible for the appearance of man and other creatures, can that be reconciled with the known laws of nature?

It depends on how subtle the divine intervention was. If it was so subtle as to be completely indistinguishable from natural events, then for all intents and purposes, it would BE a natural event. In which case "God" simply becomes Nature.

The intervention might be "indistinguishable from natural events" on a microscopic level, but the cumulative effect over time might cause events to unfold in a very different way than we would expect from pure randomness. In other words, the subtle "guiding" of mutation events could lead to a much more rapid evolution of particular biological forms. It would not violate any known laws of physics on a microscopic level, but at a macroscopic level the rapid evolution would suggest that some intelligence is at work. (This is just speculation. I'm not suggesting that this is actually what happens.)

0 Replies

Humans have some need to try to find order in disorder. It doesn't prove there is order or a guiding hand. It only shows we are wired to want there to be.

0 Replies

Hey, it can't be a miracle of God unless some bunch of natural laws are contravened.

Whole cancers disappear inexplicably from your wife.
It's a miracle, right?
Some other poor slob's wife dies.
That would be godswill.

Your house is unscathed by the tornado, your neighbor's is crushed like a cardboard box.
It's still a miracle, right?

A week ago a taxi jumped the curb in front of one of my favorite restaurants, Docks, and killed a fellow saying 'good night' to his family.
Is it a miracle that I wasn't killed two weeks ago? (I had the Atlantic Salmon.)

There cannot be anything like a random miracle, such events must be without question, the purposeful act of a supreme intelligence.

Joe(Or is life just funny that way.)Nation

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

The intervention might be "indistinguishable from natural events" on a microscopic level, but the cumulative effect over time might cause events to unfold in a very different way than we would expect from pure randomness.

You're just playing with words, trying to define a level of manipulation which is identifiable as non-natural, but so subtle that we can not detect it. God's been hiding in smaller and smaller cracks for years now. You're just saying it's hiding in a carbon nanotube (smaller crack).

Are you really suggesting that a deity would specifically manipulate the minutia of billions of quantum fluctuations over billions of years just to achieve an outcome that could have been set in the beginning (by any omniscient/omnipotent being worth its salt).

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

You're just playing with words, trying to define a level of manipulation which is identifiable as non-natural, but so subtle that we can not detect it.

No, it's not identifiable because we can't detect it. It's not identifiable because there's nothing to detect. The laws of physics allow a significant degree of uncertainty in the outcome of microscopic processes. The cumulative effect of many such uncertain processes could, in principle, lead to large macroscopic effects. The beauty of this is that there's nothing that violates the known laws of science. It allows consciousness to produce large cumulative effects on the world without explicitly revealing any supernatural agent.

Quote:

God's been hiding in smaller and smaller cracks for years now. You're just saying it's hiding in a carbon nanotube (smaller crack).

Except that this is a huge crack. The cumulative effect of gazillions of microscopic changes can produce almost any macroscopic effect.

Quote:

Are you really suggesting that a deity would specifically manipulate the minutia of billions of quantum fluctuations over billions of years just to achieve an outcome that could have been set in the beginning (by any omniscient/omnipotent being worth its salt).

If you're thinking of God as a separate individual or entity then, yes, I could see where it would seem unlikely. However, I don't believe in God as a deity. I believe in pure consciousness or the higher Self because that is my experience (as a result of 34 years of meditation). Consciousness is eternal and omnipresent and seeks to express itself or evolve through matter. It may do so by expressing an evolutionary force which influences microscopic events in a way that is completely consistent with the laws of nature. I'm not saying that this is the case. I have no way of knowing. I'm merely speculating on a mechanism for the supernatural to exert an influence in the world that you cannot refute using science. Consciousness cannot violate its own laws as that would compromise its integrity. The interesting thing is that, in principle, almost any outcome could be achieved without having to violate those laws.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
You're just playing with words, trying to define a level of manipulation which is identifiable as non-natural, but so subtle that we can not detect it.

No, it's not identifiable because we can't detect it. It's not identifiable because there's nothing to detect. The laws of physics allow a significant degree of uncertainty in the outcome of microscopic processes. The cumulative effect of many such uncertain processes could, in principle, lead to large macroscopic effects. The beauty of this is that there's nothing that violates the known laws of science. It allows consciousness to produce large cumulative effects on the world without explicitly revealing any supernatural agent.

You're struggling desperately to try to ram god into a system which clearly doesn't need it.

Your argument is no different from those who claim that a beautiful sunset is proof of god.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

You're struggling desperately to try to ram god into a system which clearly doesn't need it.

I like how you use emotional descriptions such as "struggling desperately" when responding to my posts. Its an effective rhetorical tool. However, I have to disagree. I don't believe in the God of religion. (I do believe in the higher Self or pure consciousness, because I've had experiences of it.) The question here isn't whether the world needs a supernatural element, but rather whether the known laws of nature allow it. It reminds me of an informal rule in high energy particle physics: Anything that is allowed is mandatory. In other words, if theory allows something to exist, we should be willing to examine whether it actually does exist. In the case of quantum mechanics, serious scientists have puzzled over this introduction of randomness into the laws of nature. Physicist David Bohm even constructed a "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics which removes this randomness but replaces it with a more holistic, non-local view of the world. A quantum event is no longer random, but rather is influenced by everything else in the universe. This view lends itself to comparisons with Eastern mysticism and an understanding based on an all-pervading consciousness.

Quote:

Your argument is no different from those who claim that a beautiful sunset is proof of god.

Once again, I disagree. For one thing, I'm not claiming proof of God. I'm questioning a reductionist or mechanistic view of the world in view of the undeniable fact that our most advanced theories indicate a significant degree of uncertainty with regard to microscopic events, and that this uncertainty must translate into a corresponding uncertainty about macroscopic events. In other words, there is always an inherently unknowable aspect to the world.

0 Replies

Right. You're not claiming proof of god, because you can't, but, because there are still some unknowns in the universe, you are leaping to the conclusion that there must be a god or Higher Self or pure consciousness or whatever.

The folks in the Middle Ages did the same thing when they didn't know what lightning was.

I'm glad you've have deep spiritual experiences, but that wasn't the experience of anything higher than the power of your own brain.

Joe(you have the power to light your own way)Nation

0 Replies

Curious Free; You say you experienced "the higher Self or pure consciousness".

What is this higher Self? Is it what others call the soul or spirit of life?

How do you experience it?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

In other words, there is always an inherently unknowable aspect to the world.

And wherever the unknown remains, supernatural intelligence could be there making the world go... Yeh, we know, we've heard it before.

Perhaps I'm being too tough on your IFeelFree, I probably shouldn't use colorful rhetoric when replying to you, but I'm used to dealing with RL, and rhetoric is all he is interested in.

In your case, I guess I should simply say that you're not claiming something which impossible, only listing the possible. And there is no value contained in that because there is no limit to the 'possible' outside of the boundaries of what is 'natural'.

In all of your arguments where "higher consciousness" pervades the universe at quantum levels, we could replace "higher consciousness" with "god" or "Magic Pixie" or "guided uncertainty" or any other meaningless phrase. It does no good to talk about what might be hiding in the dark when the possibilities are endless.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Curious Free; You say you experienced "the higher Self or pure consciousness".

What is this higher Self? Is it what others call the soul or spirit of life?

How do you experience it?

34 years of meditation practice (among other things). In the early years it was the experience of brief periods of "no-thought" or silent awareness. Awake inside but no thought present. As thoughts begin to arise again there is a feeling of bliss, inner peace, and a sense of freedom that arises. As the experience has matured over the years it has begun to "spill over" into daily activity -- outer activity along with a background of silent awareness or still presence. There is often a blissful awareness in the heart region. I would say, yes, that is the same thing that others call the soul or spirit of life. It is a magnification of it or an increased awareness of it.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Right. You're not claiming proof of god, because you can't, but, because there are still some unknowns in the universe, you are leaping to the conclusion that there must be a god or Higher Self or pure consciousness or whatever.

Also, as I said, I don't believe in the God of religion. I believe in the God that is my own Self as well as the Self of all being. You are correct that there is no empirical proof of God or the higher Self because it is pure subjectivity. It can only be experienced directly.

Quote:

I'm glad you've have deep spiritual experiences, but that wasn't the experience of anything higher than the power of your own brain.

You might be correct. On the other hand, you might not be. You don't know for certain. It is a presumption that spiritual experiences arise purely from brain processes and have no further implication. In other words, it is an unprovable assumption on your part that there is no all-pervading consciousness in the universe. It cannot be asserted as fact. You might argue that there is no evidence for this all-pervading pure consciousness, and so you are applying Occam's razor. However, there is lots of evidence. Its just not empirical because consciousness is not known by the senses. Pure consciousness, the higher Self, is known directly as the raw, unmediated experience of silent awareness or still presence. Unfortunately, religion has corrupted people's ideas about spirituality.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

In all of your arguments where "higher consciousness" pervades the universe at quantum levels, we could replace "higher consciousness" with "god" or "Magic Pixie" or "guided uncertainty" or any other meaningless phrase. It does no good to talk about what might be hiding in the dark when the possibilities are endless.

Except for one thing. I'm not saying this all-pervading consciousness is only some mysterious possibility. I'm saying that it is open to direct experience through certain spiritual practices. Meditation allows the unmediated experience of pure consciousness as silent awareness or still presence. My arguments regarding quantum mechanics and non-linear systems are merely to show that the suggestion of a subtle "supernatural" element can be consistent with the known laws of physics. It is conceivable that this supernatural dimension has effects in the world that cannot be measured empirically because the laws of physics allow for a significant degree of uncertainty at the microscopic level. Its important to realize that I'm NOT arguing for "intelligent design" or creationism. I believe in the theory of evolution. However, it is conceivable that if consciousness interacts with the world at the quantum level, it could influence mutations and provide a mechanism to enhance the rate of evolution, for example. I just think its an interesting possibility. I have no emotion investment either way.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
In all of your arguments where "higher consciousness" pervades the universe at quantum levels, we could replace "higher consciousness" with "god" or "Magic Pixie" or "guided uncertainty" or any other meaningless phrase. It does no good to talk about what might be hiding in the dark when the possibilities are endless.

Except for one thing. I'm not saying this all-pervading consciousness is only some mysterious possibility. I'm saying that it is open to direct experience through certain spiritual practices. Meditation allows the unmediated experience of pure consciousness as silent awareness or still presence. My arguments regarding quantum mechanics and non-linear systems are merely to show that the suggestion of a subtle "supernatural" element can be consistent with the known laws of physics. It is conceivable that this supernatural dimension has effects in the world that cannot be measured empirically because the laws of physics allow for a significant degree of uncertainty at the microscopic level. Its important to realize that I'm NOT arguing for "intelligent design" or creationism. I believe in the theory of evolution. However, it is conceivable that if consciousness interacts with the world at the quantum level, it could influence mutations and provide a mechanism to enhance the rate of evolution, for example. I just think its an interesting possibility. I have no emotion investment either way.

You propose a lot of "Ifs".

In addition, you continue to treat the idea of "direct experience through certain spiritual practices", as though it were a valid form of empirical measurement, when it clearly isn't.

Lots of people have conjectures about all kinds of fantastic things like "consciousness interacting with the world at the quantum level", but until you can test it empirically, it's really of no value because it can't be differentiated from saying "the magic pixie" did it. The fact that you don't believe in ID or Creationism doesn't really matter. You're just inventing another flavor of the same thing.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

You propose a lot of "Ifs".

True. I'm doing a lot of speculating here, because its fun.

Quote:

In addition, you continue to treat the idea of "direct experience through certain spiritual practices", as though it were a valid form of empirical measurement, when it clearly isn't.

Oh no. I've tried to make it clear that consciousness is not known empirically. It is pure subjectivity and so cannot be know through the senses. It can, however, be known directly.

Quote:

Lots of people have conjectures about all kinds of fantastic things like "consciousness interacting with the world at the quantum level", but until you can test it empirically, it's really of no value because it can't be differentiated from saying "the magic pixie" did it.

I think there is a value in clarity. When some people say that God acts in the world, they imply that the laws of nature are suspended and violated by this God. I don't accept that. To point out a mechanism for the supernatural dimension to interact with the natural world without violating the known laws of science is a different point of view. It is conceivable that this could be measured empirically. You have a valid criticism, however. Until there is some empirical validation, the notion that consciousness interacts through the world at the quantum level is just speculation.

Quote:

The fact that you don't believe in ID or Creationism doesn't really matter. You're just inventing another flavor of the same thing.

I disagree. For one thing, I'm not contradicting the theory of evolution. I'm asking if quantum effects can influence genetic mutations. On a statistical basis, these effects must appear random in order to be consistent with quantum mechanics. However, in a specific instance, a genetic mutation could be influenced so as to allow an important evolutionary step. This is pure speculation, of course. It is merely an amusing mind-game. I don't really care if its true or not.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Given the obvious variability of the Earth's rotation, do you think that extrapolating the present spin decay back in time, is a reliable method of determining the earth's age?

I think the real question is -

Do you think assuming the earth is a solid that retains the same shape it had when it first solidified is a reasonable assumption to make? That is the assumption that was made to claim that the earth would be a disk if it was more than several thousand years old.

We have pretty good evidence that the surface changes and moves and is NOT the same shape as when it first solidified but real life wants to pretend we can't measure movement in the earth's crust.

Care to show where I've made this claim?

Never mind.

You never support your misquotes.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Given the obvious variability of the Earth's rotation, do you think that extrapolating the present spin decay back in time, is a reliable method of determining the earth's age?

Do you think that since it's difficult , that it's not possible?

If the Earth was spinning at a much quicker pace billions of years ago when it was supposedly in a molten state, do you think that would've had an effect on the shape of the planet?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
real life wrote:
Evidence indicates that all humans are recently descended from the same line.

We may argue about the date, but it is certainly MUCH more recent than the standard evolutionary theory will allow, isn't it?

What evidence?

Some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

So this tells us the Mitochondrial Eve is at least 140,000 to 200,000 years old.

So?

I see you conveniently overlooked the possibility the article references that Eve could have lived less than 10,000 years ago.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know