Mother Nature vs. God?

[Thief]

I hope you realise that genes don't work like that?

Go ahead...state your perspective.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Go ahead...state your perspective.

Why? You'll simply disregard it and replace it with some unsupported theory that 'god made us'.
Look, please, go and read a book on evolution via natural selection, please. Or The God Delusion, or something. Debating with somebody so closed-minded is impossible.

 

[Thief]

Why? You'll simply disregard it and replace it with some unsupported theory that 'god made us'.
Look, please, go and read a book on evolution via natural selection, please. Or The God Delusion, or something. Debating with somebody so closed-minded is impossible.

Not impossible...just difficult.

Especially when you already know...God did it.

Sorry dude.
You're participating in a religious forum.
Did you really expect something else?

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Not impossible...just difficult.

Especially when you already know...God did it.

Sorry dude.
You're participating in a religious forum.
Did you really expect something else?

Don't tar everyone here with the same brush as you. I am sure there are some open-minded believers here who actually listen, but you are certainly not one of them.

 

[camanintx]

Five senses all geared to expose your mind to physical reality.

I see a story about a little puddle in your future.

 

[Anonymouse]

Josefly-You totally dodged my questions:
Do you think each research project into the origins of life is intended to "discover the origin of life" once and for all, and barring that, they are each a complete failure?

Josefly, this is how our exchange would be playing out if we were talking about religion.

ANONYMOUSE: Yes, but how do we know that the prophets in the Bible were actually in direct communication with a One True God. Do you have evidence of this?
JOSEFLY: Well we have the Bible. Have your read it?
ANONYMOUSE: Again, how do you know the prophets of the Bible were in direct contact with the Almighty Being called God.
JOSEFLY: Did you know that the church does a lot of charity work?

In other words, if I am asking you if science has discovered the origin of life and you reveal to me a $96.00 pill that regulates diabetes that was invented as a direct result of that research, I may be impressed (more so if I had diabetes) but it gets me no closer to the truthful answer about how life originated on this planet.

Josefly-What specific papers on origins research have you read?

The only news I received on origin research was explained to Amill in post #99.

Anonymouse-The last information I received about theoretical evolution origins was the embarrassing “crystal-back riding” molecules theory and the belief that the planet could have been directly or indirectly seeded which may hint towards Intelligence Design but asks more questions than answers.

Have there been any new developments?

Josefly-And to answer your question, if I were going to spend $2 million on research into the origins of life, I would first I would first make sure I understood what I was funding, which would lead to an understanding that science isn't like a vending machine where you put your quarter in, push the button, and instantly get whatever you selected.

That’s why I was used my money when I proposed the example. For you see, I would be a bit disappointed if I put my money in the vending machine for a $100,000 bar and a Zero candy bar came out instead.

 

[Thief]

Don't tar everyone here with the same brush as you. I am sure there are some open-minded believers here who actually listen, but you are certainly not one of them.

Yeah right....
And we don't share the sunlight...the air we breath....etc etc etc

And look who's talking about a lack of open-mindedness.

It's really all the same for all of us.

 

[Gunfingers]

I think a lot of this is predicated on a misunderstanding of the term "random". The term can mean many things.

In the truest sense "random" means "having no cause". An effect without at cause is possible, and in fact much of what we know about atomic decay and the behavior of certain subatomic particles demonstrates this.

Idea is using a variation of the definition "having cause that is complex and infeasible to predict." In her variation she assumes that the inability to predict is based on a lack of comprehension behind the mechanics of mutation, so she believes we use the term "random" as excuse making. Of course any biologist can tell you that the way genes mutate is an understood process, but, as per the above definition, the process is complex and any individual result is unrealistic to predict.

The way we generally use "random" when describing mutation, however, is simply "unguided". In other words evolution is random because it has no specific purpose.

 

[Thief]

I think a lot of this is predicated on a misunderstanding of the term "random". The term can mean many things.

In the truest sense "random" means "having no cause". An effect without at cause is possible, and in fact much of what we know about atomic decay and the behavior of certain subatomic particles demonstrates this.

Idea is using a variation of the definition "having cause that is complex and infeasible to predict." In her variation she assumes that the inability to predict is based on a lack of comprehension behind the mechanics of mutation, so she believes we use the term "random" as excuse making. Of course any biologist can tell you that the way genes mutate is an understood process, but, as per the above definition, the process is complex and any individual result is unrealistic to predict.

The way we generally use "random" when describing mutation, however, is simply "unguided". In other words evolution is random because it has no specific purpose.

It has been a long standing axiom of science.....
There is no effect without a cause.. and no cause without an effect.

That you cannot demonstrate the cause, does not indicate it's nonexistence.
It's there.

The unpredictable effect is deemed random.
The cause is there ....seen or not...and the result is sure though an exact description will be elusive.

The flight of a dandelion seed cannot be plotted.
But it is likely to produce another dandelion when it lands and takes root.

How far will it drift in the breeze?...unknown.
Will it land and take root for sure?...unknown.
Taking root will it survive to reproduce again?....unknown.

That you don't know doesn't mean you can't be sure.
We will have more of the same.

Likewise...higher forms of life.
Live to breed another day?...likely.
Double the population every so often?....likely.

God behind it all?....for sure.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Yeah right....
And we don't share the sunlight...the air we breath....etc etc etc

And look who's talking about a lack of open-mindedness.

It's really all the same for all of us.

So, you're claiming that everyone here is identical to you?
....errm....
yeah, ok. That's not true, is it? Everyone is different. Those analogies make no sense in relation to our topic.

 

[Thief]

So, you're claiming that everyone here is identical to you?
....errm....
yeah, ok. That's not true, is it? Everyone is different. Those analogies make no sense in relation to our topic.

I give you space to read between the lines...and you fail.

I did not say everyone is identical.

 

[Gunfingers]

It has been a long standing axiom of science.....
There is no effect without a cause.. and no cause without an effect.

That you cannot demonstrate the cause, does not indicate it's nonexistence.
It's there.

The unpredictable effect is deemed random.
The cause is there ....seen or not...and the result is sure though an exact description will be elusive.

The flight of a dandelion seed cannot be plotted.
But it is likely to produce another dandelion when it lands and takes root.

How far will it drift in the breeze?...unknown.
Will it land and take root for sure?...unknown.
Taking root will it survive to reproduce again?....unknown.

That you don't know doesn't mean you can't be sure.
We will have more of the same.

Likewise...higher forms of life.
Live to breed another day?...likely.
Double the population every so often?....likely.

God behind it all?....for sure.

In science we try to base our understanding of the world on evidence, not axioms, and the best evidence indicates that atomic decay, while following predictable trends, is individually random. There are still physicists who maintain the Hidden Variable Hypothesis, but it's not taken seriously.

See, this is what you need to learn about science: if there is no evidence of it it's irrelevant to science. The hidden variable in atomic decay, like your deity, can't be measured, detected, or otherwise impact the world. As such you are free to believe in it, but need to understand that until some evidence surfaces that it actually impacts the world it is scientifically irrelevant.

 

[Thief]

In science we try to base our understanding of the world on evidence, not axioms, and the best evidence indicates that atomic decay, while following predictable trends, is individually random. There are still physicists who maintain the Hidden Variable Hypothesis, but it's not taken seriously.

See, this is what you need to learn about science: if there is no evidence of it it's irrelevant to science. The hidden variable in atomic decay, like your deity, can't be measured, detected, or otherwise impact the world. As such you are free to believe in it, but need to understand that until some evidence surfaces that it actually impacts the world it is scientifically irrelevant.

I understand science well enough.
Was ranked 'superior' among my peers in a nation wide comparison.
But that would be scientifically irrelevant.....wouldn't it?

Until there is evidence ruling out the possibility....
God is behind it all.
God the Creator...the Almighty....use any name you care to.

There's a program on tv...even as I type this response.
Apparently some scientists have put together their viewpoints...
Life after Death.

You might not be willing to address the 'unknown'....
but there are highly intelligent people working to show...what cannot be seen.

And science without it's axioms lacks.....method.

 

[Gunfingers]

I'd...like...to...point...out...that...doing...this...doesn't...make...you...sound...deep...or...convincing...you...are...not...Yoda...

Anyway, solid golf clap on doing well on a science test. I generally only end up in the first or second percentile, so I'm sure you're way smarter than me. But more to the point, arguments from authority are stupid and pointless. "I'm smart so I must be right" is not evidence.

Now, I get that religion is important to you. That's great for you, and I'm not trying to tell you not to believe in God. I'm trying to tell you not to let your belief in God cloud your view of science. Those very smart people that believe in God, and I've read enough of their works to know they do, don't let it get in the way of learning about the natural world.

Stephen Hawking mentions his belief in God several times in his books. But then he goes on to explore how the universe works. He studies cosmology, the formation of the universe, and even the nature of atomic decay. Ken Miller is an evolutionary biologist,and a very strong proponent of evolution over young-earth creationism. He's also a devout catholic.

When you see those great scientists on TV talking about how they believe in god the lesson you need to be taking is not "You'd better believe in god", the lesson is "science works, and is perfectly compatible with religious belief".

 

[Thief]

I'd...like...to...point...out...that...doing...this...doesn't...make...you...sound...deep...or...convincing...you...are...not...Yoda...

Anyway, solid golf clap on doing well on a science test. I generally only end up in the first or second percentile, so I'm sure you're way smarter than me. But more to the point, arguments from authority are stupid and pointless. "I'm smart so I must be right" is not evidence.

Agreed..........................................................I think I eluded to that.

Now, I get that religion is important to you. That's great for you, and I'm not trying to tell you not to believe in God. I'm trying to tell you not to let your belief in God cloud your view of science. Those very smart people that believe in God, and I've read enough of their works to know they do, don't let it get in the way of learning about the natural world.

Stephen Hawking mentions his belief in God several times in his books. But then he goes on to explore how the universe works. He studies cosmology, the formation of the universe, and even the nature of atomic decay. Ken Miller is an evolutionary biologist,and a very strong proponent of evolution over young-earth creationism. He's also a devout catholic.

I hear he did a complete turn about concerning the after life.

When you see those great scientists on TV talking about how they believe in god the lesson you need to be taking is not "You'd better believe in god", the lesson is "science works, and is perfectly compatible with religious belief".

You had better believe in God...correct.
but not for cause of science.....for theological cause.

And science cannot erase belief in God.
But I think you have already eluded to .........................................that.

 

[idav]

What is interesting about following all of these Evolution vs. Creationism threads is the close ambiguous word play that evolutionists employ that comes close to admitting that they may have a deity called Nature. This nature judges what is good, bad, productive, purposeful and still they cannot explain why I do not have a neck like a giraffe, the same life span as a bug or why I cannot fly or live underwater even though my “cousin” could.

When evolutionists speak against creationism I sometimes wonder if there aren’t enough artists in the ToE community. I wonder if sometimes they don’t recognize that the findings of evolution or the chain of events that are discovered doesn’t somehow give the researcher a glimpse into a unique and highly stylized sense of creation (for example, a God (or gods) that has created for the specific purpose of evolving). But what really captures my attention is the way that the ToE community describes nature and I realize then that they may have been following and researching (possibly misunderstanding) a different kind of god. Are highly prominent scientists accurately adhering to the scientific method or are they just promoting and putting all of their faith into Mother Nature?

In order for nature to be some sort of "god" it would imply that nature is willing us into existence and I assure you the ToE is not pushing any sort of notion like that.

 

[lunakilo]

In order for nature to be some sort of "god" it would imply that nature is willing us into existence and I assure you the ToE is not pushing any sort of notion like that.

That depends on you definition of a god.

Does a god have to be sentient?
If not, god does not have a will to impose on us.
You could have a kind of god whose only concern is the laws of nature.

I don't know how godlike such a god is. But if the effect of gods decisions are lange enough then I guess the fact that god needs a brain smaller than that of an earthworm to make the world turn isn't really important

 

[lunakilo]

The program that I am speaking about probably has many designers and was (thoughtfully) developed over many moments (no deadlines). You have to remember, if this program can be hacked (which evidence shows that it can be) was it designed that way (as in programs that encourage user level designs) or are there safeguards? I would assume that there are many programs being researched to find out exactly how much we can get away with nature and to what extent nature pushes back.

I am having a problem making sense of this.

Let us assume that a bunch of designers (gods) developed this program to control the universe and everything in it.

Is the program deterministic?

1. If it is deterministic there is no room for chance, evolution is part of the design. Every single time a new life is created, the outcome is predetermined. I am not here by chance, I am here by design. If I "hack" the program I am not really hacking it, I am just doing as I was "told" to do by the program.
2. If it is not deterministicthere is room for chance not controlled by the designers. The framework of how evolution works may be part of the design, but every time a new life is created the outcome is random (uncontrolled by the designers). Basically what this means is that the gods created the laws of nature and then ran the program.

In relation to the OP:

In the first case nature does not decide anything, the designers decide everything. Unless you call one of the designers Nature and put it in charge of determing 'random' outcoms, then nature is not a god, the designers are gods.

In the second case noone is in control. Nature is just the output of the program combined with a number of dice rolls, and thus again not a god.

Finally, you also have to explain where the designers came from and where they are.
Are they outside our universe and if so how was their universe created?
Are they inside our universe and if so how was tis universe created with them in it?

 

[Thief]

I am having a problem making sense of this.

Let us assume that a bunch of designers (gods) developed this program to control the universe and everything in it.

Is the program deterministic?

1. If it is deterministic there is no room for chance, evolution is part of the design. Every single time a new life is created, the outcome is predetermined. I am not here by chance, I am here by design. If I "hack" the program I am not really hacking it, I am just doing as I was "told" to do by the program.
2. If it is not deterministicthere is room for chance not controlled by the designers. The framework of how evolution works may be part of the design, but every time a new life is created the outcome is random (uncontrolled by the designers). Basically what this means is that the gods created the laws of nature and then ran the program.

In relation to the OP:

In the first case nature does not decide anything, the designers decide everything. Unless you call one of the designers Nature and put it in charge of determing 'random' outcoms, then nature is not a god, the designers are gods.

In the second case noone is in control. Nature is just the output of the program combined with a number of dice rolls, and thus again not a god.

Finally, you also have to explain where the designers came from and where they are.
Are they outside our universe and if so how was their universe created?
Are they inside our universe and if so how was tis universe created with them in it?

So God is working with a test tube...Earth...that must be continually stirred.

The continual churning of chemistry creates random events.
earth quakes, tornadoes, hurricanes......

The life in the test tube must have some of that ability to be random.

Without the 'random'....the life would require exacting conditions....
no 'flex'.

The design of the life needs to be random...flexible.

 

[Anonymouse]

lunakilo-I am having a problem making sense of this.

Let us assume that a bunch of designers (gods) developed this program to control the universe and everything in it.

Is the program deterministic?
1. If it is deterministic there is no room for chance, evolution is part of the design. Every single time a new life is created, the outcome is predetermined. I am not here by chance, I am here by design. If I "hack" the program I am not really hacking it, I am just doing as I was "told" to do by the program.
2. If it is not deterministicthere is room for chance not controlled by the designers. The framework of how evolution works may be part of the design, but every time a new life is created the outcome is random (uncontrolled by the designers). Basically what this means is that the gods created the laws of nature and then ran the program.

Your first example does not leave much room for an individual's purpose or personality.

I’m going to lean towards your second example. There are some laws of nature that humans do not (yet) have the intelligence to hack or mod and there may be laws that are set not to be tampered with (if only for the purpose that the program runs efficiently). If one can get into the mind of the programmer, one can find evidence that some natural laws were designed so that they should run by themselves (without any outside influence having to constantly observe or fix it) while some laws could be bypassed and experimented with (creative software that allows others to share in the creativity).

Lunakilo-Finally, you also have to explain where the designers came from and where they are.

Experience has taught me that nothing is created unless thought is first applied. So there may have been an original entity (who thought itself into existence) but I do not share in the concept that this entity created everyone or everything. I have no preference whether these designers occupy a physical or spiritual form. Part of my philosophy is that some of these (spiritual) “gods” (designers, programmers) could now currently be active players (enrolled in a physical experience).