Religion II

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

This goal oriented purposeful evolution has been discredited by the mainstream.

Goal-directed evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleol...cted_evolution

Religious thinkers and biologists have repeatedly supposed that evolution was driven by some kind of life force, a philosophy known as vitalism, and have often supposed that it had some kind of goal or direction (towards which the life force was striving, if they also believed in that), known as orthogenesis or evolutionary progress. Such goal-directedness implies a long-term teleological force; some supporters of orthogenesis considered it to be a spiritual force, while others held that it was purely biological. For example, the Russian embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer believed in a teleological force in nature,[12][13] whereas the French spiritualist philosopher Henri Bergson linked orthogenesis with vitalism, arguing for a creative force in evolution known as élan vital in his book Creative Evolution
.................................................. .
... Attributing purposes to adaptations risks confusion with popular forms of Lamarckism where animals in particular have been supposed to influence their own evolution through their intentions, though Lamarck himself spoke rather of habits of use, and the belief that his thinking was teleological has been challenged.

....the teleological explanation of adaptation is uncomfortable because it seems to require backward causation, in which existing traits are explained by future outcomes; because it seems to attribute the action of a conscious mind when none is assumed to be present in an organism; and because, as a result, adaptation looks impossible to test empirically.

Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The mechanists won out because the vitalists couldn't explain the nature of the life force, but Shapiro indicates that with the advance of cybernetics and digital capabilities, they can now provide real world examples.

Anyhow, your last paragraph confirms that the rejection of teleology is philosophical, rather than empirical, and it is plausible for a Shapiro-type to look around in nature for the source of this teleology (or for a theist, e.g., seeing the obvious in the macro-level physical world, to hold out for teleology).

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

Pope Francis speaking to italian newspaper La Repubblica

USA has " a distorted view of the world" And Americans must be ruled by a world government, as soon as possible " for their own good"

Who made the Pope "world leader on non-religious matters"?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...takeover-qanon

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, you did not say may be. You said, "God cannot be defined"!

Can you stop harassing Hcap with this stupid question you are childishly hung up on.

The OBVIOUS answer as to why God cannot be defined is that you cannot define something that is infinite (God) with a finite brain or a finite book.

I will respond to your last response to ME when I get in the mood to humor myself with your stupidity again.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, you did not say may be. You said, "God cannot be defined"! You certainly seemed to be quite certain about this! So, how do you know anything about something or someone that/who defies definition in order to make such a statement.

I said

Einstein stated, "My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly."

And I wrote in this post #9649

Originally Posted by hcap

We were speaking of how life came into existence.

You babbled questioning evolution.

Not the universe.

I already addressed that it may be unknown. Taking G-d's name in vain when we can not understand G-d very well. Ineffable....

Tathata, which means "suchness" or "thusness," is a word sometimes used primarily in Mahayana Buddhism to mean "reality," or the way things really are. It's understood that the true nature of reality is ineffable, beyond description and conceptualization.

I said may be and is BOTH bunky. In other words as I told you, I do not know whether we can or can not know god or for that matter the origins of the universe.

That's one reason why G-d is spelled without all letters. We can not know god fully. And also some Jews attempt getting in touch with the "sou" that knows G‑d already, without needing any proof.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The mechanists won out because the vitalists couldn't explain the nature of the life force, but Shapiro indicates that with the advance of cybernetics and digital capabilities, they can now provide real world examples.

Anyhow, your last paragraph confirms that the rejection of teleology is philosophical, rather than empirical, and it is plausible for a Shapiro-type to look around in nature for the source of this teleology (or for a theist, e.g., seeing the obvious in the macro-level physical world, to hold out for teleology).

No they won out because the preponderance of the evidence supports their view. Goal oriented evolution may be true only in the very long term; billions of years, since perhaps the intrinsic laws of the universe (god created, or notgod created) are arranged to move certain biological systems towards more organization and complexity.

I actually find awesomeness in either and a cosmic connection of "spirit" and matter.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I said

And I wrote in this post #9649

I said may be and is BOTH bunky. In other words as I told you, I do not know whether we can or can not know god or for that matter the origins of the universe.

That's one reason why G-d is spelled without all letters. We can not know god fully. And also some Jews attempt getting in touch with the "sou" that knows G‑d already, without needing any proof.

In the context of your partial quote, we were talking about the cause of the universe -- not whether or not God can be defined.

I just want to know how you think you know God is undefinable. And I know you don't know and that you're blowing smoke. You just say stuff because it sounds good to ears, but most of what you say is an affront to any human with an IQ number that exceeds the length of his shoe lace.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In the context of your partial quote, we were talking about the cause of the universe -- not whether or not God can be defined.

I just want to know how you think you know God is undefinable. And I know you don't know and that you're blowing smoke. You just say stuff because it sounds good to ears, but most of what you say is an affront to any human with an IQ number that exceeds the length of his shoe lace.

I said....

I already addressed that it may be unknown. Taking G-d's name in vain when we can not understand G-d very well. Ineffable....

Tathata, which means "suchness" or "thusness," is a word sometimes used primarily in Mahayana Buddhism to mean "reality," or the way things really are. It's understood that the true nature of reality is ineffable, beyond description and conceptualization.

Both bunky.

[hcap]

Not understanding may be because of two reasons.

1. It is not understandable objectively (too few facts)

2. It is not understandable subjectively(the limits of the mind)

The origins of the universe or god present both cases.

Realizing both in many subject happens frequently, unless one believes one is an expert on everything, as you do.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I said....
Both bunky.

You said God cannot be defined. What do you know about God to be able to say that?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You said God cannot be defined. What do you know about God to be able to say that?

You must not be paying attention. As usual. See directly above you post #9698

You fail on both counts, Mr "expert" on everything

[boxcar]

Now, Mr. Hcap, since you now say God MAY be unknowable. He MAY be incomprehensible to our finite, fallible minds, permit me to postulate this MAYBE -- this alternative.

Let's say you're right -- and God is beyond human comprehension. He is totally beyond our grasp. The gap between the eternal and finite cannot be crossed by us. But that doesn't mean the I AM cannot bridge that gap, does it? What if he condescended and humbled himself and came down to us, since we cannot ascend to Him? What if he revealed himself in and through another human being to make himself more understandable to us? Then it could no longer be said that God is beyond human comprehension -- that he's unknowable, could it?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Now, Mr. Hcap, since you now say God MAY be unknowable. He MAY be incomprehensible to our finite, fallible minds, permit me to postulate this MAYBE -- this alternative.

Let's say you're right -- and God is beyond human comprehension. He is totally beyond our grasp. The gap between the eternal and finite cannot be crossed by us. But that doesn't mean the I AM cannot bridge that gap, does it? What if he condescended and humbled himself and came down to us, since we cannot ascend to Him? What if he revealed himself in and through another human being to make himself more understandable to us? Then it could no longer be said that God is beyond human comprehension -- that he's unknowable, could it?

But that is what you have been claiming all these years. Ther fly in the ointment is:

What if he condescended and humbled himself and came down to us, since we cannot ascend to Him?

Are you stating Buddha, Mohamed and Vishnu did that revealing?

[Actor]

The questions was "where did the chemicals come from?" Let's define chemicals as the elements on the periodic table. More complex substances such as carbon dioxide and other organic compounds are built up of those.

The big bang was pure energy, i.e., photons of the electromagnetic spectrum. Starting with the longer wavelengths that spectrum consists of radio waves, microwaves, infra-red, visible light, ultra-violet, and finally gamma rays.

The lightest particles are quarks, bosons and a few others. Two photons of the electromagnetic spectrum can combine and produce particulate matter. Most of the energy in the universe has done just that, but photons of radio waves up through low energy gamma rays do not have enough energy to produce even a quark, which is why they still exist today.

So first there is only energy, i.e., electromagnetic photons. Then come the quarks and bosons. Then protons, electrons and neutrons. Then comes hydrogen. Hydrogen still makes up most of the mass of the universe today. Then comes helium from the fusing of hydrogen atoms. This takes place in stars. In successive generations of starts we get the heavier elements. The heaviest elements such as uranium and plutonium are the rarest.

And that's where the chemicals came from.

[Actor]

If, for the sake of argument only, we admit the necessity of a prime mover there is nothing to say that said prime mover is God as Aquinas stated.

• The prime mover could well be some as yet undiscovered physical force or process that exists outside time and space.
• The prime mover is not necessarily the Judaeo, Christian, Islamic god. It could be some other deity. It could be a deist god taking no interest in human affairs.
• The could be more than one prime mover, i.e., a polytheistic population. The Hindu's believe there are millions or perhaps billions of gods.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What if he revealed himself in and through another human being to make himself more understandable to us?

I'll tell you what my definition of God is and it is Love as I have told you countless times and you refuse to believe and make fun of me for saying that by calling me a pantheist. That same definition of "God is Love" is also in the Bible as I have told you countless times in 1 John.

Now use your common sense for once. Consider what has been the main reason you are alive and what the main reason is that you and everyone else on this planet live for whether they know it or not. We all live for Love. I don't care who you are. There is only one thing we all want deep inside. The only difference between us is some people know that more than others and some people totally deny it. All the sages and deities that ever came here came here out of Love and for Love.

Love is the power that created existence. It is the only reason for existence. Without it you are lost and empty, (Hell). With it, you are the luckiest person on the planet, (Heaven).

All intelligence comes from love. Love is what creates consciousness. Love has all the answers and they are in your heart. Coincidentally, the physical heart is also the first organ that is formed in the human body at birth.

There is no where else in you that God will live but in your heart because the heart is your home and his home. Your heart rules you even though you want to follow your ego. You will never ever find peace until you surrender to the love within your heart. Once you do, you will find all the answers within including God. He will guide you from there and that is how you will know you are finally on the right path. The path of Love. It is inevitable and we will all eventually be forced to walk that path because it is our true nature.