EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[darkendless]

The big question though, is why should Science presume that there may be a God? On a hunch, round about speculation? Science has nothing to lose and nothing to gain by completely ignoring God.

We invented God as we know him.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Eh, i'm just wondering what proof you have that shows that evolution is a lie? Cause otherwise you are ******* in the wind, as far as im concerned. I don't take evolution as fact, even if it makes sense. I'm open to anything, so i definitely need a reason why you feel evolution has been proven a lie.

 

[doppelganger]

I demand nothing . . . I have been trying to clarify my views and to point out the obvious error of using a "No God" default by maintaining a separate reality from God as the basis for science . . . by calling it Nature.

Do you read your own posts? You're not just "calling God 'nature'," you're also insisting that nature has a conscious identity. In other words, you're insisting that people call nature "God" (as in the theistic sort of your personal experience). So yes, your own post demonstrates that you're engaged in the very same masochistic enterprise I suggested you were engaged in.

I've also experienced deep meditative periods of "universal oneness" and complete harmony. It's still just an interpretation of an experience no matter how sincere you are about it. Projecting it as an ontological truth (and requiring people to teach it in science classes because that's the way I think it should be interpreted) would be profoundly silly.

 

[themadhair]

I enjoyed reading your posts and I'm glad to see that others are starting to understand where you are coming from.

Don’t think that is the case. He/she is still making no sense when comments like the following are made:

I demand nothing . . . I have been trying to clarify my views and to point out the obvious error of using a "No God" default by maintaining a separate reality from God as the basis for science . . . by calling it Nature.

The last twenty+ pages have involved people trying to a) understand him/her and b) point out why his/her ‘no god’ view of science is a straw-man.

The hope that if he/she defined what he/she meant by ‘god’ (since he/she seemed determined to argue it as an alternative to science) would make him/her easier to understand seems to have had the opposite effect.

Consider this comment:

As a consequence of this experience and subsequent meditative experiences through the years . . . I am convinced that this universe is indeed comprised of consciousnesses (collectively) and that they are part and parcel of what most people refer to as God.

At this point so much equivocation/incoherence has occurred regarding the word ‘god’ that I think MysticPhD doesn’t seem to know what it is he/she is even advocating.

 

[MysticPhD]

Do you read your own posts? You're not just "calling God 'nature'," you're also insisting that nature has a conscious identity. In other words, you're insisting that people call nature "God" (as in the theistic sort of your personal experience). So yes, your own post demonstrates that you're engaged in the very same masochistic enterprise I suggested you were engaged in.

And I didn't disagree.

I've also experienced deep meditative periods of "universal oneness" and complete harmony. It's still just an interpretation of an experience no matter how sincere you are about it. Projecting it as an ontological truth (and requiring people to teach it in science classes because that's the way I think it should be interpreted) would be profoundly silly.

You misunderstand . . . I only want science taught in science classrooms. BUT . . . I would want the non-neutral IMPLICATION that science precludes or makes extremely unlikely the EXISTENCE of God . . . explicitly contradicted and discouraged. After all . . . there is no "scientific" way to say that we aren't investigating God just because we call it Nature.

 

[doppelganger]

And I didn't disagree.You misunderstand . . . I only want science taught in science classrooms. BUT . . . I would want the non-neutral IMPLICATION that science precludes or makes extremely unlikely the EXISTENCE of God . . . explicitly contradicted and discouraged. After all . . . there is no way to say that we aren't investigating God just because we call it Nature.

So if science does say that it is investigating "nature" isn't that the same thing - TO YOU - as saying science is investigating "God." If so, then what's your freakin' problem?

They are the "natural sciences" after all . . . sheesh, twenty pages of posts and that's all it comes down to?

Did you take the link I posted earlier on in the thread about "theism and atheism: twins separated at birth"?

 

[painted wolf]

You misunderstand . . . I only want science taught in science classrooms. BUT . . . I would want the non-neutral IMPLICATION that science precludes or makes extremely unlikely the EXISTENCE of God . . . explicitly contradicted and discouraged. After all . . . there is no "scientific" way to say that we aren't investigating God just because we call it Nature.

I can't speak for others experience... but I have never had a science professor tell me that science precludes the existence of God.
Faith is up to the individual.

wa:do

 

[MysticPhD]

The big question though, is why should Science presume that there may be a God? On a hunch, round about speculation? Science has nothing to lose and nothing to gain by completely ignoring God.

They should NOT presume there is a God . . . but it should not be implied that ANYTHING science has found disputes or makes unlikely the existence either . . . just because so many religions attribute absurd characteristics. THOSE versions are refutable (but NOT science's job).

 

[MysticPhD]

I can't speak for others experience... but I have never had a science professor tell me that science precludes the existence of God.
Faith is up to the individual.
wa:do

Direct statements are NOT the only way the impressions are communicated. Have any expressly disclaimed the implications?

 

[themadhair]

Direct statements are NOT the only way the impressions are communicated. Have any expressly disclaimed the implications?

So this isn’t anything to with science, in and of itself, but your issue with potential problems in science education.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

That must be one tough question, so I'll ask it again -

Why the "Jesus Inside" avatar, for a person that claims God is nature?

 

[MysticPhD]

The hope that if he/she defined what he/she meant by ‘god’ (since he/she seemed determined to argue it as an alternative to science) would make him/her easier to understand seems to have had the opposite effect.At this point so much equivocation/incoherence has occurred regarding the word ‘god’ that I think MysticPhD doesn’t seem to know what it is he/she is even advocating.

God is NOT an alternative to science. God is what science is investigating. They are validating the attributes of God . . . they just call it Nature to avoid the religuous implications and authoritarian arrogance of the nutjobs. Yes I credit a design and a designer that I prefer to call God. The problems reconciling science and religion over this issue arise largely from the unwarranted nonsense attributed to God . . things like perfection and all the Omni's. They might be true . . . but we haven't the foggiest idea whether they are or not.

The major stumbling blocks to our understanding are human hubris and cynicism. The God contingent has a well-developed ethos about what a God MUST be like . . . what attributes are essential to qualify as God, etc. This is the hubris. The science contingent has a well-developed aversion to anything God-centric due to historical factors (dealing with the hubris of the aforementioned authoritarian "autocrats" within the God contingent). This is the cynicism. The result is the festering schism that exists between science and religion.

We cannot possibly know what all the attributes of God are, period . . . whatever some prefer to demand they be in the unwarranted hubris of the God contingent. But neither can we allow the completely warranted cynicism of the science contingent to just assign those attributes we can determine to some abstract meaningless all- encompassing and all-powerful entity called "Nature." The mysterious and unknown entity is the same for both contingents . . . we simply have a name and attribute problem.

The God contingent maintains that they have received over the millennia information from this God through right brain inspiration and intuition that causes them to add untestable attributes, etc. to what we actually have learned through the left brain efforts of science. The symbolic, visual, and non-verbal nature of the right brain information produced problems in translating to left brain verbal concepts. This was exascerbated by the primitive minds and extremely limited knowledge of those who initially received this information, the repeated oral transmission of same, and the limitations and biases of those who recorded it. The subsequent re-translations into various languages resulted in additional translation difficulties and confusion. What I call the "scriptural fossil record" of the evolution of our consciousness is replete with these alternative descriptions and explanations of this information.

The science contingent after suffering egregiously under the hubris of the God contingent rightfully severed all ties and continues to tenaciously discover as many attributes of God as they can. The discrepancies with the descriptions and attributes of the God contingent grew to such a degree that normal reasonable minds simply could no longer accept those explanations promoted by the God contingent and the rejection gradually became more and more overt. First they replaced God with the more conservative attributes of "Nature" and God's laws with "laws of nature" and God's processes with "natural" processes. Even when they found evidence of design (Constants, DNA, RNA, etc.) they steadfastly refused to allow the God contingent to ever get a foothold again . . . so they covered up their ignorance with the artificial mathematical rubric created in our minds. Mathematics had proven to be a wonderful tool for discovering God's attributes and predicting things.

Using this powerful tool of mathematics they created the artificial ideas of randomness complete with mathematical proofs and exemplars which have been enormously fruitful in covering up our ignorance and still enabling us to "probabilistically" predict things whose causal chains we haven't the foggiest idea about. We also created the law of large numbers using similar rationale enabling us to completely eliminate any consideration of a designer other than our mathematical constructs. All very scientific sounding and impressive . . . but still in the end utter ignorance.

Eventually the science contingent's cynicism became reinforced with hubris as the power of this new tool was evidenced by increasing discoveries and advancements. Einstein . . . a remarkably insightful and creative physicist . . . was the most responsible for a disconnect from true empiricism and the elevation of mathematics as the basis for theory. He is quoted as saying:

. . . the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.

(Little did he realize how true the bolded part would become, IMO.) The simple truth amid this conflict is that there is no scientific basis for eliminating the concept of God and calling it Nature . . . except for the unremitting hostility created between the God and science contingents. It is all about preferences and conflicting descriptions . . . not the underlying mysterious all-encompassing reality that "just is."

Is THAT any clearer and less equivocal?

 

[doppelganger]

Nice post, professor, though I would point out that Einstein never did (nor has anyone since) manage to prove that knowledge can be absolute and divorced from perspective and purpose. Rather, since EPR, experiments have tended to show that "God" does indeed play dice.

 

[lunamoth]

And thus all reasoning is ultimately circular.

 

[themadhair]

God is NOT an alternative to science. God is what science is investigating.

But you should NOT imply that you have explained and understand what "makes atoms dance" using our artificial mathematics rubric AS IF that is a scientific explanation (essentially an alternative to God).

…

The simple truth amid this conflict is that there is no scientific basis for eliminating the concept of God and calling it Nature

We cannot possibly know what all the attributes of God are, period .

…

Using this powerful tool of mathematics they created the artificial ideas of randomness complete with mathematical proofs and exemplars which have been enormously fruitful in covering up our ignorance and still enabling us to "probabilistically" predict things whose causal chains we haven't the foggiest idea about.

The only example of probabilistic prediction you referred to was that of genetic mutations, and you were furnished with the information of their cause. Which you ignored of course.

Even when they found evidence of design (Constants, DNA, RNA, etc.) they steadfastly refused to allow the God contingent to ever get a foothold again . . . so they covered up their ignorance with the artificial mathematical rubric created in our minds.

I shall have to give some frubals to the person who correctly called ID-er.

Is THAT any clearer and less equivocal?

No. Just more rambling to try and sound intelligent while you completely ignore the wealth of commentary people posted for over the last 20+ pages. That you still keep harping on about the supposed bias science has, while being completely unable to specify what it that science is actually displaying bias towards/against, is disappointing. It is hard for me to maintain good faith at this point.

 

[Jose Fly]

MysticPhD,

In your response to my question about why someone who believes "nature = god" would object to natural explanations, you stated:

Because they pretend that they are explanations separate and distinct from God-willed explanations

This implies that you believe there are two categories of explanations, "natural" and "God-willed". And just above that post you stated to PaintedWolf:

God or God-willed processes (instead of Nature or natural processes).

This brings up a couple of obvious questions.

1) What is a "God-willed process"?

2) How do we differentiate between "God-willed" and "natural" processes (especially if "nature = god")?

3) Can you give a specific example of a "God-willed process" and explain how you determined it to be "God-willed"?

And regarding the next semi-related point, i.e., whether or not your god controls everything, you stated:

Not necessarily consciously guided . . . but functioning according to designed processes. Everything does not require monitoring or control...we are part of God's consciousness with the same characteristics of free will and creativity (if we are to reproduce God's consciousness it would have to be so). Since each and every individual consciousness is unique . . . that means an infinite variety of conversations

That begs the obvious question: Is god required for everything, or do some things happen on their own? Also, how do you differentiate between something that is "functioning according to designed processes" and something that is "consciously guided"?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

God is what science is investigating.

No. Science is not investigating God.

I realize that you are trying to convince all of us that, for you, God is a euphemism for nature, but I don't believe that you are being honest.

As someone said earlier in this thread, I think you are simply trying to set the debate up for a "bait and switch".

Thanks for playing.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes . . . plus (which is where all the debate exists)

Is it that you believe that nature is conscious (or has consciousness)? So while you don't see God as separate from nature, you do see nature as having intent?

btw, if so, how does this relate to your avatar, which seems to identify you with a religion that believes the opposite, and for whom this is paganism, heresy of the worst kind?

When you say you know this, is it because of a personal revelatory mystical profound intense experience?

 

[Autodidact]

And I didn't disagree.You misunderstand . . . I only want science taught in science classrooms. BUT . . . I would want the non-neutral IMPLICATION that science precludes or makes extremely unlikely the EXISTENCE of God . . . explicitly contradicted and discouraged. After all . . . there is no "scientific" way to say that we aren't investigating God just because we call it Nature.

I don't understand why you keep repeating the falsehood that science in any way teaches, assumes, or implies this, when you've been told around 20 times in this thread that it doesn't, and have yourself agreed that it doesn't. At this point I have to conclude that you're simply lying, for what reason I don't know.

 

[Autodidact]

they should not presume there is a god . . . But it should not be implied that anything science has found disputes or makes unlikely the existence either . . . Just because so many religions attribute absurd characteristics. Those versions are refutable (but not science's job).

they don't.