Nature's purposeful giudance

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

ABYA wrote:
Briefly,I see evolution as a progression of the desires within all of creation, and those desires are placed in creation by ?

Deism?

Hi Ros
Thats what I would call it.

Ok.
Well, Deism runs onto the rocks of Occam's razor just a bit, but other than that it doesn't have any direct conflicts with reality the way Creationism does. Deism is a respectable position.

0 Replies

@ABYA,

Quote:

If we don't chase after that carrot then we receive natures blows.

shtik with it

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

If observe nature, I can no more assume what you suggest than I can believe in green Martians. I know of no proof there was a thought to create. you have provided no proof. You can't go into it here, because it relies on faith and the unprovable.

Hi my friend
Yes, it is impossible to prove anything before the big bang.
Sometimes we just have to put our faith on assumptions.
In corporeality everything proceeds through cause and effect.
If the universe is the effect, how can it have came into existance without a cause.
The cause I find easiest to accept is that there was a desire to create.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

In corporeality everything proceeds through cause and effect.
If the universe is the effect, how can it have came into existance without a cause.
The cause I find easiest to accept is that there was a desire to create.

Then what was the cause of the "desire to create"? Where did that come from? And what came before that, and so on and so on and so on...

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Then what was the cause of the "desire to create"? Where did that come from? And what came before that, and so on and so on and so on...

Time didn't exist before the bang, time is of this dimension. That very instant between the desire to create and creation is eternity. The desire to create is the begining of everything with nothing before it and is rightly called the Father.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

Time didn't exist before the bang, time is of this dimension. That very instant between the desire to create and creation is eternity. The desire to create is the begining of everything with nothing before it and is rightly called the Father.

So the Universe didn't come into being by itself, but this supernatural undefined thing (desire to create) which you want to call Father, did.

You're not helping yourself very much here.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

So the Universe didn't come into being by itself, but this supernatural undefined thing (desire to create) which you want to call Father, did.

The desire to create is not of corporeality and and can't be compared to the sort of desires we have, where first the desire comes then we weigh up the effort involved in attaining that desire against the possible benefit before deciding wether or not to act, which then takes time before the realisation of the desire.
The thought and creation are one act, but its necessary that the thought comes first. think of it like saying a word, any word, theres breath and sound, although they come together, its the breath that causes the sound.
Now, using this context, you will probably say " where did the breath come from". Who knows.
As I right this, the thought of the book of John comes to mind, where it says _
" In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God. and the word became flesh"
In my words I could right this as _
In the Beginning was the law of nature, the law was with God and the law was God. and the law became creation.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

It sounds like you're just making stuff up. Which is fine I guess. It just doesn't sound any more convincing than any other fanciful story.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Bless you Ros for your replies, Have a great day.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

Bless you Ros for your replies, Have a great day.

You're welcome. Sorry I couldn't offer more solid counterpoints to your suggestions, but you seem to be simply stating an opinion unsupported by anything, so there isn't much I can object to in that framework. An opinion supported by a belief is a Universe unto itself, it stands alone. Good day to you as well.

0 Replies

Where can we get drugs like the ones she's taking?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

That was utter drivel. Humans are a part of nature, there is no need to make a connection, because humans are already connected.

I see in this thread, and in this kind of response, the tendency among the philosophy refugees to supply their ignorance with opinion, rather than with information, with knowledge, and to assume that all opinions are equal. They are not. Informed opinions are worth considering, or challenging if doubtfully framed. Uninformed opinions aren't worth a heap of steaming doggie poop.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

well at least we recognize the difference between criticism and denigration. I have learned nothing from anything you have written. But your dog looks nice.

0 Replies

Besides, I don't condone the sentimentality of the original post, but there are strong philosophical grounds to dispute the currently fashionable outlook that life arose fortuitously. I am sure that the bottom line is that one reason this view is defended so vigourously is that it makes`every individual a law unto themselves, which is just how we like it.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Your inability to learn from experience is certainly no fault of mine. "Philosophical grounds" are no basis for dealing with matters which as subject to naturalistic scientific investigation. These things aren't a matter simply of opinion, despite the conceits of those who imagine themselves to be philosophers. Almost all of what has been offered here, either by the author of the thread or by you have been subjective statements, with no forensic validity.

Your silly comment about people being "a law unto themselves" suggests to me that your motives are largely conditioned by religious prejudice, whether nor not you are willing to admit it, even to yourself. That's a moralistic judgment.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Your moralistic judgement of all such ideas is also a moralistic judgement. The fact that 'modern science' finds no basis for ethical standards in nature is not a cause for celebration. It is actually one of the intellectual deficiencies of modernism, in my view. 'Naturalism' is a pseudo-religious worldview, masquerating as reality. Hence your tone of righteous umbrage. I am offending your religious view, which you regard as normative: that of the high priests of science.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I sure don't agree with what you say, but you are entertaining. Gotta give you that.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

why thanks. I know mine is generally a minority viewpoint, but I do enjoy pitching it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your inability to learn from experience is certainly no fault of mine. "Philosophical grounds" are no basis for dealing with matters which as subject to naturalistic scientific investigation. These things aren't a matter simply of opinion, despite the conceits of those who imagine themselves to be philosophers. Almost all of what has been offered here, either by the author of the thread or by you have been subjective statements, with no forensic validity.

Hi Setanta, I hope your having a good day.
Imagine, if you can, that reality is like an embroidery.
when you look at an embroidery you see a coherent picture. But when you look behind the picture, at the threads that make up the picture, you find a mess of strings and cords that you can't decide where they begin, where they end, and which part of the picture they belong to.
There are those who like to analyze the picture from the front of the embroidery and those who prefer to analyze the back and try to untangle the threads into some sort of image.
It doesn't matter where our view point is, either from the front or the back, life is a game and we shouldn't take our views too seriously, because if we are advancing, our picture of reality is forever changing, which ever side of the embroidery we are looking at.
The only thing that really matters in this life, is that we care for each other and desire unity.
All else is bullshit.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

Imagine, if you can, that reality is like an embroidery.
when you look at an embroidery you see a coherent picture. But when you look behind the picture, at the threads that make up the picture, you find a mess of strings and cords that you can't decide where they begin, where they end, and which part of the picture they belong to.
There are those who like to analyze the picture from the front of the embroidery and those who prefer to analyze the back and try to untangle the threads into some sort of image.

And there are those who like to think of life as an embroidery, when in fact, it's probably not. And there's really no reason to believe it is at all.

1 Reply

Nature's purposeful giudance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know