Non-Christians for Creationism

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

---

So you take it one step at a time!

It isn't a forced march!

But you rang my chimes - we have to trust our senses, just like you said! Our senses are our direct connection to God. He will add the rest!!

reply to post by Kailassa

---

Your post made fascinating reading.

So you're a mystic - one of those who believe they have direct experience of the divine. Have you written about your experiences anywhere? I should like to read them.

I understand that, to the mystic, experience transcends doctrine. Regrettably, the experience is, in its essence, incommunicable to others.

Of course, that hasn't stopped some mystics from trying, and the results have often been quite beautiful. Written descriptions of mystical experience often bear a strongly erotic character, as in the Ecstasy of St. Téresa of Avila or the poetry of St. John of the Cross. If you're interested, you can find links to their important works on this page. Even the great Jalaluddin Rumi tended to couch his adoration for God in sexual terms. Although this is not the thread for it, I'd be interested in hearing your comments on that odd phenomenon. Perhaps you could u2u me, or start another thread in an appropriate forum.

All very interesting, but I must beg leave to doubt whether mystical experience brings with it any insights applicable to the creationism-vs.-evolution debate. As Rumi puts it, 'I closed my eyes to creation when I beheld His beauty.'

In my opinion, mystical experience signifies atypical activity, perhaps hyperactivity*, in an evolved homeostatic feedback system one may describe as the religious instinct. Ordinarily, the function of this system is to mediate between consciousness, with its illusions of will and control, and the instinctive drives of the unconscious, which threaten these illusions. We can talk about that in another thread, too, if you like; perhaps I'll start one on the subject.

---

*EDIT: I originally said 'breakdown', but that's not right.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Astyanax]

reply to post by MatrixProphet

---

Says who? Could you please provide some evidence for this hard-to-believe assertion?


So God is a trickster and deceiver. In that case, what is to stop anyone concluding that He didn't really create anything, he's just claiming that to make Himself look like a big shot?

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Astyanax]

As above, so below...

we do things like landscaping, genetic engineering, building...that is, we practice Intelligent Design. It is therefore not a stretch to imagine other beings doing the same thing on a grander scale.

No religious belief required to follow the logic.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Skyfloating]

I've always had a reputation for being the strong, practical one, and accused of being pragmatic..
It's more that God has been close to me than that I've been close to God.
So I'm no mystic, I just happened to be honoured with a special friendship.


Very little. I'm wondering if there would be an appropriate place to post the couple of things I've written.


Thanks for the links you gave, I'd never heard of Jalaluddin Rumi. Reading his poetry tonight, I do believe he proves your statement wrong.
Reading him brings me joy.


Nuns for centuries have "married" Jesus. I've read in novels that Greek priestesses had a similar custom. I've no idea whether that's true, but I'd not be surprised.
And there is some quite sexual imagery in the adorations in the Psalms.
Leonard Cohen, my favourite singer, sings a lot about sex, and I believe these songs are mystical adorations.
- well, most of them. I don't see, "You can't go home with a hard-on" that way.

I see no reason to avoid any way of relating to God. Relating to him/her as a lover can bring closeness and happiness. And sex in which you each regard your partner as an incarnation of god, and make love as a form of worship, can be wonderful.

On the other hand, some may prefer to relate to god as Azlan, or as the moon.
'Hey, whatever rocks your boat, baby!" Hmm, I think I've misremembered that phrase.


Rumi is talking about creation as physical reality, maya, rather than the act of creating.
When my awareness is on "the other side of the curtain" maya is an illusion that we have created.
When it's back on this side, I want the excitement of using science to discover everything that can be learned.
I can't resolve the paradox, but I don't care, I'm quite happy to live in two apparently paradoxical realities and enjoy each to the full.

Perhaps science will advance in ways that will bring the two worlds together.
We've seen suggestions that the universe may be a hologram. Who knows where research may lead?


To some extent you are right. I've experienced the high of (prescribed) heroin, and it's quite wonderful, similar to what the meditative state brings, but still not as good.
I was never in danger of overusing that, but I have had to fight an addiction to meditating.
And my brain does react very differently to many substances than most, which means codeine and marijuana have no effect on me, and general anaesthetics don't put me to sleep until I've had an almost lethal dose.

However I've had experiences that are provable to me and to others who were there at the time. The trouble though with telling these is that there is no reason why people who were not there should believe them.
And they have been personal, infrequent and last time I managed that on demand was 40 years back.

If you start another thread let me know. ;-)

I have always wondered about this one myself. In the media you have Richard Dawkins fighting some christian guy or at least a typical monotheist and they are both acting like those are the only two viewpoints.

What about hinduism, native american religion, budhism, classical greek and roman theology, norse gods and shinto. I mean nobody can really prove anything so any theory at all whether sane or crackpot is just as valid as christian creationism or scientific big bang or what have you.

If one were to say that a wizard created the world yesterday you should have it viewed as just as valid. Christians and atheistic scientists hog up all the attention and air time with their views but they are not the only two explanations.

reply to post by Astyanax

---

First of all, thank you for your U2U and I will write you back!

The Bible evolved just the way it was meant to, is accurate if you understand its premise. WHY was the Bible written, and WHY is it so inaccurate? WHY does it not really reflect God's words, and WHY didn't he divinely make sure that it would be totally accurate? And better yet, WHY has it lasted for millenniums?

Are you a mystery fan? Have you ever broken down a mystery novel and looked beyond the story to see how it was written? I am an author and find authors like Agatha Christie to be an amazing, ingenious writer. Anne Perry is another one.

Because...she understood how to pull the reader in and hold them! She had a wonderful grasp of human behavior and showed it in her stories. She understood evil and incorporated it.

Supposing the Gods had an entirely different message than what is being understood now? Think on this; supposing he set man up to either fall for all the sub-plots in the Bible, and also incorporated ingenious messages behind them?

I am thinking on doing a thread because many are asking the same questions, and I for one would like to get beyond the typical responses and challenge those who participate, to look at God in a different light. There is logic behind the apparent madness!

I am not going to defend him/her because the Gods don't need it!

reply to post by MatrixProphet

---

So am I; indeed, I write for a living.

The idea of God as an author of mystery stories would itself make a fine basis for a story. It sounds like the kind of thing Herman Melville or Jorge Luis Borgés might have thought of.

Write it.

In reality, however, I think it's a bit much. If God is just a winder-up of clockwork plots that He makes tick away for His own entertainment, then there really is no reason for us to discuss Him and His works at all, except perhaps to devise ways of escaping from this machine we haunt on His behalf. After all, nothing we do is going to make any difference: He's not going to listen to our prayers anyway, because answering them will mean tinkering with the clockwork, and He wants to see how things will pan out without His tinkering.

Sometimes in mathematics one encounters a problem for which there is a set of solutions, one of which is zero. The zero solution is called a trivial solution. In one sense, atheism is the trivial solution to the God problem: zero, there is no God. But in a less mathematical sense, God the Toymaker seems even more trivial.

Sitll, at least He made the toys Himself. I suppose that's better than God the Couch Potato, staring glazedly at the universe with a remote control in one hand and a heer in the other.

Maybe someone should write that story.

reply to post by Astyanax

---

Actually, I already have!! But that is for another place and time.

How about somewhere in-between?...



How about a loving God that can also show indifference? It's a dice game. But a game that perhaps has a beginning - a middle and an end. I believe we have been in the end of the Game for more than a century.

But there is order in the disorder. I agree, he is letting things pan out. It is not to say that he doesn't have a say or won't contribute, but it does require us to meet him half way. Determinism is too strong a word or stance. I do have one on one communication with him, and find that he is more available than given credit. Often the greatest obstacles are, all the filters we have.

I have never met a person who truly searches that has not come to some sort of connection with God. At times this may mean hitting a bottom before God steps in. Others, don't make this connection. We also have to add into the picture; "The sins of our fathers."

I will try to do the thread in the next couple of days and will let you know? I welcome your posts, and insights.

Thanks very much. Its an outrage really. Not only are both not the only ways of seeing the world, they are not even the most sensible. I could list at least 10 other ways of seeing it that make more sense.

I think I speak for all of us following this thread when I say, please do!

Do you have anything concrete that goes against evolution? I would like to see that..As far as im aware there isnt anything,but would like to be proven wrong.

Wont rob you have the joy of discovering them for yourself!

(PS: The anon poster already named a few)

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

I don't think anyone ever stated this as being the case... well, aside from a few Christian Creationists who wish to set up the false dichotomy of "God vs. Darwin". Albeit, I think you have to admit, there's far more Theists who accept evolutions than there are Atheists who accept creation.




So? Nobody expects the theory of gravity to explain the origin of gravity. Why is the case different for evolution?




At it's simplest form, life is simply chemistry. Chemistry is not coincidence. Dead matter? You are a swarm of complex chemical processes. What is inherently "alive" about the chemical bond between Thymine and Adenine? When people refer to "Organic Material", it simply means the presence of compounds in which carbon forms the chemical backbone.

Prey tell, at what point do chemical reactions become "alive"?




Perhaps the word "Wizard" is tripping me up... but would you suggest that magic is a viable alternative to a naturalistic explanation?




That.... not really debunking. That's simply fishing for a question we don't currently have an explanation for and then using that to interject your own personal beliefs. It's like "God of the Gaps", but only "Metaphysicals of the Gaps". Further, Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. The big bang? If someone lets you push them that far back, then they have no clue what they're talking about in the first place. The big bang has nothing to do with the origin of life or the evolution of life.

And honestly... what's wrong with saying I don't know? That's an honest answer, and inspires further curiosity to discover the answer. Any variation on "God did it" or "It was magic" simply serves to shut down further inquiry, or at least adds another unnecessary layer of complexity. Even if it was "Magic", we would still want to know the mechanism behind it.




This just rings of Ray Comfort "If it was designed, there must be a designer". It completely ignores complexity theory or emergence, which we're increasingly finding out is the norm for the natural world - not the abberation. You provide the internet as an example, but if you look at the Internet's history you'll see that it wasn't created in it's present form from any grand or over-reaching blueprint. It was formed from a decentralized multitude of various companies and organizations working largely independently, in reaction to each other, consuming each other, etc. Each small part of the internet's infrastructure may have been built from a top-down structure, but the internet itself was built from the bottom-up.

Exploring Emergence

Emergence (Wikipedia)

--------------------

Evolution and Creationism may not be diametrically opposing ideas, but for the time being - I see no good reason to suppose an intelligent designer.

reply to post by Lasheic

---

Nothing wrong with saying "I dont know". Which is what I would have hoped my schoolbooks do sometimes...or "official sources" do some times...

So the objection is not at those myriad of explanations but as pretending them to be satisfactory in establishing "where we are from".

________________________________________________

No reason to consider Intelligent Design?

Everything mankind has created was initiated deliberately, by the power of our minds. Why should it not be that way with everything?

Look at a Leaf. It may very well have been intelligently designed.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Ahhh, but a box is so much more cozy!!

reply to post by Lasheic

---

I think part of every equation gets filtered through man's perceptions or life experience. It is humility to say "I don't know!" As long as it isn't suffixed with: "No one knows for sure." This then puts everyone in the same category and creates clones or automatons.

Because someone knows a lot more about a subject than another, does not dismiss the reality of something just because this other person lacks knowledge. When we say "We don't know for sure" we are narrowing mankind's ability to brainstorm and learn from others experience and intuitiveness.

Knowledge, formulas, and experience, are not pigeon holed into a communistic stance. There are limitations to science, as is very evident. If we narrow every subject into a scientific explanation we are limiting; consciousness, creativity and imagination. This is something that interested Einstein - quantum physics/mechanics, which involves the three before mentioned qualities. It's having the wisdom to know the difference!

I can tell you that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a creator exists and can speak from experience that is hundred fold. It does not discount science nor all the ways we could have made it into this world. You might be interested in this as food for thought. Please look for similarities in thinking, rather than the differences.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Just because it's in a textbook, doesn't necessarily mean it's 100% true and that is actually how reality really operates. What goes into textbooks are our current best understanding of our reality as revealed by evidence, experiment, observation, and predictability. Even if later discoveries show that our understanding was fundamentally flawed, or incomplete, it's still necessary to teach children these theories initially so that they have a basic and standard knowledge of how we currently understand the world.




Maybe you had some poor science teachers. I was always taught that science merely represents our current best understanding of our world and "where we are from", and may be changed as new evidence and new information becomes available. However, to topple a new theory and force a paradigm shift - one would need to formulate a theory that not only better explains our reality, but is consistent with all available evidence and observations. This is something that ID has yet to accomplish.




Well, in a broad sense - everything we create is merely a natural product of emergent behavior. What the body creates is as much an expression of DNA as the body itself. Termites can build towering and elaborate structures with no real consciousness or intelligence guiding them. It's merely a collective of a multitude of individuals following very simple rules which have been ingrained into their behavior. What would they be able to create if they had higher cognitive functions?

A leaf doesn't have to be designed, because of the nature of how evolution and emergence work. Evolution is not simply a random process, it's deterministic. It's a combination of various chemical reactions, transcription errors, and a changing environment that favors or disfavors certain design directions. A very complicated game of cause and effect. What we're finding is that this natural method of design by trial and error is incredibly robust. So robust that it actually competes with human designers, and elements of evolutionary aided design has been used by the automotive and airliner industries for decades now. We're increasingly using evolutionary algorithms to complete highly detailed and complex design problems, such as creating cochlear implants tailor suited for each individual patient.

The biggest hurdle up to now has been the sheer amount of processing power necessary to modify, simulate, test, and breed different designs in a speedy manner that emulates multiple generations, which in the real world and in biological contexts, can take anywhere from weeks to millions of years depending on the reproductive rates of the organism. However, we are getting much better at it as computers continually get more powerful.

So... the irony here is, we're actually starting to let go of the wheel insofar as design goes, and letting natural processes take over. It's completely counter-intuitive to how we traditionally approach design, but nevertheless, it works - and often works better than what we can come up with on our own.

Genetic Algorithms (Talk Origins)

Evolutionary Algorithm (Wikipedia)

Evolutionary Algorithms (MIT Press)

Indeed, I believe EA's are even being applied to the task of creating strong Artificial Intelligence - a task that may be beyond human design at the present time. However, the problem with EA's is that if we rely on them too readily, we will end up lagging behind our technology by a fair margin. Just as we are just beginning to reverse engineer life, our brains, etc, we will have to start reverse engineering new consumer products just to see how they work!

Some might misconstrue this as some sort of proof that evolution requires some sort of intelligence behind it. This isn't the case, however. It no more demonstrates that our harnessing of the principals of evolution proves intelligence is required for evolution - as our harnessing of fire proves that fire is not possible without an intelligence behind it.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

I would like to comment on this quickly as well. I believe that the universe is a nihilistic construct. I don't think there is any greater purpose or "goal" which we should be striving for (except perhaps with the possibility of reproduction) that has been pre-ordained for us. However, the human animal is not a nihilistic creature. As social creatures with higher cognitive functions, we strive to assign meaning and purpose to our lives.

So while the universe is nihilistic, we are not. I think it would be of infinitely more use and fulfillment to ask not, "What is the meaning to my existence" - and ask instead "To what meaning do I assign to my existence?" The second question is easily answerable on an individual level, creates drive and purpose to one's life. The former has, well, done nothing but sow confusion and strife for humanity for nearly as long as humanity has been around to argue it.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Sounds good to me, I'm anti most religion for the most part, but a creationist, I also don't doubt evolution and the big bang was fueled by intelligent design, these forums are more of a mix up with beliefs, as most here read up on differing angles and decide for themself hopefully.

I personally believe this universe was spawned from a mother universe and that one from an older and so forth, we aren't nearly advanced enough to prove this but the theory has existed among Hawking and others for a while.