Science seems to have some theories that suggest some sort of an eternity through a repeated creation and destruction of the universe.
The Abrahamic religions also talk of eternity in the heavenly realms. with eternal salvation or eternal damnation.
In Hinduism also there is the concept of eternity. The Universe is said to be cyclically created and destroyed....every 311 trillion years. After this period the universe including celestial realms and all gods and deities, get destroyed and everything is said to dissolve into the Universal Spirit (Brahman). After an equal period the universe arises from Brahman once again. This goes on eternally.
Hi everyone,etc
Science seems to have some theories that suggest some sort of an eternity through a repeated creation and destruction of the universe.
The Abrahamic religions…
And it has sub boards as the post made clear.
This is a Religion & Ethics board. So...don't expect everything written here to conform to your scientific ideas.
This is a Religion & Ethics board. So...don't expect everything written here to conform to your scientific ideas.
I don't believe I have made any mistakes....rather, I believe you are making all the mistakes.
Don't you get it?! The blind man analogy....remember?!
So...let us not get into these childish blame games....please.
....Define nothing.
There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. ....
Current scientific knowledge can't handle to concept of eternity.
There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.
Nor is there any explanation about how "something" comes into existence.
Our human minds can't handle the concept of anything which has no beginning and no end.
But the fact that we are able to even contemplate a reality beyond human understanding must indicate that there is more to reality than a material universe which somehow pops into existence like a big firework then burns itself out.
Current scientific knowledge can't handle to concept of eternity.
There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.
Nor is there any explanation about how "something" comes into existence.
Our human minds can't handle the concept of anything which has no beginning and no end.
But the fact that we are able to even contemplate a reality beyond human understanding must indicate that there is more to reality than a material universe...
...which somehow pops into existence like a big firework then burns itself out.
There is no explanation in religion either.
Not true. Several religions have such explanations. The problem is that they are all different. There's no way to tell which, if any, is true. Those that are falsifiable, such as the creation myth in Genesis chapter 1, have been falsified. And they all include some element of hand waving like "God is outside time and therefore just is".Do they amount to explanations?
This is a general problem with all religious "knowledge": there is just no way to tell if it is true or not.
Not true. Several religions have such explanations.
Do they amount to explanations?Yes, but explanations that are impossible to evaluate.
Part of the problem is 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' does not appear to be a coherent question since it's not clear that nothing could be.
Indeed talking about there being nothing is a nonensical idea since if it was then it wouldn't be nothing.Sorry, that sentence seems to have got a bit mangled. I think you are saying that the ability of humans to talking about nothing in the abstract means that it couldn't exist in reality. I don't think we have that kind of power.
Do they? I've never seen one. Many religions have some god creating stuff, but a god existing is not nothing, so we're left with the same question.
Moderators Note:
Accusations of sock puppetry (claiming that two posters are the same person) are taken very seriously.
If any poster does suspect this activity please report it directly to the Moderators, do not make unsubstantiated accusations on the board.
Any accusations of this nature will be removed from the board.
Yes, but explanations that are impossible to evaluate.
I don't see how that makes the question incoherent. If the answer is "our physical laws make 'nothing' an incoherent concept because x, y and z". So be it. It's still a satisfactory answer to a legitimate question.
Sorry, that sentence seems to have got a bit mangled. I think you are saying that the ability of humans to talking about nothing in the abstract means that it couldn't exist in reality. I don't think we have that kind of power.
Hence the handwaving.
Current scientific knowledge can't handle to concept of eternity.
There is no scientific explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. Nor is there any explanation about how "something" comes into existence. Our human minds can't handle the concept of anything which has no beginning and no end. But the fact that we are able to even contemplate a reality beyond human understanding must indicate that there is more to reality than a material universe which somehow pops into existence like a big firework then burns itself out.
guerilla tactic...?! That's a good one.
I don't believe I have made any mistakes....
…rather, I believe you are making all the mistakes. Don't you get it?! The blind man analogy....remember?!
I know you like to position yourself as a head master of some sort......but you should know by now what I think of that.
So...let us not get into these childish blame games....please.
Oh please...! ::) Could you (Blue) and Stranger please stop lecturing and telling me what to do.
I will write what I please (within board rules) and you are welcome to offer your opinion on that subject. Leave it at that.
I sympathise with Siram.
Whenever their arguments fail to convince they just resort to ridicule or an "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude instead of further engaging with genuine reasoning.
I sympathise with Siram.
Whenever their arguments fail to convince they just resort to ridicule or an "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude instead of further engaging with genuine reasoning.
So you're trying to tell us what to do because you don't like being told what to do... Humm.
Not that I've tried to tell you what to do, and I don't think blue has either as far as I can see. Pointing out your numerous logical blunders and your misuse and misrepresentation of science is not telling you what to do, it's correcting misinformation.
Logical mistakes are logical mistakes. A fallacy is basically getting your logical sums wrong. Misinformation about science is also clear cut (e.g. natural selection is simply not a metaphor and anybody who says it is, is simply wrong).
Natural Selection is a metaphor and many eminent scientists agree with that (I have linked articles earlier). And no amount of you insisting otherwise is going to change that!
Natural Selection is a metaphor and many eminent scientists agree with that (I have linked articles earlier).
Shows how 'logical fallacies' need not be fallacies depending on ones perception.
Yes, it's a metaphor, because - and this is important - there isn't actually an intelligence selecting anything, but it's a process that has an output akin to something selecting and so it's phrased as though there is. It's a metaphor specifically BECAUSE nothing is actually doing any selecting.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/natural-selection-the-evolution-of-a-mirage/
...
Wow just wow! What barefaced hypocrisy!
This is from the person who uses every possible distraction and avoidance tactic to squirm out of every attempt to engage him with actual reasoning. This is the person who just endlessly repeats the same old, tired, script that has been addressed time and time again without ever stopping to answer genuine questions or engage with counterarguments.
This is the person who makes up gibberish phrases, that he then pretends answers questions but utterly refuses to elaborate on when people point out that the phrase doesn't actually mean anything unless he does explain it further.
I'm stunned at just how blatantly dishonest this is. Talk about bearing false witness!
Drivel.
There is no explanation in religion either.
It's doubtful such an 'event' has ever happened. It doesn't really make much sense.
Drivel.
Drivel (non sequitur).
Appalling ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation?
Natural selection reveals itself as not just a metaphor but a mixed one: Nature being dumb but nevertheless capable of discrimination. It is a poetic concept rather than a scientific one, appealing more to emotional and aesthetic sensibilities than to reason.
And where was your actual reasoning in this reply to my earlier post?
Only time will tell whether the idea of evolution itself, which natural selection was meant to support, will endure now that so many scientists are “coming out” to express doubts about natural selection as traditionally glossed.
Natural selection reveals itself as not just a metaphor but a mixed one: Nature being dumb but nevertheless capable of discrimination. It is a poetic concept rather than a scientific one, appealing more to emotional and aesthetic sensibilities than to reason. Denuded of the “cover” provided by natural selection as the motive factor to explain evolution, the broader subject of evolution itself once again becomes as enigmatic to us as it was to our Victorian forbears. Now as in 1858 evolution remains the “mystery of mysteries.”
And in this quote is just dumb idiocy. The guy clearly has no grasp whatsoever of the science. It's not even a difficult concept to understand. You'd really have to be very, very dim, or kept yourself in deliberate ignorance and employed blind faith to reach this conclusion.You appear to put your faith in what can be achieved by apparently unguided, purposeless random forces of nature.
Do you need me to explain how natural selection works yet again?
Oh please...! Could you (Blue) and Stranger please stop lecturing and telling me what to do.
I will write what I please (within board rules) and you are welcome to offer your opinion on that subject. Leave it at that.
You appear to put your faith in what can be achieved by apparently unguided, purposeless random forces of nature.
I put my faith in the unimaginable creative power which emanates from the source of all existence.
I sympathise with Siram.
Whenever their arguments fail to convince they just resort to ridicule or an "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude instead of further engaging with genuine reasoning.
Natural Selection is a metaphor and many eminent scientists agree with that (I have linked articles earlier). And no amount of you insisting otherwise is going to change that!
Shows how 'logical fallacies' need not be fallacies depending on ones perception. Its all about attitudes and perceptions. Things are not as black and white as you seem to think.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/natural-selection-the-evolution-of-a-mirage/
You appear to put your faith in what can be achieved by apparently unguided, purposeless random forces of nature.
I put my faith in the unimaginable creative power which emanates from the source of all existence.
Natural Selection is a metaphor and many eminent scientists agree with that (I have linked articles earlier). And no amount of you insisting otherwise is going to change that!
Shows how 'logical fallacies' need not be fallacies depending on ones perception. Its all about attitudes and perceptions. Things are not as black and white as you seem to think.
You appear to put your faith in what can be achieved by apparently unguided, purposeless random forces of nature.
I put my faith in the unimaginable creative power which emanates from the source of all existence.
Natural Selection is a metaphor because there is no actual selection going on. It took you guys a long time (many years) to admit to that! ::) Shows how stubborn memes are.
Darwin thought of Natural Selection as similar to artificial selection, the way a farmer selects for traits in his crops while cross breeding them. He (being an agnostic) probably had the idea of some superior intelligence doing the selection.
Talking of 'filtering' is nonsense because this automatically implies a set requirement (a sieve of sorts) based on which the Natural Selection takes place.
There is actually no set process at all that can be called Natural Selection. It is just chance which depends on local environmental conditions. A species could survive very well in one corner of the forest and get eliminated at the other corner depending on the conditions. It is pure chance and talking about it as though it is a well understood process is incorrect and dishonest. Seen along with random variations...the entire process of evolution is just chance.
Evolution is fact happens through active adaptations of organisms to environments through an internal communication within them, that causes phenotypes to change suitably. Now....you guys obviously don't like that idea because it implies some sort of an inner response and intelligence that is anathema to you.
You appear to put your faith in what can be achieved by apparently unguided, purposeless random forces of nature.
I put my faith in the unimaginable creative power which emanates from the source of all existence.
Natural Selection is a metaphor because there is no actual selection going on.
Darwin thought of Natural Selection as similar to artificial selection, the way a farmer selects for traits in his crops while cross breeding them.
He (being an agnostic) probably had the idea of some superior intelligence doing the selection.
Talking of 'filtering' is nonsense because this automatically implies a set requirement (a sieve of sorts) based on which the Natural Selection takes place.
There is actually no set process at all that can be called Natural Selection.
A species could survive very well in one corner of the forest and get eliminated at the other corner depending on the conditions.
It is pure chance and talking about it as though it is a well understood process is incorrect and dishonest. Seen along with random variations...the entire process of evolution is just chance.
Evolution is fact happens through active adaptations of organisms to environments through an internal communication within them, that causes phenotypes to change suitably. Now....you guys obviously don't like that idea because it implies some sort of an inner response and intelligence that is anathema to you.
AB,There is overwhelming, demonstrable evidence that truly random forces are inherently destructive - not creative. It takes a great deal of faith to believe that random forces alone could have driven the evolution process over the many mountains of improbability involved in bringing life as we know it into existence.
No, any “faith” here is just a reasonable degree of confidence based on overwhelming evidence.
Yes, and that’s called “blind” faith because there’s no evidence at all to justify it.There is plenty of evidence, but you choose to use your God given freedom to seek reasons to dismiss it, ridicule it, ignore it or claim that it does not exist ( - as in human free will).
There is overwhelming, demonstrable evidence that truly random forces are inherently destructive - not creative. It takes a great deal of faith to believe that random forces alone could have driven the evolution process over the many mountains of improbability involved in bringing life as we know it into existence.
There is plenty of evidence, but you choose to use your God given freedom to seek reasons to dismiss it, ridicule it, ignore it or claim that it does not exist ( - as in human free will).
Natural Selection is a metaphor because there is no actual selection going on.
Darwin thought of Natural Selection as similar to artificial selection, the way a farmer selects for traits in his crops while cross breeding them. He (being an agnostic) probably had the idea of some superior intelligence doing the selection.
Talking of 'filtering' is nonsense because this automatically implies a set requirement (a sieve of sorts) based on which the Natural Selection takes place.
There is actually no set process at all that can be called Natural Selection.
It is just chance which depends on local environmental conditions.
A species could survive very well in one corner of the forest and get eliminated at the other corner depending on the conditions.
It is pure chance and talking about it as though it is a well understood process is incorrect and dishonest.
Seen along with random variations...the entire process of evolution is just chance.
Evolution is fact happens through active adaptations of organisms to environments through an internal communication within them, that causes phenotypes to change suitably.
Now....you guys obviously don't like that idea because it implies some sort of an inner response and intelligence that is anathema to you.
There is overwhelming, demonstrable evidence that truly random forces are inherently destructive - not creative.
It takes a great deal of faith to believe that random forces alone could have driven the evolution process over the many mountains of improbability involved in bringing life as we know it into existence.
There is plenty of evidence, but you choose to use your God given freedom to seek reasons to dismiss it, ridicule it, ignore it or claim that it does not exist ( - as in human free will).
There is overwhelming, demonstrable evidence that truly random forces are inherently destructive - not creative. It takes a great deal of faith to believe that random forces alone could have driven the evolution process over the many mountains of improbability involved in bringing life as we know it into existence.
There is plenty of evidence, but you choose to use your God given freedom to seek reasons to dismiss it, ridicule it, ignore it or claim that it does not exist ( - as in human free will).
Yes, but the point is that postulating a god simply does not answer the question as to why there is something rather than nothing. The question remains just the same whether the 'something' refers to the universe or to some god.
The process of evolution is not random, only the raw mutations are (effectively) random and they supply the required novelty for natural selection to work on.Just looking at the start of the evolution process - before natural selection can even get going.
Just looking at the start of the evolution process - before natural selection can even get going.
We have amino acids which need to combine in some way to produce self contained entities capable of reproducing themselves.
Then we have the monumental leap from cell reproduction to sexual reproduction.
Just because you can't detect God's guidance directly with our limited senses does not lead to the conclusion that it does not exist.
Similarly, the fact that you can't conceive of any means for us to have conscious freedom to control our own thought processes does not lead to a conclusion that such control cannot take place.
The evidence lies in the results - not in our limited capacity to understand how it is accomplished.
Just looking at the start of the evolution process - before natural selection can even get going.
We have amino acids which need to combine in some way to produce self contained entities capable of reproducing themselves. Then we have the monumental leap from cell reproduction to sexual reproduction.
Just because you can't detect God's guidance directly with our limited senses does not lead to the conclusion that it does not exist.
Similarly, the fact that you can't conceive of any means for us to have conscious freedom to control our own thought processes does not lead to a conclusion that such control cannot take place.
The evidence lies in the results - not in our limited capacity to understand how it is accomplished.
Just looking at the start of the evolution process - before natural selection can even get going.
We have amino acids which need to combine in some way to produce self contained entities capable of reproducing themselves. Then we have the monumental leap from cell reproduction to sexual reproduction.
Just because you can't detect God's guidance directly with our limited senses does not lead to the conclusion that it does not exist.
Similarly, the fact that you can't conceive of any means for us to have conscious freedom to control our own thought processes does not lead to a conclusion that such control cannot take place.
The evidence lies in the results - not in our limited capacity to understand how it is accomplished.
There is overwhelming, demonstrable evidence that truly random forces are inherently destructive - not creative....
There is no intelligence doing a deliberate selection, nevertheless, some traits do spread through populations and some die out, so there is a filtration process. Selection isn't a bad word for it, except for the implication of intelligence.
It is similar in many ways.
Never seen anything that suggests that and it seems highly unlikely given what he did say in On the Origin of Species.
Drivel. There is a filter, it's called 'the environment'.
Absurd nonsense.
It could indeed. Differing conditions mean different selection pressures and that is a very important part of the process of evolution that often drives speciation.
Ignorant drivel.
Fantasy.
Look Sriram, natural selection is not rocket science, it's simple and obvious. It works like this:
Take the most significant example of a new mutation. Most mutations do nothing much at all (every human has many) but sometimes they will produce a new trait and that may either be deleterious or advantageous, by which we mean they either aid survival and reproduction in the current environment of the population or hinder it. Unsurprisingly those individuals with an advantageous trait will probably produce more offspring and those offspring with the trait will similarly produce more offspring and so on through the generations. An advantageous trait will spread through the population. Conversely, a deleterious trait will reproduce less (if at all) and tend to die out.
To take your point above, if part of a population is cut off from the rest in a somewhat different environment, then the traits that are selected for will be different, hence, over time the two populations become increasingly different, and this is one of the scenarios that can lead to speciation. A similar thing happens if the environment changes in some way, again different selection pressures and different traits being selected.
The classic peppered moth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution) example illustrates this nicely and in an obvious way. We also now know the associated mutation (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36424768).
How anybody can fail to understand this is totally beyond me. It is really, really simple. I guess clinging desperately on to cherished ideas is the only way to ignored it. Blind faith at its most absurd. ::)
Worth adding that the process (that you don't think exists) has been observed in nature and experiments as well as simulated on computer and actually used as a design process.
To the extent that 'selection' implies a consciousness making a choice, that's exactly correct, that isn't happening. It's a metaphor because you're anthropomorphising natural phenomena.
The evidence suggests that he distinctly didn't think it was guided by a superior intelligence, and he had great qualms about what it would mean for organised religion. It's reported that he deferred publishing for some considerable time whilst he wrestled with that.
It doesn't require a set requirement, it merely requires an environment at any given time which gives an advantage to one or more variations over others.
Which is why we have the variety of life that we do, because different pressures at different points favoured different variations (and crabs (https://www.popsci.com/story/animals/why-everything-becomes-crab-meme-carcinization/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThere%20has%20to%20be%20some,or%20diversify%20into%20new%20species.)).
Yep.
Not just could, it has to. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't get the differential selection, you wouldn't get the range, you'd just have one species everywhere because you wouldn't have selection, you'd just have continual adaptation.
Probability is a well-established field of mathematics, there is no inherent reason to think that we can't handle chance in science. The process of natural selection is well understood, the process of the initial variation upon which Natural Selection works is, I'd suggest, less well-understood but well documented. That we understand the process does not mean that we necessarily can rebuild the entire history of a species, but we have had some success in identified common elements and using that understanding to develop a reasonably complete tree of life.
No, it involves chance elements, but it's a strongly selective process working on variation that comes about by chance. It's like if I shuffle a pack of cards, but then ask you to pick out the red ones - they're in a random order, and if you couldn't look and select then you'd have a 50-50 chance, but with selection you should get to 100%.
If that's fact how do you explain extinctions? If populations can adapt in advance of environmental pressures, how come so many fail? If that's 'fact' where's your demonstration of the mechanism, and your prediction? How do you explain future information somehow flowing backwards in time to inform variation before it's required?
No, we don't like it because it contradicts the evidence we do have, doesn't have evidence to support it, and then begs the question 'where did the guiding intelligence come from'?
O.
You really must be a school teacher.
Let me repeat.
IMO Natural Selection is entirely chance because environmental changes are purely chance.
Anything from elephants and frogs and worms manage to survive in the very same environment. What filtration?!
Either there is some sort of an intelligence (collective consciousness) at work here or it is all entirely chance. Trying to see Natural Selection as some sort of a systematic process is clearly incorrect and dishonest.
It is like kicking some balls down a hill.
A guiding Intelligence (consciousness) is not the same as religious ideas.....let us be clear about that.
Natural Selection is a metaphor not just because of the words used. As a concept....it is either driven by intelligence (of whatever kind) or it is purely chance all the way. You cannot have it both ways....suggesting something that is a systematic process but not involving intelligence of some kind.
Phenotypic plasticity (Phenotypic plasticity can be defined as 'the ability of individual genotypes to produce different phenotypes when exposed to different environmental conditions') is the mechanism that determines how an organism adapts to its environment.
My point is very simple. There are only two things here. The organism and its environment. There is nothing here called 'natural selection'. How the environment acts on the organism determines how the phenotype changes. That is it.
This internal communication within organisms which allows it to respond suitably and increase its survival chances, is what I call intelligence.
A guiding Intelligence (consciousness) is not the same as religious ideas.....let us be clear about that.
Natural Selection is a metaphor not just because of the words used.
As a concept....it is either driven by intelligence (of whatever kind) or it is purely chance all the way.
You cannot have it both ways....suggesting something that is a systematic process but not involving intelligence of some kind.
Phenotypic plasticity (Phenotypic plasticity can be defined as 'the ability of individual genotypes to produce different phenotypes when exposed to different environmental conditions') is the mechanism that determines how an organism adapts to its environment.
My point is very simple. There are only two things here. The organism and its environment. There is nothing here called 'natural selection'. How the environment acts on the organism determines how the phenotype changes. That is it.
This internal communication within organisms which allows it to respond suitably and increase its survival chances, is what I call intelligence.
There are several emergent properties that have arisen at different stages which call for intelligent intervention.
Why do you assert that it is false?
You cannot compare repetitive natural phenomena such as the water cycle with complex and developing phenomena such as evolution. Unicellular organisms haven't evolved into complex humans through repetitive cyclical processes.
There are several emergent properties that have arisen at different stages which call for intelligent intervention.
I note that you are still studiously ignoring the explanation of exactly how natural selection works and the evidence that genetic mutation and natural selection is the major driver of evolution.
Sriram,
I didn't. Now why not try at least to answer the question you were asked instead of straw manning the person who asked it?
You should have noted that long ago....! I don't accept chance factors driving evolution...
I don't need to answer anything.
I believe that intelligent intervention is necessary for emergent properties to arise. You are free to believe that chance factors are enough.
You cannot compare repetitive natural phenomena such as the water cycle with complex and developing phenomena such as evolution.
Unicellular organisms haven't evolved into complex humans through repetitive cyclical processes.
There are several emergent properties that have arisen at different stages which call for intelligent intervention.
There is clearly some feed back and change mechanism that exists within organisms that you are reluctant to accept as the driver of evolution.
Phenotypic plasticity makes such intervention and feedback possible. It cannot be dismissed as some one off phenomenon.
Let us keep it simple. Evolution, as you people explain it, is just chance because random variations are chance and environmental factors are also chance. There is nothing called natural selection going on. I am clear about that.
I cannot accept that chance factors alone could be responsible for the complex life forms including humans. Besides evolution, there are other phenomenon such as NDE's, personal experiences and so on that need to be seen together to form any meaningful big picture view of life. Microscopic and disjointed perspectives are not enough.
Clearly there is some form of consciousness and intelligence at work at deeper levels. What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means. The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here.
There is enough reason for me to believe that an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.
That is it.
Let us keep it simple. Evolution, as you people explain it, is just chance because random variations are chance and environmental factors are also chance. There is nothing called natural selection going on. I am clear about that.
I cannot accept that chance factors alone could be responsible for the complex life forms including humans. Besides evolution, there are other phenomenon such as NDE's, personal experiences and so on that need to be seen together to form any meaningful big picture view of life. Microscopic and disjointed perspectives are not enough.
Clearly there is some form of consciousness and intelligence at work at deeper levels. What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means. The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here.
There is enough reason for me to believe that an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.
Clearly there is some form of consciousness and intelligence at work at deeper levels. What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means. The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here.
There is enough reason for me to believe that an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.
That is it.
Could the concepts of meaning and intent evolve from unconscious material entities? I think not.
Hum. It really is quite difficult to know how to respond to such utter nonsense; especially as you have a been given a full explanation of natural selection as a real and process that clearly isn't 'chance'.Outrageous ad hominem.
Perhaps an instance of this:
(https://agrowthhacker.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/the-dunning-kruger-effect_agrowthhacker-1536x1024.png)
Really, the only other explanations seem to be fear - you won't even look at the explanation for fear of shattering your cosy fantasy world - or simple stupidity - you just aren't intelligent enough to grasp it.
Ho hum.
Pure, baseless fantasy.
Outrageous ad hominem.
Outrageous ad hominem.
Some people are allowed to do anything... ::)
This is reflected in the profound, inspired opening words of John's Gospel:
In the beginning was the Word
A word can convey meaning and conscious intent.
Could the concepts of meaning and intent evolve from unconscious material entities? I think not.
Or were the concepts of meaning and intent there from the beginning?
Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life.'Outrageous ad hominem' ;)
I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.
Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life.
I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.
Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life.
I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.
You are a school teacher too?! I don't need to answer anything.
I believe that intelligent intervention is necessary for emergent properties to arise. You are free to believe that chance factors are enough.
Yes....all religions and spiritual philosophies talk of an inner consciousness that is responsible for the universe and all life.
I am however not surprised that many people are blind to it. It requires a certain type of mental faculty to be able to see it.
Let us keep it simple. Evolution, as you people explain it, is just chance because random variations are chance and environmental factors are also chance. There is nothing called natural selection going on. I am clear about that.
I cannot accept that chance factors alone could be responsible for the complex life forms including humans.
Besides evolution, there are other phenomenon such as NDE's, personal experiences and so on that need to be seen together to form any meaningful big picture view of life.
Microscopic and disjointed perspectives are not enough.
Clearly there is some form of consciousness and intelligence at work at deeper levels.
What this Intelligence is is not clear but there is a possibility of a collective consciousness that works through unconscious means.
The power of the unconscious mind has been discussed here.
There is enough reason for me to believe that an inner consciousness is responsible for evolution and for life itself.
That is it.
The vehemence with which some of you respond to my points shows the fight your memes are putting up.
Almost a religious reaction.
The problem is that you actually think that you are arguing for some established, conclusive and well understood aspects of reality when in fact you are merely fighting for your beliefs.
Anyway...I have put my views here. How you take it is up to you.
Thanks.
The vehemence with which some of you respond to my points shows the fight your memes are putting up. Almost a religious reaction.
The problem is that you actually think that you are arguing for some established, conclusive and well understood aspects of reality...
The vehemence with which some of you respond to my points shows the fight your memes are putting up. Almost a religious reaction.
The problem is that you actually think that you are arguing for some established, conclusive and well understood aspects of reality…
…when in fact you are merely fighting for your beliefs.
Anyway...I have put my views here. How you take it is up to you.
Thanks.
Take it easy Blue (and Stranger). I am not denying evolution or any scientific theory. Relax.
A truly brilliant mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WenGjyokg
Denis Noble on a new approach to evolution...
He has provoked predictable outrage from Neo Darwinists by providing evidence that the process of evolution involves more than random mutations combined with natural selection.
A truly brilliant mind.
He has provoked predictable outrage from Neo Darwinists...
...by providing evidence that the process of evolution involves more than random mutations combined with natural selection.