[kly45]

(Original post by Zaki)
Darwin didn't know about the Big Bang Theory. It was after his time. However, it is my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - that he rejected the notion that the process of evolution was driven by intelligence - and his modern disciples say as much. That's my point.

Oh dear... save the rhetoric please


His "modern disciples" say as much because the theory of natural selection is just that, natural. In other words, if you knew the actual process of natural selection, it's adequately explained without a God or a "force" working through it. It just adds too much on, which is guesswork, and not necessary.

[kly45]

(Original post by Zaki)
Well, if you believe in ANY Reality AT ALL you are forced LOGICALLY to believe in a Supreme Reality also, aren't you?

Sorry, where is the logical connection?


P1 I believe in a type of reality.

P2. Whenever I believe in a type of reality I also believe in a supreme reality

C I believe in a supreme reality.

I don't understand how you justify P2. Happy to hear it though

[blueray]

(Original post by Zaki)
Of-course bacteria evolve - as does all else that arose out of the Big Bang. The issue is what drives this? Do you know - or NOT?

No other wise the title would be called what derived the big bang.

[Facticity]

(Original post by kly45)
Sorry, where is the logical connection?


P1 I believe in a type of reality.

P2. Whenever I believe in a type of reality I also believe in a supreme reality

C I believe in a supreme reality.

I don't understand how you justify P2. Happy to hear it though

Troll logic? Jokes aside, I'm assuming it will be some sort of teleological/cosmological mega fallacious mash up

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by n1r4v)
If we take behaviour for example, what part of it do you believe is mediated by the physical, and what part of it do you believe cannot be explained by the physical (soul, spirit, God)?

There is a continuum. Reflexes, beating of the heart, etc. are purely physical. God's role was to create the pathways in the body that allow these to happen. More complex things such as sexual attraction, I believe are a combination of physical factors- genetics and (proximately) hormones/ other neurotransmitters- and volition of the soul. The physical things can pull us in one or other direction but the spiritual can override them. Decisions on whether to accept Jesus into one's heart or not and behaviour motivated by agape (perfected love, distinct from reciprocal altruism or any natural motivation) are examples of completely spiritually mediated acts.

[Cities]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
There is a continuum. Reflexes, beating of the heart, etc. are purely physical. God's role was to create the pathways in the body that allow these to happen.

Well I believe these pathways in the body were purely physical as well. For instance one may believe, say, that the stretch reflex is purely physical, but God created that pathway which subserves the stretch reflex? Well I believe that was physical too; in fact, in my course years ago, we studied the neurodevelopment / neuroembryology of the stretch reflex, and while every single the pathway certainly has not been fully dissected, there seems to be a very conserved mechanism which builds the stretch reflex in the embryo.

I don't believe that the process from the fertilised egg to the neonate requires any "divine guidance".

[kly45]

(Original post by Facticity)
Troll logic? Jokes aside, I'm assuming it will be some sort of teleological/cosmological mega fallacious mash up

As per usual then

[ScheduleII]

(Original post by n1r4v)
Well I believe these pathways in the body were purely physical as well. For instance one may believe, say, that the stretch reflex is purely physical, but God created that pathway which subserves the stretch reflex? Well I believe that was physical too; in fact, in my course years ago, we studied the neurodevelopment / neuroembryology of the stretch reflex, and while every single the pathway certainly has not been fully dissected, there seems to be a very conserved mechanism which builds the stretch reflex in the embryo.

I don't believe that the process from the fertilised egg to the neonate requires any "divine guidance".

Erm no... I don't mean God interfering in every creature, I mean when God made the first humans Adam & Eve He placed the reflexes into them. Now it just runs by the laws of nature, but He created those laws.

[Zaki]

(Original post by n1r4v)
Is this your own philosophy that you've deduced or does anyone else share this philosophy?

It is what the facts before us say, don't you think?

[Zaki]

(Original post by blueray)
No other wise the title would be called what derived the big bang.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. But it seems to me you're saying that you don't know what drives evolution. My question is, don't you think you should be doing your best to find out?

[Zaki]

(Original post by kly45)
Sorry, where is the logical connection?


P1 I believe in a type of reality.

P2. Whenever I believe in a type of reality I also believe in a supreme reality

C I believe in a supreme reality.

I don't understand how you justify P2. Happy to hear it though

ALL apprehensions of reality are but clearer or dimmer manifestations of Supreme Reality - depending on their proximity to the latter. There are no separate realities - just different manifestations of the same thing.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Facticity)
Troll logic? Jokes aside, I'm assuming it will be some sort of teleological/cosmological mega fallacious mash up

Why prejudge it? That reduces your ability to evaluate something fairly and accurately. In the end, it is you who loses out through such blinkering - or even blindfolding of your consciousness with presumption.

[Zaki]

(Original post by kly45)
Oh dear... save the rhetoric please


His "modern disciples" say as much because the theory of natural selection is just that, natural. In other words, if you knew the actual process of natural selection, it's adequately explained without a God or a "force" working through it. It just adds too much on, which is guesswork, and not necessary.

Well, it may well appear "adequate" to you, but simply does not survive rigorous logical examination. The notion, central to Darwinism, that things JUST HAPPEN - FOR NO REASON - if you wait long enough, far from being scientific is the very anti-thesis of science. Science is about explaining - in the minutest detail possible how and why things happen - not declaring that they JUST HAPPEN - FOR NO REASON - if you wait long enough, and therefore do not require explanation.

Those who declare themselves satisfied with such a "theory" are hardly in a position to accuse others of "lack of understanding".

[Zaki]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
You have to be careful with your wording of this.
Darwin was born and raised a Christian, and actually went to university to study theology because medicine didn't interest him. But during his voyages on the HMS Beagle and after the death of his daughter (Annie?) he found it harder and harder to maintain a belief in God.

After looking at life as a whole, and all the different mechanisms and the absolute cruelty that is nature he decided that it was unlikely that there was a god, as the only god he knew was the God of the bible, which is described as an all-loving necessary being.

"with respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."
This was said in a letter to Asa Gray, a great botanist that Darwin knew. So as you can see, he never just ignored the possibility of God starting off evolution, he did heavily consider this and "[writing atheistically] is always painful to [him]"

He did come to the conclusion that it was unlikely that the God of the bible had created this, as what was written disagreed with what Darwin observed in nature. So he believed that God had no interference, but as any great scientist should, he never made an absolute statement and was open that he may be wrong.

Darwin adopted this attitude after the loss of his beloved daughter. In other words, this was not a position based on an unemotional and unbiased, rational, consideration of the facts - taking into account the limitations of those facts as they were available to him - but rather on disappointed expectations based on an erroneous concept of God acquired from his religion - Whom he clearly had come to regard as an obliging helper Whose only concern should be to make his life as pleasant as possible - from his point of view.

It is rather similar to the way a spoiled child behaves when denied something by a parent it has come to expect all sorts of reasonable and unreasonable concessions from. It is not unusual for such a child to declare its hatred for such a parent and run away to its room in a flood of bitter tears. This is, in fact, what happened to Darwin who was from the privileged classes of his time - and was used to getting his own way. It is a similar experience that brings a great many to Atheism today too.

[Zaki]

(Original post by Bilco)
Why? And if this where true how do you get from this to god?

Well, if you exist in ANY reality at all, it is either the Supreme Reality Itself or a derivation from this latter is in it? You don't really think the reality you're existing in now has no precursor - and is also not the Supreme Reality, do you?

So, however you look at the matter, the Supreme Reality - God - is always there. And, unless you are Him, you're subordinate to Him. Obviously you're not Him, so.....

[blueray]

(Original post by Zaki)
I'm not sure I follow your argument. But it seems to me you're saying that you don't know what drives evolution. My question is, don't you think you should be doing your best to find out?

What drives evolution is the need to survive? Basics surely.

[ChemistBoy]

(Original post by Zaki)
Darwin didn't know about the Big Bang Theory. It was after his time. However, it is my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - that he rejected the notion that the process of evolution was driven by intelligence - and his modern disciples say as much. That's my point.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on Early Cosmology, it never had and never will. Ergo, it can't support or reject any assertion that the Big Bang was caused by God.

You seem to be searching for an argument here rather than actually thinking about what Darwin and later evolutionary biologists have proposed.

[ChemistBoy]

(Original post by Zaki)
The person IS the consciousness. The brain is a merely a TOOL the person uses, yes.

Conscious Will is the irreducible basis of ALL Existence. All that exists are just differing forms of Conscious Will. Here in the physical world the dominant species of Conscious Will is so sluggish that it is barely perceptible as self-mobile at all - save at the microlevel, where spontaneous quantum events are the norm. Do you begin to follow?

Through careful integration of the efforts co-operating conscious wills at the microlevel, the spontaneity of the quantum world can be made manifest on the macrolevel - which is how organisms arise. This is what evolution scientists superficially observe and some ignorantly take to be evidence of living things arising without intelligent guidance.

These quantum effects have also been harnessed today at the macrolevel by technology to produce things like transistors, superconductivity, atomic generators and bombs etc. It is also used to explain the Big Bang.

Invocation of quantum effects that are useful and denial of ones that aren't isn't really a cogent argument. If you want to make quantum physics a macro-phenomenon then you have to take it in its entirity, including all the bits that make it fundamentally uncertain and as destructive as creative.

[Facticity]

(Original post by Zaki)
Why prejudge it? That reduces your ability to evaluate something fairly and accurately. In the end, it is you who loses out through such blinkering - or even blindfolding of your consciousness with presumption.

What? Judging from everything you have said so far, none of your arguments stretch outside of the fallacies involved in teleological (intelligent and purposeful design)/cosmological, line of reasoning. No presumption was made, its right in front of me. And there was certainly no blindfolding of my consciousness.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Zaki)
It is what the facts before us say, don't you think?

So, you made it up at random and now you claim it's self-evident rather than attempting to justify yourself. Good GUESSING there.

(Original post by Zaki)
Well, if you exist in ANY reality at all, it is either the Supreme Reality Itself or a derivation from this latter is in it? You don't really think the reality you're existing in now has no precursor - and is also not the Supreme Reality, do you?

So, however you look at the matter, the Supreme Reality - God - is always there. And, unless you are Him, you're subordinate to Him. Obviously you're not Him, so.....

You have presupposed the existence of your god as part of the justification for your god. How novel!