• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

EVOLUTION, what a lie.

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Direct statements are NOT the only way the impressions are communicated. Have any expressly disclaimed the implications?
What, that science does not address the existence of god... yes, it has been mentioned.

But the focus of our science classes is to learn to be scientists. We discuss field techniques, experimental design, scientific writing and the vast array of specialized areas of knowledge like ecology and physiology.

wa:do
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
God or God-willed processes (instead of Nature or natural processes). I am not advocating actually using the terms . . . that would be overkill. But the point that would be made by substituting them wherever they appear and seeing that it changes NOTHING . . . would be therapeutic for the "given in the inner consciousness" certainty and investment in the "No God" default syndrome that infects science and so many scientists.

You're more than welcome to add anything you want in. That's the point. If you want to assume that God directed any process, go ahead. If you want to assume it was God who started the big bang, go ahead. Science doesn't say you can't. Science doesn't care. You really need to stop with your conspiracy theories and this ridiculous notion that science is out to prove there is no god. It's simply not true, no matter how many times you say it.
 

MysticPhD

Member
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?
Not tough . . . just a complex synthesis of personal, scientific and mystical that establishes my personal certainty (you would call it faith) about the attributes of God not verified or verifiable by science. Unfortunately, the warm and welcoming reception for my posts here and the judgmental attitudes toward me and my abilities make me reluctant to "cast any pearls." The ridicule and arrogant denigrating remarks about my intellect and knowledge are so boringly symptomatic of the widespread belief that only unintelligent and ignorant morons hold belief in God and would dare to criticize science at all. However, the presence of some here has been sufficiently encouraging to present a summary of the highlights despite the likelihood of further harassment.

My philosophical synthesis was several decades in the making. There is significant detail that must be left out that can make the assertions seem more "out there" than they are. They conform rigidly to what we do know and violate nothing science has actually validated. Of course . . I have the personal and subjective advantage of knowing the reality first and only needing to find an explanation that fits.

My belief in a consciousness that establishes the universal field encompassing our reality is based on my meditation experiences, which are many and suffice to establish to my satisfaction the absolute reality of it. I call this God or Christ consciousness. The characteristics of love and acceptance and oneness with all life are unmistakable and unambiguous . . . and completely reflected in the descriptions of Jesus.

My extensive research of the many religious philosophies fueled my growing belief that they represent an evolution of consciousness (spirituality). It is clearly documented in the many myths, legends, and religious writings through time that I have dubbed the "spiritual fossil record. "They reveal an undenial pattern in this "fossil record" that points to the existence of a "spiritual DNA" (or design) built in to the evolution of spiritual understanding. This is obviously related to the evolution and composition of the brain (Genes) and their activation/deactivation (Epigenetic).

The character of total human consciousness is a product of all the individuals that comprise it. Each individual either adds to or detracts from this total development. It is inescapable.The sum total of human consciousness as it has evolved from the very beginning is just that - a sum total. Everything that has ever been thought whether or not it was recorded in written form or any other way is part and parcel of that sum. Everything embodied in that sum defines humanity. All our conscious efforts to shape the evolution and ultimate character of humanity define the purpose of our existence. In explaining the Tao, R.L.Wing described it thus,

. . . If reality came about because the Absolute wanted to know itself, then our evolutionary destiny must be to help it get a good look by investigating, observing, and emulating nature. If we extend the Taoist ideal of a cooperative world-consciousness to universal dimensions, then the universe has but one purpose and evolution moves in one direction: . . . toward the development of a vast network of a nervous system that will bring into existence a conscious mind for the entire universe.

Wing elaborated on this theme from the Tao,

. . . We, as individuals, and even as a world society, are then merely neurons in the growth of . . . a universal brain. We can see the embedded pattern of this growth reflected, for example, in the evolution of our species --- from the simplest brain stem of the lower life forms to the complex brain-mind of humans.

Taoist philosophy addresses this goal of human consciousness,

. . . If individuals do all of their thinking on the physical plane and make little effort on the nonphysical plane --- cultivating intuition, gaining instinctive knowledge of the workings of the universe, and developing the insight to evolve both themselves and their society --- then those lives have no real meaning or significance in terms of the physical reality. This is so because work done on the nonphysical plane is more aligned with the purpose of the universe, and therefore, it has a more powerful effect upon our physical reality. Our inner work influences and evolves the universe, which in turn, evolves our reality.

In plain language, we are cells of consciousness designed to produce the very consciousness of God, or at least our designated cellular portions thereof. All of our universe is merely the environment for God's continuous reproduction.

Our Composite consciousness (self) means our awareness, and that first awareness had to be the concept of "I am." In sensing this "I," our first observer was learning that he was not his thumb or his foot. The "in here" experience was "I." The "out there" experience was "it."

. . . It is thought that perhaps three thousand or more years ago, people were not able to distinguish the "out there" from the "in here" or "I am" experience. They may have been only dimly aware of their capacity to make such a distinction.

Before the evolution of our true consciousness, we were simply clever, semi-aware animals, occasionally following the voices of “gods” in our heads. The two halves of our brains were functioning more or less separately. The conscious left brain wasn’t yet considered an integrated part of us, hence the “gods” in our heads. The appropriate physical connections were not yet completed. These connections with "God" were sporadic but they spurred human development in the desired direction at each stage of the evolution of human consciousness.

There is an analogue in the development of human physical capabilities that is similar to this basic problem facing humankinds' infant consciousness. An infant does not have certain reflexes and cannot perform certain physical actions until the proper nerve connections have grown together sufficiently to enable synaptic firing. No amount of exercise or training can overcome these conditions until the infant's growth and development has progressed to the necessary stage.

Julian Jaynes suggested that our species suffered its first nervous breakdown three thousand years or so ago when the physical connections between the hemispheres of our brain coalesced to enable communication. We finally became aware of ourselves as "I" people. The improved consciousness that evolved from this “breakdown” mainly manifested itself in the minds and dreams of “prophets” in forms suitable to the still meager intellectual capabilities of the time. This could account for all the "prophesies" during that era. It certainly makes more understandable the Hebrew word for the God that appeared to Moses, YahWeh, or "I Am."

A word is an abstract phenomenon of consciousness and exists only where consciousness exists. A word is a series of symbols grouped together, which when taken as a composite whole, creates in a being with a composite consciousness an abstract realization or "knowingness" that we recognize as the condition of having meaning. When our cerebral cortex (brain) produces this abstract "knowingness" condition, it is producing composite consciousness. The spiritual meaning in John 1:1, therefore, took on more significance for me,

. . . In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.

And John 1:14 regarding Jesus,

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Unfortunately, before Jesus Christ, despite our evolving sense of “I” and rudimentary reasoning abilities, humankind's infant consciousness was incapable of experiencing God's consciousness until a human (Jesus) did so and completed the "spiritual synaptic connections."

A human mind from this physical plane of existence had to produce a consciousness that perfectly resonates with the consciousness of God. My research and experiences convince me that the consciousness that was produced by the mind of Jesus became one with the consciousness of God, and simultaneously, remains part of the existing collective human consciousness.

It is in this manner that Christ is the Way to God. As Paul said in Ephesians 2:18 ". . . because through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father." The consciousness that each one of us produces and to which we ascribe our individual nature, character, and essence can also attain oneness with God through this "spiritual synapse" created by the consciousness of Jesus Christ within our collective human consciousness.

The evolutionary blueprint in legends, myths and scripture was finally fulfilled by Jesus Christ as the source of the consciousness I experience in the meditative end state, IMO. While my selection of Christ and the conclusions about His significance as the "Way" are identical to the conclusions in the many versions of Christianity . . . the intervening rationale is quite different requiring no belief in magic words professing belief or irrational denials of ANY scientific findings. What we do know is fully compatible with my rationale. What distinguishes my certainty from any atheists is entirely based on my experiences in meditation . . . which are absolutely conclusive for ME.
 
Last edited:

MysticPhD

Member
…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.
I ignored no explanations . . . probabilities explain nothing. The issue is confusing the use of percentages (probabilities) which are descriptions of expected frequency of occurrence (chance) . . . with knowledge of the actual source of the occurrences. Chance is not a source . . . it reflects our ignorance of the source.
I shall have to give some frubals to the person who correctly called ID-er.
You are free to abandon any rational argument to label me with that fraudulent organization so you can ignore any further engagement . . . but don't pretend you are justified.
No. Just more rambling to try and sound intelligent
How does someone unintelligent sound intelligent?
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.
I have done my best to explain it . . . that you don't see it is symptomatic. It is so taken for granted that it isn't recognized for what it is.
 
Last edited:

MysticPhD

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

This implies that you believe there are two categories of explanations, "natural" and "God-willed". And just above that post you stated to PaintedWolf:
No . . . it means there are two NAMES for the same processes based on the schism I tried to explain.
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"?
How do you differentiate between the things you consciously control and those you don't . . . they are ALL YOU.
 

MysticPhD

Member
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.
I am being completely honest with no agenda. I absolutely believe everything I have been saying.
 

MysticPhD

Member
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?
Yes.
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?
I did my best in the summary of my synthesis to explain it.
When you say you know this, is it because of a personal revelatory mystical profound intense experience?
Yes . . . my atheism was eliminated by my achievement of the end state in deep meditation under conscious control. That led to decades of searching to make sense out of it all.
 

MysticPhD

Member
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.
I am not lying and I don't believe any of you are lying. What we take for granted we never question. I am seeking to break through that "given in the inner consciousness" lack of awareness of the true implications of creating a "nature" as the subject of investigation driving the assumptions of science. Apparently my attempt failed.
 

MysticPhD

Member
What, that science does not address the existence of god... yes, it has been mentioned.
Rather wimpy . . . a very clear . . ."science has not and cannot learn anything that would make the existence of God less likely." I know . . . fat chance.
But the focus of our science classes is to learn to be scientists. We discuss field techniques, experimental design, scientific writing and the vast array of specialized areas of knowledge like ecology and physiology.wa:do
No argument!
 
Last edited:

MysticPhD

Member
You're more than welcome to add anything you want in. That's the point. If you want to assume that God directed any process, go ahead. If you want to assume it was God who started the big bang, go ahead. Science doesn't say you can't. Science doesn't care. You really need to stop with your conspiracy theories and this ridiculous notion that science is out to prove there is no god. It's simply not true, no matter how many times you say it.
I will accept that it is NOT a goal of science . . . just an unintended consequence of the unaddressed misunderstanding of the implications our mathematical non-explanations give to the average person. Math is not the strong suit of the masses.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Rather wimpy . . . a very clear . . ."science has not and cannot learn anything that would make the existence of God less likely." I know . . . fat chance.
Actually it was more like... "Science can not say anything about the existence or non-existence of God." Perhaps with a follow up of "anyone want to explain why?"

wa:do
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
MysticPhD,

it means there are two NAMES for the same processes based on the schism I tried to explain
Then you should have absolutely no objection to any sort of natural explanation for any phenomenon, be it "by chance" or otherwise. If we say mutations happen via errors in natural chemical processes, that is a natural explanation (even if we say the errors are random). And if you believe "natural = god", then you have no basis for objecting to the explanation.

How do you differentiate between the things you consciously control and those you don't . . . they are ALL YOU
You didn't answer the questions: 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"?
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I will accept that it is NOT a goal of science . . . just an unintended consequence of the unaddressed misunderstanding of the implications our mathematical non-explanations give to the average person. Math is not the strong suit of the masses.

You're going to make me say this as many different ways as possible, huh? It's not even an unintended consequence. It's not science's fault if some people, you included, take it that way. Science doesn't say or imply that there is no God.

Also, you did say earlier that it was a goal of science. Remember the whole "They found design, but decided to refuse to accept it and found any way they could to explain it away" thing? So, this would seem to be backtracking from you.

Rather wimpy . . . a very clear . . ."science has not and cannot learn anything that would make the existence of God less likely." I know . . . fat chance.

Um...that's been said, too. Pay attention. Science has and can, however, learn things that make certain aspects of some gods or religions less likely. Regardless, in case you missed, no one here thinks that science can find evidence that God doesn't exist. Just as it can't find evidence that God does exist. It would help if you read the other replies here, instead of ust continuing to post.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
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?

So, if I can sum it up:
In your search for God, and the meaning of life, you have read several books (i.e. Tao Te Ching, Bible, etc.) that led you into a few decades of meditation. Sometime during those decades of meditation the peyote kicked in, allowing you to coin such neat phrases as "spiritual fossil record" and "God contingent".
Naturally, the mescaline allowed you to complete the journey, wherein the rest of humanity began using science in a diabolical scheme to discredit your pantheistic beliefs (which, coincidentally, adhere to the Christian construct and recognize Jesus as the son of God).

I think I've got it.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?
- Bob Dylan
 
Top