godnotgod
Thou art That
Break down? I am not the cop out here. Ready and waiting on this end. Got anything meaningful to say?
C:\.............??????
-
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!
Question on Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Break down? I am not the cop out here. Ready and waiting on this end. Got anything meaningful to say?
C:\.............??????
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Both!
"Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is not a god, but a great rock, and the sun a hot rock."
Anaxagoras
"In any city with lots of skyscrapers, lots of skyline, the moon seems bigger than it is. It's called the moon illusion.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
"
Why Do People See Faces in the Moon?
Our brains are hard-wired to find meaningful images in random lines and shapes—even if those figures are on the moon.
"In Western cultures, perhaps the most familiar vision is "the man in the moon." In East Asian cultures, moon-gazers might point to a rabbit; in India, a pair of hands. From ancient times to the modern era, from different spots on the globe, a tree, a woman, and a toad have all been found hiding in the moon's shining face."
Why Do People See Faces in the Moon?
godnotgod
Thou art That
If they are outside your consciousness, where does your consciousness end and Sun and moon begin?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Neil should try getting out into the real world sometime, the effect is far greater when the moon rises over a dark lake accompanied by birds and insects instead street lights and cars!
The moon lets us see the universe, we would know far less about creation without it
godnotgod
Thou art That
SECOND REQUEST:
I am going to take your advice and attempt another approach in our discussion.
You pretty much stated that you believe in the Buddha's teachings. For starters, I need to know if you give credence to the message of the Heart Sutra, particularly that of Sunyata, which says that all phenomena, including man, has no inherent self-nature. Do you understand the message and agree with that?
godnotgod
Thou art That
Poor Anaxagoras!
Anaxagoras only sees a dead 'rock' in a subject/object split because such a view is a limited view. He does not see Sun and moon in context of the greater whole of The Universe, and The Universe as what it is. He sees them only in terms of how they are determined to be what they are via rational thought. This is the mistake atheists and theists alike both make. They see man as just a collection of atoms and molecules, a chemical factory, or as just the artifact clay figure of their creator-God. IOW, they see reality in terms of their conditioned description of reality, not as Reality itself.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
First, you asked me
"Answer my question: Are the Sun and moon within or outside of your consciousness?"
I said Both!
Then you asked me
"If they are outside your consciousness, where does your consciousness end and Sun and moon begin?"
The sun and the moon formed about 5 billion years ago.
You Can't figure it out from my earlier reply to the first question? Because it answers your second question as well.
When you do you'll be able to "SEE the light."
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I am sure he does, but he is explaining a certain phenomenon that is an illusion created in the brain by the buildings against the horizon.
Why the Moon Looks Bigger on Some Nights than It Does on Others
"The moon looks HUGE some nights, right? Well, yes, sort of, to you—but only because your tiny human brain contextualizes it as larger sometimes than others. It's never actually any closer. It's just a confluence of a few different optical illusions screwing with your head."
"So here's what happens. First, the moon seems larger, usually, when it's near the horizon. One reason for the is that there are more reference points, like trees and buildings, to compare to the moon. When it's just sitting alone, high in the night sky, the moon just looks "regular" sized. It's the Ebbinghaus effect—you look taller standing next to a child than you would standing next to Shaq. The other thing is that our brains are used to things on the horizon shrinking, since that typically means they're farther away. So when the moon doesn't shrink as it crosses the horizon, years of understanding perspective kicks in and tells us the moon got humongous. So there you go. Your brain is dumb, and the moon is just the moon. [YouTube]"
http://gizmodo.com/5954460/why-the-moon-looks-bigger-on-some-nights-than-it-does-on-others
"The moon lets us see the universe, we would know far less about creation without it"
The moon formed by a random act in the formation of the solar system by a planet the size of Mars slamming into the early Earth as it was forming.
The impact was so great the Earth might not have formed in the first place.
A little note here:
It was "the second son of the eminent naturalist Charles Darwin"
who
"English astronomer who championed the theory that the Moon was once part of the Earth, until it was pulled free to form a satellite.
Although he wasn't completely right.
"His great achievement was that he was the first to develop a theory of evolution for the Sun–Earth–Moon system based on mathematical analysis" in geophysical theory.
Sir George Darwin | British astronomer
Guy, I think you were talking more about the aesthetics of the moon and I am sure that is not lost on Neil.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Anaxagoras
"lord of the assembly"; c. 510 – c. 428 BC)
"He introduced the concept of Nous (Mind) as an ordering force, which moved and separated out the original mixture, which was homogeneous, or nearly so.
Of course that was in BC, you know back in the day.
He also gave a number of novel scientific accounts of natural phenomena. He produced a correct explanation for eclipses and described the sun as a fiery mass larger than the Peloponnese, as well as attempting to explain rainbows and meteors."
The sun is not a fiery mass, it is plasma.
Anaxagoras - Wikipedia
"This is the mistake atheists and theists alike both make. They see man as just a collection of atoms and molecules, a chemical factory,"
A huge mistake that has saved many lives.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
I read this definition "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." From Discovery.org. It's another way of saying there is a first cause for natural life rather than it happening randomly.
If I did not know anything at all, a blank slate to any knowledge, and just a human being walking around earth, then I see this huge building with individual bricks. I have no language, no concept, and no way to properly analyze what I see and even more complex how it came to be.
If you saw this building, you'd immediately think someone built it so there must be a First Cause. Yet, life isn't caused by an origin but formed by already pre-existing things.
If someone came and built the house, they are not the first cause. They just made it into a shape we identify as a house. The bricks were already there. It was just moved to creation of one thing of illusion (house doesn't exist) to another.
1. So, one I don't understand how there is such a thing as a First Cause. Can you explain that to me by how I can see a building and conclude the building itself (the actual blocks) did not exist until I started putting it together?
2. Then two, there is Intelligence. Not only does there need to be a cause, it needs to be intelligent? Is that another word for, the cause need to be something that can make a pattern?
For example, if the bricks were spread on the floor, it's no longer what we call a house. So, people disregard it as a lump of bricks. But when it's built into a house, then they find value into it.
3. Why do you find value in intelligence (or pattern?) and not that things exist in and of itself?
A lump of bricks is just as valuable (if we, again, had no definition of reference of what that means to us humans) than the house it is made from. That, and it's an illusion to think there is such thing as a house built by nature.
4. So are you guys looking far more into a pattern that does not exist from nature's perspective?
All I said above has nothing to do with god. It is just asking how there is a first cause, what does it mean, and the definition and function of it being intelligent.
5. If there was a god or creator (Entity that creates without referred to any specific religion), that adds some more confusion to my head. If there is an entity, what is the nature of this entity?
7. If you were to describe First Cause other than it being, well, the First cause, how would you describe what it is?
Then go a bit further.
8. How in the world did you come up with the First Cause being a Who?
Take your time. I do want answers to these questions from both creationist, non-creationist, and those in between.
I don't know anything about evolution and never was into it. What I do know but would like to go to our local museum since it was there that we came from water. So, I'd like to explore that more. But again, that doesn't mean there is a first cause just a place of origin.
Perhaps the difference between something created and random chance is something created has a defined purpose. Example; the brick you found could have purpose used by an intelligent person but it also could be random chance. When one gets to the brick house, the odds of being created increase simply by the number of random occurrences needed to form the house. If one finds plumbing, windows and furniture, I would say it's a safe assumption that creation was involved. It is statistically unlikely that so many different random occurrences could generate such diversity within such a small area.
Intelligence breeds more intelligence. One can now examine the house and learn about it's creator and possibly learn creation methods on our own.
How deep does the rabbit hole go? Once we gain knowledge from the house and it's creator, new ideas for discovery will rise. What else can be discovered? What else has purpose and design around such complexity, time and space which tells us it is a creation? The Journey has started. If one continues, one walks toward creation itself.
These are the methods I use. AS I see it. All the secrets of the universe stare us in the face. It's here for us to discover and understand.
As I see it, God created the universe to unfold and grow into what we have today and beyond just like a seed grows into a giant tree. Evolution, fractals and quantum entanglement fit well into this. The beauty is that it was created to unfold in such a way that we would be able to figure it all out in time.
I think it is ok to seek out trying to discover what is actually happening around us even while not believing in God.
AS I see it, God's greatest moment is when the light bulb goes off over one of His children's head and they Understand. Walking this path takes lots of work along with much intelligence. There is so very must to learn and discover. Who knows? God might notice your efforts and your struggles to attain intelligence and might bump into you if you are ready.
As I see it, we were always meant to know and discover rather than stop at simple believing.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I was asking you about the half of your question that pertains only to them being on the outside.
I don't care when they were formed; I am asking about you looking at them NOW.
godnotgod
Thou art That
But now modern medicine is slowly coming around to include spirituality and consciousness in healing to that of chemistry. You see? Mystics embrace science AND spirituality in a holistic sense, while science has had blinders on for centuries, while dismissing other methodologies as bunk. Sheer ignorance.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I am not looking at them now.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Mystics and snake oil salesmen have killed millions.
Modern medicine like penicillin?
Modern medicine and science is taking on a more holistic approach as scientists do peer review on how the human body works, "atoms and molecules, a chemical factory" and the brain. They have switched, from Descartes (mind and body were sperate) to mind and body is one, as the science has progressed a lot.
If I break my arm, I am going to a specialist who for one can do X-rays, not to a Mystic.
"science has had blinders on for centuries"
Science doesn't work they way you seem to think it does. Your statement is not new and cracks me up as you state it using your computer.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Hmmm
This would depend if I already had a pre assumption that something that exists must have an origin. In what we know, if there is a home, plumbing, et cetera we'd assume by definition of what we're taught, houses are for shelter. Then you have other people define home as a place where family gathers. A place of family unity.
In nature, there is no "defined origin" because nothing is created. The house wasn't created. The bricks already existed. If I were blank slate, seeing life fresh as it is without human bias, how would I determine if it's just me making the pattern into something that has no pattern or there is a pattern inherent in life regardless of how I label it?
Humans and animals seek patterns. Life, in and of itself, doesn't have a pattern but what we try to make it. The house isn't a house just bricks put on top of each other. It's no different than random bricks on the floor. Those random bricks have pattern too.
Another trick with this is take a sheet of blank paper out and get a marker. Make one medium sized dot. Then make another dot. Then the third dot, try to make it random that it does not organize itself with the other dots. If you can get to five dots without any connection that's good. If you can get to ten, that's better. Even in the smallest, our brains are hardwired to find patterns so we can predict what will happen and it also keeps us safe by extracting things we already know to interpret events around us.
That's how we "create god." We naturally find patterns around us, and because we can make dots with patterns unintentionally, there has to be a creator that can do the same with random elements of nature.
It's an assumption based on our brains to find pattern. However, life's randomness isn't defined by how we interpret life. So, the closest we can get is life does not pop into thin air and nothing disappears. Nothing is created. Man hasn't figured out how to bring things from nothing or make matter disappear; so, it's all assumptions.
Since it's an assumption and life isn't created but form from by action of already existing elements, intelligence would need to define an action not an origin or creator.
There was a question maybe you can answer:
A mother and father didn't create a child. The egg already existed. The sperm already existed. They had sex and between egg and sperm, it formed a child just as bricks put together form a building.
I wouldn't call life creation but since we're in a god-living environment, I can't think of another word.
We can discover the house without attributing it to the builder. The builder didn't create the house (the actual pieces), he just created the design and put one brick on the other in an organized fashion.
He formed the house not created it.
Maybe creator isn't a good term for the formation of life and the universe beyond earth. I like the word active spirit of life.
Also, I find it odd to refer to the creator as a person. Since we are people, I assume it's based on a reflection of ourselves to understand the relationship of origin of life and the result of it. Outside of us, how would one explain it.
This would depend if I already had a pre assumption that something that exists must have an origin. In what we know, if there is a home, plumbing, et cetera we'd assume by definition of what we're taught, houses are for shelter. Then you have other people define home as a place where family gathers. A place of family unity.
In nature, there is no "defined origin" because nothing is created. The house wasn't created. The bricks already existed. If I were blank slate, seeing life fresh as it is without human bias, how would I determine if it's just me making the pattern into something that has no pattern or there is a pattern inherent in life regardless of how I label it?
Humans and animals seek patterns. Life, in and of itself, doesn't have a pattern but what we try to make it. The house isn't a house just bricks put on top of each other. It's no different than random bricks on the floor. Those random bricks have pattern too.
Another trick with this is take a sheet of blank paper out and get a marker. Make one medium sized dot. Then make another dot. Then the third dot, try to make it random that it does not organize itself with the other dots. If you can get to five dots without any connection that's good. If you can get to ten, that's better. Even in the smallest, our brains are hardwired to find patterns so we can predict what will happen and it also keeps us safe by extracting things we already know to interpret events around us.
That's how we "create god." We naturally find patterns around us, and because we can make dots with patterns unintentionally, there has to be a creator that can do the same with random elements of nature.
It's an assumption based on our brains to find pattern. However, life's randomness isn't defined by how we interpret life. So, the closest we can get is life does not pop into thin air and nothing disappears. Nothing is created. Man hasn't figured out how to bring things from nothing or make matter disappear; so, it's all assumptions.
Since it's an assumption and life isn't created but form from by action of already existing elements, intelligence would need to define an action not an origin or creator.
There was a question maybe you can answer:
Can you explain that to me by how I can see a building and conclude the building itself (the actual blocks) did not exist until I started putting it together?
The house wasn't created as I put the bricks together, since the bricks already existed. When you say something is created, how is it created when I first started putting the house together from what was already present?
Is there another word beside creation one can use?
The house wasn't created as I put the bricks together, since the bricks already existed. When you say something is created, how is it created when I first started putting the house together from what was already present?
Is there another word beside creation one can use?
A mother and father didn't create a child. The egg already existed. The sperm already existed. They had sex and between egg and sperm, it formed a child just as bricks put together form a building.
I wouldn't call life creation but since we're in a god-living environment, I can't think of another word.
We can discover the house without attributing it to the builder. The builder didn't create the house (the actual pieces), he just created the design and put one brick on the other in an organized fashion.
He formed the house not created it.
Maybe creator isn't a good term for the formation of life and the universe beyond earth. I like the word active spirit of life.
Also, I find it odd to refer to the creator as a person. Since we are people, I assume it's based on a reflection of ourselves to understand the relationship of origin of life and the result of it. Outside of us, how would one explain it.
godnotgod
Thou art That
godnotgod
Thou art That
That's just your slant. Truth is, 'science' as it applies to medicine, is very political, the HMO's and Big Pharma a case in point.
Most of the 'wonder' drugs science and technology have come up with have deleterious side effects that can even lead to death. You see the law firms raking in mega bucks everyday as they advertise on TV, outlining the details of class action lawsuits where these drugs have gone terribly wrong.
The progress of mind/body integration thinking is not so much because of science's progress, but because alternative medicine, like acupuncture and ayurveda, and the application of spiritual and contemplative practices, such as meditation, yoga, and chanting have proven themselves as powerful healing forces.
Last I heard, penicillin had run into big trouble as target bacteria had mutated quickly and efficiently to overcome it's efficacy.
Last edited:
Laughing Coyote
Member
I think by unguided he meant not teleological, that is, not by something outside of life and its conditions.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
It's interesting because the other inner rocky planets don't really have moons to speak of, a couple of rocks.. its improbable for any small inner planet to acquire good sized moons like the giants do. while our moon is so large that we have a practical binary system, and a system crucial for life as we know it,
Moreover- the most interesting thing about the actual relative size and distance of the sun and moon;
The moon's disk 'just happens' to perfectly match that of the sun's during eclipses.. masking it's direct light, revealing the corona, which allows us to study the composition of our own star and hence deduct much of the composition of the visible universe... Many cosmologists have remarked on how much less we would know about the cosmos without this.
Yet one more extraordinary coincidence? That's not technically impossible of course, but I think there are less improbable explanations..
Yes, God designed the moon as an aid to cosmologists. Sounds plausible. Understandably. He probably realized how useless His Scriptures are in this area.
Ciao
- viole