Jump to content

Evolution vs. ID vs. God


Paul Bruening

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
Any takers willing to grapple with this capacity vs. manifestation question?

 

Why is it common for people to answer, "Yes" when asked if there is such a thing as soul. But, say, "No" when asked if they have ever met or are in possession of their soul?

 

These aren't loaded questions. I would genuinely like to hear some ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

I used to believe in God but now, I am unsure. I think one of the main points for believing in a God, is the fact that it comes back to the question of creation. Cause and effect infinitely regress to the point that in order for a rational feeling of closure some people posit God. What Thomas Aquinas called his First Cause. But, even that answer begs the question, "Well who created God then?" To which theists respond something like, "Well he/she is the uncaused cause because he/she set everything in motion."

 

Well I think the more science tracks back to the singularity before the big band, the space for Gods existence, in a quantifiable, testable way will shrink considerably. The universe I think is a natural process, and part of that process is to create existence. Thats its job on a monumental scale, and microscopic. Every time our hearts beat the tide of blood is a mini big bang issuing plasma instead of galaxies, from nothingness to existence to nothingness again!!

 

Perhaps there is some guiding force in the universe, but I think that it would be completely naturally occurring rather than supernatural. And in terms of a personal god, I am pretty certain, a creature of that type does not exist.

 

Why would we think otherwise? What possible proof do we have of an existence of God, apart from esoteric writings from societies long since extinct? If a creator God choose to reveal himself in such a manner what does that say about the creature? "I am all powerful, but I will not reveal myself to my creation because I want them to believe in me without any justification to do so, and then I shall reward them in heaven."

 

Its just too simplistic.

 

Nature is so vastly strange, and marvelous and beautiful, is there any need to add anything more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it common for people to answer, "Yes" when asked if there is such a thing as soul. But, say, "No" when asked if they have ever met or are in possession of their soul?

 

These aren't loaded questions. I would genuinely like to hear some ideas.

 

OK, I'll fall on my sword for ya ol buddy. It's a bit like asking have you even met yourself isn't it? I mean what is a soul if not our whole being? I would have to answer NO because if I ever did meet myself, it would definitely creep me out and the mere act of meeting myself would negate the concept that who I'm actually meeting IS me because I am the total culmination of my existence and therefore by meeting myself we become two separate entities, alike but not identical, and incorporated as a whole, kinda like that Star Trek TNG episode "Second Chances" where Riker's transporter beam from the Potemkin when he was still a Lieutenant (GREAT name for a Star Fleet ship as The Battleship Potemkin was one of the powerful tools of propaganda used to bolster communism in the Soviet Union, the most murderous regime in the history of mankind, ESPECIALLY when the Federation is suppose to represent peace in the universe BTW) gets split and partially reflected back to that planet by this weird radiation so that there are now 2 Rikers and one is marooned on the planet for several years alone because they didn't know there were 2 of them and the Riker on the planet thinks they intentionally abandoned him so when they meet, their not the same person and actually end up resenting each other. :D You can never meet yourself so you can never meet your soul because your soul is you and the same goes for possessing your soul, you are your soul so possessing it is a given, if you didn't "possess" it, you wouldn't exist. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Steven,

 

Before I got wonderfully distracted by my newly met wife, I was trying for a double major. The set aside major was Philosophy. That's how I ended up with two semesters of German. I have to say. German is a truly excellent language for philosophy. It is still required for any serious philosophy program at the good schools.

 

It's no good to sing love songs, though. Don't even try. You'll sleep alone. Learn French instead. It's always better to be laid than right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's even more fascinating is why we have a mental capacity for God

Apparently there is some evidence that the capacity to believe in a God - and the desire to share in that belief with others - is itself a genetic or evolutionary trait. Presumably when we starteds to evolve as self-aware creatures there was an evolutionary advantage in that capacity and so it prevailed in the gene pool.

 

However it happened, the mental approach of religion or belief predates - by thousands of years - the development of "logical" thought, "proof" and so on. We can thank the ancient Greek philosophers for that way of thinking, although it was only really the Age of Reason that established it in the mainstream.

 

Religious beliefs start with "how did it all start" stories in almost all cultures. Most of the stories involve supernatural beings, based on early people's everyday experiences of powerful men, vast seas, volcanoes, mysterious animals, catastrophic storms and so on. After all, they didn't have genetics or quantum theory (or even Euclid or Galileo) to build theories on.

 

In most of its forms, reason (the "scientific method") observes phenomena, postulates a theory to explain them, then sets out to test (or "prove") the theory by observing more. It's a flawed process, but all science is based on it, so we have to give it house room.

 

Religious belief starts by observing phenomena, postulating a theory to explain them, then accepting and developing that theory without testing it. The word "proof' has absolutely no meaning in religion. You can't argue about it, it's just not a concept that you can work with.

 

One of the requirements of a rationalist philosophy is that all "facts" as well as all "theories" (really the same thing to a good rationalist) are consistent with each other. Many scientists are now coming to terms with the idea that this might not be necessary (for example, no-one has managed to square off relativity and quantum mechanics into a single unified field theory).

 

So there is no reason why we can't accept that well-tested scientific theories such as evolution or the origins of the universe are no more than a very very good way of understanding the phenomena that we can observe - but that other approaches migh satisfy some of the questions that modern science doesn't cope with so well. That's not to say that evolution as a theory is wrong in any way at all, just that it's not a perfect way of accounting for everything to all people.

 

Though it pretty much convinces me!

 

I used to believe in God but now, I am unsure.

I used to know I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...