Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Forums: Evolution, God, Creation, Pantheism
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The arguments for and against evolution seems to us apodictical esistential pantheists silly as hell. Of course evolution is possible, and it accounts for the World as we know it, allovit. But Reglgion is equally dumb insisting that the whole thing was 'created' to be the way in an instant, by some sore of supernatural entity.

https://able2know.org/topic/86967-1

But everyone else seems to be missing the most critical point with its essential q's: Why are things they are and not some other way?

It's apparent that not just life but everything else had probably evolved from that enormous heaviness of nothingness, with the Big Bang. From that point things proceeded as they had to, just as with later kinds of evolution like life. However the big question is, if life has any significance atall, why does evolution proceed as it does, to let it happen. After all, the humanoid doesn't seem to assume any sort of importance in the Big Picture.

Still intuition insists that it must, that we're the entire reason for there being a Universe. As has been observed by thinkers smarter'n me, "There seems to be a 'Plan' "

The problem of a God settin' it all up, so much contradiction and paradox is involved; like, where did She come from, and why did She feel compelled to make all this possible? And why just now, in this vast stretch of geologic time ? The pantheist responds, 'It's all resolved by assuming She isn't supernatural, but \ a perfectly natural phenom, 'creation' explained by the fact that She/He/It, All, in Its different forms has been around forever and is the way it is because there isn't any feasible mans by which it couldn't [Just hastabe, ain't no other possible way way].

We'd maintain that the whole idea of a God on one hand and a World on he other is a form of dualism dependent on the humanoid thinkin' system where everything is classified into a kind of entity, whereas in truth nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. Regarding God, She's the Whole Schebang, all the activity therein Her thinking. All right, you don't even hafta call it All 'God,' but whatever you like.

The trick for us [not me for gosh sake, I'm 86 w/ Alzie's] is to explain why there's no alternative system that could account for the Universe, maybe one without humanoids. The answer, I think, lies in demonstrating the interdependence of the constants: Let's say, for instance, the slightest change in one would make one or more of the rest impossible. To my fellow pantheists of this persusasion this is pretty persuad\sive, but I'm just not the theoretical physicist for a followup

Time will tell, you'll see.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 20 • Views: 86,880 • Replies: 2,061

@dalehileman,

The answers are very simple, if we follow science. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

...very simple...follow science

But Cis you might be missin' the point of my entire OP: Why are all the constants set up the way they are in order to make us possible

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
...very simple...follow science
But Cis you might be missin' the point of my entire OP: Why are all the constants set up the way they are in order to make us possible

They are not set up that way Dale. It’s an illusion of selective observation. We’ve been through this before remember? ... Sunsets...

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

your need is based upon knowing "WHY"which is just defaulting back to religion anyway. I think the religious feel very comfortable with thir worldview. As history has shown, the several nations ,all run by religious people, had not, for most of history, been allowing anything that denies a creator and creation.

Evolution was, at first , a somewhat dangerous concept for those who studied it and helped to develop modern science. Unfortunately, science, to be of any use in any applications, needed some kind of a plan of life AND earth;s history.

Religions, of the Fundamentalist style, do not produce workers in these studies.

When you consider earth's history, your question of "Why are the things herein set up the way they are"?? becomes fairly obvious ,IF you understand what study and evidence tells us.
We have a planet that, for 99.996% of its time "on earth" got along fairly routinely without the existance of humans (H ss). So interdisciplanary sciences have produced a fairly detailed biography of the planet and the life thereon. The process of study was quite rigorous and was based upon our species annoying habit of "needing to know", and "not willing to buy into things that are accepted without proof".

So in that respect, being apodictic as you say you are, Id think youd want to join science to discover things that are incontestable. I dont think were fully there . There a waay many questions that need answers and some "fine tuning" to correct two major errors in Darwins thought process. Science strives to understand better. Religion seems to have it all figured out even though real world evidence cant support it.

Join science , or otherwise, you better find some other title that describes your worldview , because APODICTICAL you aint.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

I guess its nonsense to you because youre far enough away from the arena of seeking applications of our knowledge.
If I drilled oil wells based on a creationist "science" Id be no better than the earliest wildcatters who just recovered oil from "Seeps" in their propertis but never oroduced any amounts that would eventually be needed to assist the industrial revolution.

People would "sop up" oil seeps and actually drink it in the belief that emetics and diarhetics would solve all our problems. Geology and micropaleontology didnt really enter the picture until the 1920's .

Yes , oil exploration is based upon apodictical biological and paleontological facts.

(After all, why did we understand about the Bakken sands and the many Devonian Formations that helped us discover a new Middle East worth of oil and gas). It was mostly developed based upon tracking the evolution of microcritters that left us microfosils.

Science really demonstrates the apodictic. It discovers, refines, cats out, re discovers and develops workable theories for many reasons, (One of which has NEVER included CONTROL of our intellects by woo woo or mooga booga)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Thanks to you guys for your intriguing responses. To me however there are a couple of matters left unresolved: Can the interdependence of physical constants serve as evidence that the universe is the way it has to be; masking 'creation' [by the conventional God] unnecessary

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

'But Cis you might be missin' the point of my entire OP: Why are all the constants set up the way they are in order to make us possible'

Quote:

They are not set up that way Dale. It’s an illusion of selective observation... Sunsets...

Yes, 'set up' was a bad way to put it. But the q remains, why coudn't things be different, my pantheism suggesting it's 'cause of the interdependence of it all, that frinstance the slightest change in one constant would make another--or many others ?--impossible

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Once evolution became a universal concept, the other sciences besides geology supported it. The creationists continue to ignore all of them. It’s hard to imagine. The DNA and genes influences how it responds to its environment.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

your need is based upon knowing "WHY"which is just defaulting back to religion anyway

Man, well put indeed. However, I was suggesting an entirely 'new kind' of 'religion,' where--starting with the supposition that the constants might be interdependent--there's strong reason to supose there's a Universe simply 'cause there hasta be and that things are the way they are 'cause they can't be any other way

Yes my pantheistic supposition that dualism is contradictory inasmuch as nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, that we can call It All 'God', with the furious activity therein constituting Her thinking; is really stretching it. However, it has the advantage of explaining the idea of a 'plan,' not supernatural atall, yet allowing those of us inclined that way to call It, 'God'

Quote:

So interdisciplanary sciences have produced a fairly detailed biography of the planet and the life thereon

But it doesn't address the basic q's, [1] why does there hafta be anythin' atall [even space] and [2] why is it the way it is

Quote:

Id think youd want to join science to discover things that are incontestable

Precisely what I suppose I have done

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
They are not set up that way Dale. It’s an illusion of selective observation... Sunsets...
Yes, 'set up' was a bad way to put it. But the q remains, why coudn't things be different, my pantheism suggesting it's 'cause of the interdependence of it all, that frinstance the slightest change in one constant would make another--or many others ?--impossible

Things certainly could have been different. But then something else would be here asking the same question and we would be right back to where we are now (us being the thing asking question).

If sunsets could think, they would each wonder how such a perfect set of conditions arose to create each one of them.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Thank you again Ros; of course, I still maintain that things couldn't have been different

[I hafta admit, though, I haven't adequately addressed the question, 'Why does there have to be anything at all?' So I'll allow I might be entirely off base. Maybe there is a 'conventional' God 'up there' having decided one bright eon to 'create something interesting,' and Who contrived a whole bunch of arbitrary rules (we now call 'science,') making evolution of the humanoid possible, everyday making arbitrary decisions on how we should behave or when to trigger that eruption,]

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

If the present is key to the pst, often it can be useful to predict the future.
Ive got enough trouble with deciphering the HOW and the WHEN to be
even slightly concerned about the WHY.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

youre calling it nonsense. I say that you arent enough in the cultural fray to understand the stakes.Otherwise, youd know that, even today, every time a school takes a break, some Christian true believing superintendent tries to demean and deny what science has wrought in the last millenium, and tris to begin some way of cutting science education off at the legs. As a nation, Our adults rank 37th among 1st world nations in science literacy(our adult Sci Q lies just after Nicaragua), and for HS kids we rank like 18th (just after Norway and one step above France) and I say its mostly due to the advocacy for the fringe religious element that has a much stronger influence than their numbers would let one to believe.
We have several clowns on A2K who understand very little but dont let that fct control their loud opinionated"observations". They rather see public schools tach out of their prayer books after 60 yers of hard US Supreme Court decisions on what "Freedom of and from religion" even means

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

I still maintain that things couldn't have been different

Why do you say that?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

youre calling it nonsense

'It,' tho, Man, isn't science but the idea that some sort of supernatural power 'set it up' to make things the way they are. Maybe I shouldn't have used them " ' " 's

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

'I still maintain that things couldn't have been different'

Quote:

Why do you say that?

It's hard to 'splain in short sentences of common words, Ros. What I've been tryin' to convey all long is that science isn't the way it is, permitting evolution, etc, because it was 'set up' that way by a supernatural being; but that it can't be any other way. And my reasoning entails the eventual discovery that this conclusion is bolstered by discovery that not single one of the constants can be changed the slightest, without impinging on other constants

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

not single one of the constants can be changed the slightest, without impinging on other constants

This is probably true. No single change to the fundamental laws of physics could be changed without impacting (and forcing an alteration) in other laws to generate another stable universe.

But I don't see how that indicates or even implies anything.

If stable Universes existed with certain combinations of laws which made them stable, how would that change the likelihood that multiple stable combinations could exist each resulting in different Universes?

Or are you simply saying that biological and cosmological evolution are inevitable within this particular Universe? Because that probably goes without saying... given that, Here we Are.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

Indeed! Here we are. I also think we have lived during a very interesting generation of human habitation. To have witnessed men flying to the moon, consumers able to fly in airplanes half way around the world in one day, and our ability to communicate with people all around the world by our cell phones, and able to what's see what's happening instantly on tv. The only thing that has not kept up with the times is our politics and politicians.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Before my grandfather passed away, he noted that when he was a child people got around on horses and buggies in his town. But by the time he told us the story he had seen the invention of cars and radio and tv and telephones and air flight and men landing on the moon and atomic bombs and home computers. I think he passed away before smart phones. But he came close.

2 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know