Intelligent Design

It is only mans blind faith to believe what he has been told by his elders that can convince him it written by god.Men of faith are driven by desire not the search for truth,its indoctrination not knowledge that oils the wheels of religion.Science examines mans path through millions of years of progress and the bible reduces it to one part of a day by magic and only the truly faithful can be so blind as to try and find a certain logic in their scriptures.

Sure, I have seen this argument a lot. Would it be fair to say that you are stating that because neither arguments can be feasibly demonstrated that they are of similar value?

I don't find this convincing. I saw Douglas Adams refute it once by saying that "there is such a thing as the burden of proof".

In the same manner I feel that - if they are going to use logic or science as tools - the burden of proof that creation occurred literally according to Genesis lies with those who propose the theory. Saying "well they are both theories and one is as good as the other" just doesn't seem to cut it with me - because I incline to the side that produces more evidence.

See, to me this is itself bordering on a perversion - to say that it may have been different before records began and that may suit biblical knowledge. In coldly literal terms you are perverting science by saying "the laws must have been bent in order for it to work" without producing any evidence for why this opinion is so - beyond a well-loved story.

Again, all I would really say is the only way to account for it is to say it's outside of science. Magic. Supernatural. Or that it is a metaphore of scientific creation as understood by (relatively) pre-science storytellers (my own view).

That would work, but saying "it's all perfectly scientific - as long as you accept the possibility that science worked differently before records began" IS perverting science.

But this interpretation flies in the face of what is actually written. Chapter two starts with the day of rest ("Thus the heavens and the earth were all finished ... and on the seventh day God ended his work") - but Eve is created some point after the seventh day. Read it and see. It also states that the animals and fowl are created after Adam.

A quick one would be that all fossilized remains of grass that scientists have carbon dated put it as appearing on the Earth some time after a number of animals.
Carbon dating also provides evidence that birds appeared after terrestrial creatures.

And that all these things have been about for millions of years.

If you are only arguing about religious conceptions of God, then you can ignore the following comment.

However, if you are suggesting that it is a "fault" if a creator is unable to make a perfect creation from the first moment of its existence, but instead must work to evolve it into perfection, then I think you are going into the discussion with exorbitant demands.

I know my own measly creations are seldom perfect right off the bat, and the more advanced a creation, the longer it takes for me to perfect it.

So let's say, for example, that consciousness is a general field that pre-existed the physical universe, and that field as a whole had become intelligent and powerful enough to generate and begin evolving a physical universe. The point of this "physical universe project" was developing a biological system capable of drawing a bit of the general conscious field into the CNS, and using that biochemical medium to individuate a "point" of general consciousness.

Each point drawn into a body must work to evolve itself, and because the body is fragile (and Earth conditions violent) we are very susceptible to getting hurt and therefore suffering. Also, since we are relatively un-evolved, and that lack shows itself as selfishness and cruelty, the more un-evolved are always hurting others including the more-evolved and innocent.

If the creator were able to make it all perfect, maybe it would! Maybe, just maybe, the creator isn't perfect, all-powerful, and all knowing. Maybe it is just a loving intelligence doing the best it can to give birth to new individual consciousnesses.

So how would you have it? Exist imperfectly and have to help evolve yourself into perfection, or not exist at all? And those of us who answer we would rather exist, then maybe we should humble ourselves and be grateful for the incredible creation the creator DID produce instead of whining about what hasn't evolved yet or how difficult it has been and is.

I never mentioned biblical scriptures.

sorry........................

i knew you wouldnt take offence i just wanted to say sorry:) What do you mean it's not real life? (I dont want to get told off for going off topic!)

In response to your second paragraph LWSleeth, we are perfect in everyway the fact that greed cruellty and suffering,ect,is a part of our world is because We made it that way, nature, god or whatever you want to call it can only exist in the good things, it does not change from this to cruellty etc, it stays to the laws according to It's laws which includes a great deal of many wonderful things.

I think it's a problem that nobody is likely to agree on what "perfect" is. If I am carving a back scratcher from wood, and it is half done, you might say it is imperfect since it doesn't yet look like a scratcher. I might say, but it is exactly where it should be at this stage of development, and therefore is perfect (in being perfectly on track for completion). You might try to scratch your back with it only to find out it does a lousy job, and so insist it is imperfect (as of now) as a back scratcher.

We can argue all day like that.

Some of us who've felt God have faith that creation is being perfected; and that even given how undeveloped we still are, we are nonetheless perfectly on track for perfection. Yet if someone looks to me, for instance, hoping to find a fully enlightened human being right now, I will appear imperfect.

So I don't think that imperfection (i.e., not completed) means the developing force that is evolving me is imperfect, it just means it can't perfect instantly.

One thing I agree heartily with you about is that God is only revealed inside those who open to and love his gift of existence. Those sitting off to the side obsessing about what's wrong in creation, nihilistically ignoring the vastly more impressive achievements of creation, will never feel God in their hearts.

I see a hidden implication here that "perfect" means "complete".

You use the wood analogy, but with the wood, we know of a completed, a "perfect" (in the context of completion, fulfilling all it's necessary requirements) product. What is a completed, a "perfect" (in the context of completion, fulfilling all it's necessary requirements) human?

Naturally, I then must ask: How do you know we are "undeveloped"?

"Developing force" that is "evolving you"? You mean evolution? How would evolution be "perfect", and are you sure it's a force?

How would any forces be "perfect", for that matter? Forces cannot be "perfect", unless we place them in a context such as, "I need X amount of force to propel this object exactly 63 feet. This X amount of force is perfect for this particular job".

What if we don't regard existence as creation, and we don't sit off to the side and complain about what's *wrong*? Why is "God" always referred as an actual substance, object, man? Could it not be "God" is simply metaphor for an authority in regards to "how we ought to live"?

Maybe every waking moment we are "Feeling God". What does it even mean to "feel God"? Oh, so many questions, it's all absurd language-games.

That true. I believe an infant is just about perfect, but it doesn't know how to maintain its openness, trust, love, and naturalness.

The short answer as to who is a perfected human being is, the likes of Jesus, the Buddha, Nanak, Kabir, Brother Lawrence, Rumi, Joshu, and all those who've turned inward to realize how deeply what's inside can take us.

Oh, that's easy. There are the fools blindly following their conditioning, and there are those who've managed to escape from that mindless ignorance to become enlightened.

Yep, I turn to it each morning to let it lift me.

So something created you. You can disregard it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you were created.

You know, if you don't join a religion (and so aren't in danger of being brainwashed by some cult), then you are safe to feel whatever you find inside you

Quite literally, an infant is incapable of having an open-mind, trusting, or loving, at least within the context with which we commonly apply these terms.

Empathy is a progression development, and most children don't see empathic qualities until a few years (Don't hold me on this, but I believe it's around 7). An infant, by definition, cannot trust: Without brain development (specifically frontal lobe) it cannot reason and deduce on our level, coming to have trust, hope, in anything.

The "openness" you refer is no different than the "openness" apparent during any mammalian birth

But if you find a child "perfect", then you'd surely think one that is retarded is perfect too, right? And no, I'm not asking this sarcastically - we could find most of the same qualities from both.

It seems more possible that "perfect" is an abstract notion one can work towards but never achieve. "Perfect", as noted, requires context, but more importantly, it requires a goal.

I could be considered a "perfect" killer if I achieved a mode of standards laid before me, but this doesn't say anything literally. Instead, it would be figurative for, "I'm a very successful killer". Likewise, you could say the men you mentioned are "perfect", suggesting they were very successful or insightful at whatever their goal was. And I agree, they were, but they weren't "perfect" in any literal sense - What does it even literally mean to be "perfect"? You're obviously using "perfect" as a metaphor for something else.

You're passing judgment on those you don't know. Very interesting, considering the men you mentioned above probably wouldn't advocate this.

You turn to the concept of evolution to lift you? I hope you're not being literal again.

These particular sentences have started threads on their own, so for the time being, I won't comment.

Indeed, you are. But this doesn't imply one has to seek "enlightenment" or "God" or "Goblin" or "Hankerbeast" or "#1 player on all Counter Strike servers", does it? No, it simply means one may think in peace. If you want to embrace your love I'm all for it, but don't be short-sighted in assuming every one that does not is a fool.

That's right, or at least not much different. And that well matches my characterization of "perfection" as the unconditioned state plus wisdom.

First of all, I didn't say a child is perfect; I said the open, guileless state that characterizes a child, when returned to as an adult, is what great saints have called perfection.

But yes, it doesn't matter if a child is retarded or not since that has nothing to do with being conditioned. I don't think retarded children are able to develop all human abilities, but they can attain perfection (as I've defined it) as an adult if they can understand how to turn inside and find that place that forever remains unconditioned.

Her past conditioning wouldn't let her see the present reality of my hand bringing pleasure; she couldn't stop experiencing a threat even though none was present.

The context is the inherent nature of consciousness, and the goal of a "perfected" consciousness is to be freed from mindless, unconscious conditioning.

The method, taught in India for three millennia, is to find a place inside oneself that is always perfectly still. When the mind merges with that place, it brings the mind to rest. A still mind cannot follow conditioning, and thus peace and freedom from mindless conditioning are attained in one simple, beautiful experience.

Sure I know them, I've been around humanity 62 years, and I am quite certain that conditioning is the devil, and that conditioning "fools" us into believing we are experiencing reality when in actuality we experiencing a conditioned state of mind. Get rid of all the beliefs, habits, and other mindlessly-ingrained trends of our mind and you get a sweet, open loving human being. My "judgment" is aimed at the deluded state, not at humanity.

The mind that is free from conditioning, able to become still, finds a beautiful experience. It is naturally happy, and naturally wise from being able to view the "whole" and the parts within the whole (unlike the always-thinking mind which can only see parts). One can "feel" like never before, so everything is felt more deeply, appreciated more thoroughly.

So, basically, if I don't agree with the state of mind you feel is "perfect", my state of mind is the "devil"? And I'm thereby a fool?

Oh, that's easy. There are the fools blindly following their conditioning, and there are those who've managed to escape from that mindless ignorance to become enlightened.

Sure I know them, I've been around humanity 62 years, and I am quite certain that conditioning is the devil, and that conditioning "fools" us into believing we are experiencing reality when in actuality we experiencing a conditioned state of mind. Get rid of all the beliefs, habits, and other mindlessly-ingrained trends of our mind and you get a sweet, open loving human being. My "judgment" is aimed at the deluded state, not at humanity.

I ask you: If I am aware of my state, and I choose to stay in the state you refer as "deluded", am I a fool? I don't feel this is an unreasonable question considering what you've already typed.

Please explain clearly what you intend, instead of pulling the "stop putting words in my mouth" routine, as if I don't have just cause for my questioning. Me being clever? What I typed was almost verbatim what you stated! If you won't be specific, then let's drop it.

If you are aware it is deluded, and you choose it, then yes you are a fool. Who would choose delusion over unaffected clarity but someone fooled into believing what they imagine is actual reality? I am merely stating the accepted definition of delusion (which also defines the fool), so I am not unfairly applying the term.

My point has been, the "perfected" consciousness is free to experience reality without the effects of conditioning. And the unfree mind is "fooled" into believing what it experiences is reality when really the conscious experience is being shaped, twisted, distorted by conditioning. Why do racists experience Blacks or Jews or whomever as something hateful? Is it reality they experience or the effects of conditioning distorting their experience?

Sometimes I feel like I'm debating 8th graders with no sense of history, no understanding but how their own culture has trained them to see things, no charitable and broadly educated evaluative ability. Nothing I am saying is new or original, it has been said by all the great saints in the past, including Jesus and the Buddha. So I am not trying to pretend I have discovered the latest thing to understand.

I have however, made significant effort to still my own mind, and my conditioning, so I report not just from studying the subject intellectually, but also as a devoted practitioner. You can take my report for what you will, but I say a still and unconditioned mind is a happy and wise mind (relative to an unstill, conditioned mind) for the reasons I've repeatedly stated