Theistic Evolution?

[leibowde84]

in the nt book of 1 john 4:8 god is understood as love. this isn't something new.

love = god

like krishna was the god of love

http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/krishna.htm#.Vpqc6VJ36vA


here we see the same idea as god with the word delight for love and the word delightful for divine

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=love

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/divine?s=t

My point is that if God is merely "love", then God is not a thinking entity.

 

[leibowde84]

and yet in physics everything vibrates at a certain frenquency.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/resonance.html

hylozoism

E = m(c*c)

1st law of thermodynamics
energy cannot be created or destroyed. the form it takes, simply changes.

Ok, but why is this relevant?

 

[leibowde84]

A metaphysical argument to explain why there is something rather than nothing is not a God of the Gaps argument. Why? Because the mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science.

An argument (of any kind) that enlists God as a cause merely because of a claim that science is unable to explain something is actually the definition of a God of the Gaps argument. And, no one on earth currently knows the limits of science. That is merely a speculative assumption.

 

[Fool]

My point is that if God is merely "love", then God is not a thinking entity.

so you believe that god is nothing more than love and in order to love it wouldn't have to think? or do you think i was implying that?

 

[Fool]

Ok, but why is this relevant?

because energy is not necessarily devoid of intelligence; simply because you can't understand how it encodes and manifests that intelligence.

isn't that what scientist do in studying? ironically seeking information from things, even supposedly lifeless things. isn't that how they gather intelligence. what then is life? inanimate? not self-aware? not aware of anything other than self?

 

[leibowde84]

so you believe that god is nothing more than love and in order to love it wouldn't have to think? or do you think i was implying that?

I was making the claim that you are implying that. "Love" is not an entity, and surely not a thinking/conscious entity. Thus, if God is merely "love", then God cannot be a conscious entity. In my beliefs, God is a thinking entity that can communicate (but, let's not get into that quite yet). But, I've always had a hard time defining what God actually is. Unless God can be defined in a limited way, the existence of God is an unfalsifiable claim, not deserving of rational discourse. So, I'm just asking how you define God, and how you differentiate God from "light" and "love".

 

[Fool]

Ok, but why is this relevant?

because inorganic implies inanimate and unintelligent. they are neither. they are just another form of matter

 

[Fool]

I was making the claim that you are implying that. "Love" is not an entity, and surely not a thinking/conscious entity. Thus, if God is merely "love", then God cannot be a conscious entity. In my beliefs, God is a thinking entity that can communicate (but, let's not get into that quite yet). But, I've always had a hard time defining what God actually is. Unless God can be defined in a limited way, the existence of God is an unfalsifiable claim, not deserving of rational discourse. So, I'm just asking how you define God, and how you differentiate God from "light" and "love".

to be omnibenevolent actually implies omniscience. love enlightens. infinite intelligence

 

[leibowde84]

because inorganic implies inanimate and unintelligent. they are neither. they are just another form of matter

Cars are inorganic, inanimate, and unintelligent, though. Do you disagree with this? If so, can you explain why?

 

[leibowde84]

to be omnibenevolent actually implies omniscience. love enlightens. infinite intelligence

That is fine for showing that love might be an aspect of God. But, it doesn't provide any kind of definition for what God is and what God is not.

 

[Fool]

Cars are inorganic, inanimate, and unintelligent, though. Do you disagree with this? If so, can you explain why?

ah so you believe that scientist study inorganic things for their lack of intelligence/information.

 

[Fool]

That is fine for showing that love might be an aspect of God. But, it doesn't provide any kind of definition for what God is and what God is not.

trying to define infinite and eternal are rather beyond the scope of a fixated mind. that doesn't stop them trying.

 

[leibowde84]

ah so you believe that scientist study inorganic things for their lack of intelligence/information.

Intelligence is not merely information, so I don't agree with your statement. Scientists study things to gain information in an attempt to understand the universe in which we live. Mainly, however, they study organic materials. But, my comment was in reference to automobiles, which are machines created and designed by man. They aren't naturally occurring in any way shape or form. Animals, like humans for example, are organic and naturally occurring.

 

[leibowde84]

trying to define infinite and eternal are rather beyond the scope of a fixated mind. that doesn't stop them trying.

Then belief in God, being an undefined concept/entity, cannot be justified rationally, as God is an unfalsifiable claim. Right?

 

[Fool]

Intelligence is not merely information, so I don't agree with your statement. Scientists study things to gain information in an attempt to understand the universe in which we live. Mainly, however, they study organic materials. But, my comment was in reference to automobiles, which are machines created and designed by man. They aren't naturally occurring in any way shape or form. Animals, like humans for example, are organic and naturally occurring.

ah the exclusive club of enculturation. the special hand shake, the exclusive language, the limited membership. ooooooh, people don't make cults, cultures make people.


and atheists believe that intelligence just goes poof with lack of oxygen to the bean brain.


http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/information?s=t

 

[Fool]

Then belief in God, being an undefined concept/entity, cannot be justified rationally, as God is an unfalsifiable claim. Right?

yes, there are no absolutes in science = knowledge. science can study love, no? it's a natural phenomena, even across species.

 

[leibowde84]

ah the exclusive club of enculturation. the special hand shake, the exclusive language, the limited membership. ooooooh, people don't make cults, cultures make people.


and atheists believe that intelligence just goes poof with lack of oxygen to the bean brain.


http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/information?s=t

I apologize. Don't take this the wrong way, but I have no idea what you are saying here. Intelligence can be information when that information is understood by a conscious entity. But, information and intelligence are not synonymous terms in this context. And, obviously, just because they are in a thesaurus together doesn't necessarily mean that they mean the synonymous in the context at hand, as words in English often have multiple uses. When speaking of "intelligence" in the military context (not the context we are using here, obviously), it CAN BE synonymous with "information". But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Here is the definitions of both "information" and "intelligence": (from Merriam-Websters online dictionary)
Information: Knowledge, facts, and/or data obtained from investigation, study, or instruction.
Intelligence: The ability to learn and understand.

So, while the two are certainly related, they are not synonymous. Intelligence is required for an entity to understand the meaning of information.

 

[leibowde84]

yes, there are no absolutes in science = knowledge. science can study love, no? it's a natural phenomena, even across species.

You would have to provide a definition for the term. Can you define "love" in a falsifiable way? Or, is "love" merely a subjective experience (a.k.a. It cannot be measured objectively)?

 

[leibowde84]

yes, there are no absolutes in science = knowledge. science can study love, no? it's a natural phenomena, even across species.

Science, and rational discourse for that matter, cannot address claims and/or things that aren't properly defined and falsifiable. The fact that love exists across species can't really be made until "love" is sufficiently defined. You have to explain what is love and what isn't love and how love can easily be recognized.

 

[Fool]

I apologize. Don't take this the wrong way, but I have no idea what you are saying here. Intelligence can be information when that information is understood by a conscious entity. But, information and intelligence are not synonymous terms in this context. And, obviously, just because they are in a thesaurus together doesn't necessarily mean that they mean the synonymous in the context at hand, as words in English often have multiple uses. When speaking of "intelligence" in the military context (not the context we are using here, obviously), it CAN BE synonymous with "information". But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Here is the definitions of both "information" and "intelligence": (from Merriam-Websters online dictionary)
Information: Knowledge, facts, and/or data obtained from investigation, study, or instruction.
Intelligence: The ability to learn and understand.

So, while the two are certainly related, they are not synonymous. Intelligence is required for an entity to understand the meaning of information.

never stated they were mutually exclusive the same but when used in context they can be. scientist are seeking intelligence/information in the things they study, just as the military seeks information.

the word information comes from the root word to inform. meaning to give form to something.

seriously you can use a merriam webster dictionary definition and refuse to accept a thesaurus?