-
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!
Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?
- Thread starter LegionOnomaMoi
- Start date
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The group soul of the ant colony....which is not discontinuous with higher spirit,,,
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Worthless rhetoric..
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
God is omnipresent....there is nothing that exists where God is not present....matter and energy are in essence one....God is the source of all life...Oh no. Now also ant colonies have a soul
Do you think it is immortal?
Ciao
- viole
God sleeps in the rock,
Dreams in the plant,
Stirs in the animal,
And Awakens in Man. - Al Arabi ...Sufi tradition....
--------------------------------------
A Theosophical perspective....
Analogously, preceding the materialization of a building such as a great cathedral, there must be a conception in the architect’s mind, followed by plans, followed by the actualization of the building from those plans. Thus an edifice has “evolved” from an idea. Or it may be defined as the coming into visibility of what was invisible, or the bringing into activity of something that was until then only a latent possibility.
The point is, whatever evolves must have some antecedent existence, whether mental or physical. The seed, according to Blavatsky, has within it an ideal design or plan (as Plato would have agreed), though each of its embodiments in nature is idiosyncratic and unique, since no tree or plant or leaf is identical to any other.
One might say that Blavatsky integrated the idea of evolution with the venerable idea of the universal hierarchy of being. Thus stated, the hierarchical principle is no longer rigid; it has become the working principle of a dynamic process involving all levels of being, “a progressive development toward a higher life.” In her emphasis on process, Blavatsky foreshadowed the present shift in science from static or structure-oriented to process-oriented thinking.
Blavatsky delineates a journey in consciousness, encompassing a hierarchy of levels of being of which terrestrial evolution is a small but integral part. This journey begins with the involutionary arc of world formation, in which the emphasis is upon the geological development of material substances, followed by the evolutionary arc, wherein all beings, all life forms are coparticipants, first developing individuality and a sense of self through proliferation of species, then gradually, through conscious experience, realizing their unity and oneness with the source of being, which is divine and ineffable.
Thinking Aloud: Blavatsky on Evolution - Theosophical Society in America
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I don't see it. It doesn't make sense. Look at it this way - it is usually VERY easy to see the differences between something man-made and something organically crafted. For instance, the difference between a cathedral and an ant hill. The cathedral is angular, made from disparate materials, decorated - all evidence of IDEAS having been behind each decision, as you stated. However the anthill is crafted out of necessity. It is not more, nor less than it needs to be. It is "sloppy", organic, free-formed, the only driving idea being that of survival. Obviously following patterns, but not created/crafted with a "conception" or greater "love" for the object in any way. Why is it not possible to also extend that understanding of a lack of love and lack of idea-driven creation to the universe? It is also "sloppy", free-form, messy, nothing more than it needs to be, no care taken in development of any given object within it - the rules of physics aside - which are very much constants and are therefore not (according to my belief) subject to the idea of needing to have been "created".
And I would argue that the difference from man-made to organically crafted is comparable to the difference between organically crafted and "cosmic". Meaning, the abstraction one can see between man-made objects and general life-of-earth-crafted ones is a certain amount of abstraction, and that the rest of the "untamed" cosmos is therefore only further abstracted from that idea of "creator and creation".
outhouse
Atheistically
No your unsupported opinion has been proven to be in error.
A court of law has deemed ID as pseudoscience.
it Is not supported biblically or scientifically in any way shape or form, and you have presented NOTHING to support your position.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Do you understand the meaning of analogy...?
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Your appeal to the authority of a court of law is a joke yes?
Besides, ID is merely a conceptualization of reality, as is evolutionary theory....they are models of reality meant to represent reality...but the truth is forever on the other side..
You fail to understand that on matters concerning the bigger picture,,,conceptual representation can never capture the whole because the cosmos is one...and is ordered....call it what like....but nothing happens by chance.....
Sapiens
Polymathematician
It's one of the few authorities our society permits and appeal to.
No, ID is a make believe, coy, placeholder for creationism. There is no scientific data to support it. It is not a scientific discipline.
No one except you and your fellow travelers would say that, get off your strawman hobby horse and go back to quote mining.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
....so? ..that still doesn't make it any the less ridiculous an argument...
No mortal, singular or plural, understands what this cosmos is wholly about...contemporary science, primitive as it is cosmically speaking, has just in relatively recent times learned that they have only been dealing with 5% physical matter of the universe... The elitism of the ignorant worshipers of the 'church' of scientism...give me a break!
...notice anything folks? I made a point as a relevant stand alone comment, not to divert attention from anything....and here comes Sapiens, ignoring to address it on the basis of it being a strawman...and thus creating a strawman to avoid responding to it.. So I repeat it and ask you, if you think it unsound....point out where the error is...."You fail to understand that on matters concerning the bigger picture,,,conceptual representation can never capture the whole because the cosmos is one...and is ordered....call it what you like....but nothing happens by chance.....'
.. ps..this is not meant to be a strawman, so ignore it you will, but since you trust in contemporary science as an ultimate authority on reality.....a simple question...electrons are universally ubiquitous in matter...what are they made of?
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Why do you post a link that does not address the question?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
See the first line of the fourth paragraph here: Electron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But how is this relevant to the topic?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Because contemporary science does not even know what the ubiquitous so called particle is made of....go get a life...
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
It's off topic, a straw-man.
Instead of continually attacking science, why don't you produce some evidence for intelligent design?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Of course I do. I was merely using the subject of your own analogy to make my own point that was counter to your "there must be a creator because the 'creation' is so deterministic" nonsense - that being the degradation of ideation behind subsequent forms of reality. The man-made structure, to the animal-made, to the naturally formed to the unformed. I was perfectly within my rights to use your "analogous" object of choice. So what's your prob man?
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes it does.
ID is pseudoscience. It amounts to theistic imagination to combat how far science has pushed creationist into a corner with knowledge and education that has shined its light in what creation mythology actually is, and how much of it has been removed from any possible reality in our knowledge.
So ID was a modern invention from desperate theist with absolutely no evidence to support it, to save creationism from reality.
outhouse
Atheistically
Speak for yourself. We have a good enough grasp to not inject mythology into the gaps of our knowledge.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No one understands what the cosmos is all about, but some of us can clearly demonstrate, both by data and honesty of behavior that we are on the correct path. Our understanding grows daily. The "churches" already have their answers and must spend their time force-fitting an ever unfolding reality to their bronze-age mythology that has never been correct, but like Ptolemy's model of the solar system was "common sense" back before the reality was known.
There was noting there to respond to save a strawman. As I suggested ... if your going to lie, use the lie you're better at ... a quote mine.
Science does not, "to understand that on matters concerning the bigger picture." Science works to account for what is known and does not, like the "churches" make it up as they go along, opposing the advance of knowledge so that they may continue to wallow in the mudhole of ancient ignorance.
The point is (and there you go with another strawman) that contemporary science does not set itself up as "an ultimate authority on reality," but merely represents itself as the best available way to explain the universe and make accurate, demonstrable predictions. The best the "churches" can do is to demand that people have "faith" even though the best that the "churches" can do are not the accurate models of the universe that lead to powerful predictions but rather, apocryphal babble.