universal evolution and the real and living creator god [yes thats right!]

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

the "pristine" ideal is itself a creation of semantics.

Chris

That is a very important point. And if the notion of God is not an ideal then nothing is!!

Tao

[_Z_]

hi tao, just call me zebedee [magic roundabout lols].

In the wider universe we see a lot of recycling but not reproduction.

the microcosm is a lot more constrained than the macrocosm, heat may be a major agent as things unfold from the big bang, yet they still follow a path from hydrogen onwards to heavier elements and evermore complex isotopes etc. what i am looking at is the patterns that exist on both levels and from whence they came.

in a sense stars etc do reproduce, as their energy goes to forming new stars as our energy forms new children. hmm bit of a stretch i suppose .

So what we observe even down to the elements are at the mercy of the cause and effect conditions that prevail in that locality.

sure, nevertheless there still is the periodic table and a myriad of other patterns and laws, we may say that they all happen by chance yet all the way down the line the law comes first i.e. before its effect. moreover everything is an aspect of the whole being acted upon! you have bodies [e.g. planets and stars] and they have an effect on the whole entity of existence [gods physical body] producing gravity. you set an object in motion and possesses momentum [which did not exist previously], you take away one form of energy and it is equally replaced by another [energy conservation]. everywhere we look there is the whole entity being acted upon, multiplied by a set of universal laws, principles and patterns.

‘humans’ will appear elsewhere in the universe because evolution will take a course that will eventually find humanoids of some kinds, just as it will find rodents, dogs and cats of some description. the form of all primary things already exists [perhaps in terms of infinite potential], the world to some degree follows or tries to arrive at those forms whilst at the same time builds off them to find new forms.
see here for where i am coming from on that last point:
the ultimate perfection

path of one, hi ~ long time no see.

i would question if there really is chaos too. all i see is order but there are many kinds of order which produce an effect that appears to be chaos. my god is an anarchist so he/she/it produced a free universe and everything is set to those ends. i guess that when watching TV he just don’t like repeats lols [i.e. absolute order would be endlessly repetitive].
CCS

No it doesn’t! Outside the quantum veil whole systems may or may not hold sway. There may not be an ultimate anything.

there must be an ultimate! can we not say there is infinity if not then what is beyond things or beyond that? then add; an infinite amount of monkeys with typewriters would soon write every law of science.
why is there the ‘quantum’? you see the idea and the law always comes first.

ciel
i agree, and would add that we see god everywhere without exception, thus everything that is ‘at play’ is gods work?

tao again

Are you saying God created evolution just so he could tidy it up?

i agree with you here. as i see it he makes laws etc and then lets them play out, sometimes there are necessary consequences. indeed when i say ‘lets’ i feel it is more the case that he can only set the patterns, once in motion there is nothing anyone or anything can do to change it.

if god was like merlin the magician and he made himself into a bull, he cannot be anything else without changing it to something else entirely. as for the universe it is the bull, it cannot be anything else until there comes a point when all can change ~ and for that we need the phoenix.

[_Z_]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower
the "pristine" ideal is itself a creation of semantics.

That is a very important point. And if the notion of God is not an ideal then nothing is!!

when we conceptualise god this is true. god may not be a pristine ideal. we create such ideas via semantics because there is no other way to deal with them, that doesn’t mean god is just an idea or just a word, indeed he is something beyond description > absolute simplicity X infinity [inc infinite intellect and ‘being’].

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

True. But that's not what atheistic science uses to validate its claims.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your methods of validation. My understanding of science (and a lot of others' understanding as well) is that atheism or theism has not much to do with science. You can't validate either the existence or non-existence of God through scientific methods. There is "proof" that supports either belief. Ultimately, it just isn't a very good mechanism for the task.

What I am also pointing out is that it is one's way of conceptualizing God that impacts whether or not God is observable (either to the self or to other beings). If I define God as Nature (or, rather, that Nature is part of God and the rest of God is not observable), then I am defining my God in a way that is observable on two planes. First, the processes and systems of Nature can be studied through science. Second, any underlying spiritual connections between myself and Nature can be experienced by me, but not observed by others. (Well, you can observe some connections objectively, but that is a digression I won't get into at the moment.)

And they are infallible?

No more or less than your thoughts on the matter. We are both of us fallible. That is why I remain open-minded to virtually any possibility. I don't particularly think atheists are wrong for being atheist. If they are being honest to their own experience, so be it. I think atheists are wrong for presuming to think they have figured it out and the rest (most) of humanity is delusional. Yes, I do find that arrogant. And I find Western science arrogant if/when it presumes to be superior to other cultures' ways of knowing. There is more than one way to approach the universe- to manipulate it, to study it, to understand it. Western science is one way among many, and it has its advantages and disadvantages. As an anthropologist, I simply cannot get on board with the mindset that somehow a small group of (mostly) Westerner, (mostly) white, and (mostly) mid-to-upper class folks have figured out that God is a delusion and the rest of the peoples of the world are simply stuck in wishful thinking. I find that to be ethnocentric and condescending toward others.

I do not define God.

Saying God cannot be found in chaos is not, in part, a definition of God's supposed attributes?

I have attempted, recently, to define its absence. Subtle change of language but a fundamental difference of approach.

Definition of absence is, by extension, defining what you expect to see. If you define the absence of God as random chance, then you are implying that God would yield order (and order that you can observe and is universal).

I am proposing that whether or not someone experiences/observes God depends on how you are defining God (or Its absence). I observe God where you observe natural processes. I am not observing different processes from you, but I am exploring them in different ways- in a way of interaction, connection as opposed to only observation.

Rather I go with the best scenario that the available evidence points to at this time.

As do I. I just have different evidence, apparently. Or a different interpretation of the evidence I have.

What is "best" is necessarily defined by each of us for ourselves. Hence, the problem of atheism (or religion, for that matter) defining what is "best" for others. I think to define what is best for another human being is kind of patronizing.

But I do wish to stand up for the values that are not intended to insult anyone, but to simply state truth to the very best of my understanding.

I fully respect that. I know quite a few atheists and I respect that, given their own evidence and interpretation, that is their honest assessment. Given my evidence and interpretation, I came to different conclusions. I don't find the atheist position insulting for an individual. I find it insulting when anyone thinks they have the Right Answer (whether it is a religious or atheistic one) and then thinks the rest of the world is delusional. Similarly, most atheists I know feel it is insulting that religious folks tell them they are "lost" and such like.

I attempt at all times to apply the scientific method because it has no bias, no preconceptions to uphold.

Really? There is a ton of literature on the scientific method and Western science more broadly, its cultural bias and the biases that it inevitably incorporates when it is implemented by people. It's a regular topic of conversation in cultural anthropology, since we've studied enough cultures to see that other cultures may practice science differently, which can be more or less effective given the goals of the individual. The scientific method and indeed the entire paradigm of objective science has a rich history that is grounded in Western culture and was designed for certain types of investigation. And it has always been plagued by the bias that necessarily occurs both in any system that is culturally bound and in any system that relies on people to implement it.

Don't get me wrong, I love the scientific method and I use it for research. But I recognize its biases and cultural history, as well as my own biases when I use it. But we can be aware of our own biases and then work with them honestly in science.

In the post on this thread to which you first responded I set out a scientifically based proposition that did not require any 'faith' to validate it. Nor any God. But your response was full of the emotions of belief. I described systems observable by anyone, you what you "feel". You can measure examples of what I propose, but I cannot measure your belief.

First, your scientifically based proposition was defining God in certain ways (or the absence of God in certain ways). I was pointing out that by defining it, you are already putting forth untested assumptions, which is not good science. I wasn't saying faith was necessary to validate or not. I was pointing out a flaw in the design of your statements.

Second, I actually wasn't being very emotional at all. I was simply saying that I've observed/experienced something different from you. You can't tell me what I've observed/experienced, because it is outside the range of what you know. There is nothing emotional about that statement.

Of course I can't measure my belief and I wasn't talking about that. I was saying that each of us is defining God (either by Its presence or absence, we indicate our conceptualization of Its attributes). By my definition, even stuff you observe is God (natural processes). By your definition, nothing counts unless it is observable by all people equally (I think, you can correct me if I am wrong) and is evidence of intervention or universal order. Two separate definitions yield two separate sets of assumptions and two different conclusions. Because there is no "correct" definition of God, it's kind of a moot point. I wasn't arguing you must accept my definition, but rather pointing out the other possibilities- that your definition could be wrong. What you are looking for as evidence could be wrong.

Similarly, if you define God in a way that doesn't fit into my experience, I would say I have not experienced that God.

There is no measurable unexplainable intervention in the systems described. They are all explainable as the natural progression of cause and effect in a chaotic universe.

My point is that it is not necessary to have a measurable unexplainable intervention in systems for God to exist. The absence of it does not disprove God in general, but only your version of God (i.e., something that would have an unexplicable intervention in systems). Your assumptions are defining your outcome as much as your evidence.

I explained in my reply to Cyberpi why I think chaos excludes the notion of God, order, divine planning or whatever you may wish to label it.

I think God, order, and divine planning (which in itself is nebulous in meaning) are entirely different things. I read the response to cyberpi, but I don't have the same exclusions and whatnot that you do. I don't tend to think of God in terms of order or planning, but rather in terms of connection and creativity. It is in connecting with other beings that there is God. It is in the natural processes of creativity (including destruction) that there is God. Fundamentally, for me, God is in the connecting and the ever-present changing of the universe, the constant transformation. The singularity behind it all is God, too.

To be honest it was a poor choice of adjective. Sometimes you get them when you post at 6am as your first coffee is brewing The gist of what I was trying to say is that the universe does not care about what we do or do not think. It was here long before us and will be here long after we are gone.

That helps a ton. And I totally understand about 6 am. I'm barely up at that point, much less typing. LOL On this, I sort of agree. I think the universe responds to what we do/think (as it is not monolithic, but made up of smaller entities). Whether or not it cares is another matter. Certainly, elements of the universe (for example, myself) cares about what other beings do/think. So, by extension, I would say at least some of God cares. Other parts of God shows different types of attributes. It's sort of like I think God exploded into a whole bunch of pieces of God, each unique in attributes, and there is more to God than this explosion too.

I think the second statement is more problematic. Who are "us" and "we"- me and you? We're just part of the universe, we don't really ever "go." We transform. Now, I believe in spirit and I think that transforms, but you do not. But even the stuff you do believe in, doesn't go. It transforms. "You" and "me" become dirt and later, other stuff. We continue indefinitely. This is partly what I am talking about with connection.

Equally, no offence, I believe that you believe what you do for reasons other than those you think.

OK. I think I am best qualified to explain why I think the way I do, just as you are best qualified to say why you think the way you do. For example, I do not tell you that you are atheist because you are jaded, or cynical, or are "lost" or trying to run from God (all things religious people have told my atheist friends, unfortunately). I take your word that you are atheist because it best explains your own evidence. I'd appreciate the same consideration, but if you really feel that you are more qualified to tell me my own reasoning and thoughts, I won't continue to complain. It wouldn't be the first time and I typically just ignore such patronizing attitudes. After all, I've been in a predominantly atheistic profession for years. I don't mind the discussion, even when it sounds a bit condescending.

[China Cat Sunflower]

My understanding of science (and a lot of others' understanding as well) is that atheism or theism has not much to do with science. You can't validate either the existence or non-existence of God through scientific methods. ...Ultimately, it just isn't a very good mechanism for the task.

Hi Kim,

I find God concepts useful within certain metaphysical contexts, but I don't see a lot of value in interjecting God into scientific debate. God isn't particularly useful in measuring things. Like you said, God is a sort of metaphor for a special quality of connectedness, not a Swiss Army knife. And if God is this sort of all pervasive cohesive principle which manifests everywhere as a natural feature of everything, then I don't see much point belaboring the discussion of IT. We may as well just ask "what is the nature of super-cohesiveness?" The only problem I ever have is with the idea that there MUST be a God, and it Must have thus and thus attributes, and that allowance Must be made for It.

IMMHO, metaphysics can serve well as analogy for science, but science should never be seen as analogous with metaphysics.

Chris

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Einstein is sometimes quoted as a famous atheist, sometimes as a man of God.

When I see Einstein, quotes and religion referred to, these are the quotes attributed to him that I think of:

“Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.”

”If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”

s.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I find God concepts useful within certain metaphysical contexts, but I don't see a lot of value in interjecting God into scientific debate...

The only problem I ever have is with the idea that there MUST be a God, and it Must have thus and thus attributes, and that allowance Must be made for It.

Hi, Chris-

I'm in agreement. I just don't see how science has much value in exploring God, unless you define God in such a way, as I do, that it encompasses everything and so everything you observe is God. Otherwise, the two are in separate realms. And to go at it my way, one has to be operating off a certain inclusiveness in how one views God with which many people are uncomfortable (both religious and atheist). On the flip side, unless you see God as being in our reason, and reason/logic not being antithetical to emotion/intuition, God is not all that useful for science either.

As for the "must" statements, I just figure I dislike other people telling me what to think, so I try to avoid doing the same. Sure, I have my ideas and opinions, I have my experiences and observations. I can say, "I have experienced God." Each of us, whether there is God or there is not God, is on our own path of discovering ourselves, of creating ourselves. It isn't for me to shove my path down someone else's throat. Yet, I also will rail against other people of any religious or non-religious persuasion trying to do that to me or discounting my own thoughts and experiences. I am passionate about each person being the most qualified to think through their own experiences, and passionate about honoring the dignity of each person's journey in this matter.

[path_of_one]

I really love Einstein. I don't know if this is authentic or not, but here's a quote I found attributed to him about religion:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

From quotes I've read, I think he was a very spiritual man but not religious. He was for embracing the mystery through art and science, for feeling as well as thinking, and for compassion.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by _Z_

hi tao, just call me zebedee [magic roundabout lols].

Do you have a handlebar moustache and a big spring?

...what i am looking at is the patterns that exist on both levels and from whence they came.

in a sense stars etc do reproduce, as their energy goes to forming new stars as our energy forms new children. hmm bit of a stretch i suppose .

It is a bit of a stretch. A tiny fraction, if any at all, of an average stars mass will end up in another star.

sure, nevertheless there still is the periodic table and a myriad of other patterns and laws, we may say that they all happen by chance yet all the way down the line the law comes first i.e. before its effect. moreover everything is an aspect of the whole being acted upon! you have bodies [e.g. planets and stars] and they have an effect on the whole entity of existence [gods physical body] producing gravity. you set an object in motion and possesses momentum [which did not exist previously], you take away one form of energy and it is equally replaced by another [energy conservation]. everywhere we look there is the whole entity being acted upon, multiplied by a set of universal laws, principles and patterns.

I am sorry but the only way I can honestly say there is any 'entity' there is by me imposing it. None of the laws, causes or effects require an "It" behind them.

if god was like merlin the magician and he made himself into a bull, he cannot be anything else without changing it to something else entirely. as for the universe it is the bull, it cannot be anything else until there comes a point when all can change ~ and for that we need the phoenix.

Well there is a lot of bull then!! Unfortunately I am making some effort to steer clear of getting bogged down in unprovable metaphysics and will not go that far

Tao

[Ciel]

[quote=_Z_;

if god was like merlin the magician and he made himself into a bull, he cannot be anything else without changing it to something else entirely. as for the universe it is the bull, it cannot be anything else until there comes a point when all can change ~ and for that we need the phoenix.[/QUOTE]

Maybe last night's earthquake was all down to the bull in the china shop.
Maybe it was the phoenix rising through tectonic plates.
Maybe, maybe........ all is change.
The only thing I know for sure is the formless pure form of God. The myths and fables are the fabrication of creative earth bound consciousness tied to natures ecology.

- c -

[_Z_]

tao, hi, no i have no moustache but a big spring seams to send me here and there in life both mentally and physically [geographically for work etc].

this is where i am coming from:
evolution [noun: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)] in the wider sense of the term may mean any kind of development from one thing to the next usually in a hierarchy of some kind. this can be anything from histories, the development of galaxies, chemical periods, math, or to time itself.
so now we should be talking origins. what comes first the rule or the user of? what then makes the rule to begin with. the reason why in this thought experiment i am saying ‘god’ is to round it all up into one whole.

I am sorry but the only way I can honestly say there is any ‘entity’ there is by me imposing it. None of the laws, causes or effects require an "It" behind them.

i see where you are coming from, now imagine the scenario where in a parallel universe someone like you is saying the exact opposite; that there is only the whole being acted upon according to the laws of reality, we may only take this away by imposing a false argument, whereby everything is set out in their part to the exclusion of the whole.

Well there is a lot of bull then!!

oh bugger i asked for that didn’t i, doh!

ciel

The myths and fables are the fabrication of creative earth bound consciousness tied to natures ecology.

are they?
...the phoenix is/can be a metaphor for the state between universes or lives/incarnations where there is nothing, from which something arises ~ hence like the phoenix from the creational fire.

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by _Z_

tao,


ciel

are they?
...the phoenix is/can be a metaphor for the state between universes or lives/incarnations where there is nothing, from which something arises ~ hence like the phoenix from the creational fire.

ZZZZZZZ,

Yes, not to say that they have no purpose, for they do, as you say everything is part of the whole. I could tell you I have seen a phoenix in etheric electrical form, as i've seen a whole array of elemental forms, but they belong to the creational interdimensional aspects of the nature of this planet and universe. The almighty is something else. Although there is a part of God in everything. Perhaps it would be better to use the word "weave" instead of fabrication, I was considering the fabric.

- c -

- c -

[_Z_]

ciel

yes weave is a good term, the ancient egyptians for example had the notion of the neters or nets of the goddess nieth, by which all things were considered to be weaved together. god does have that apparent duplicity in its own and manifest forms, perhaps it is like the difference between who we are and how we live/what we do. we as all things have the exact same duplicity.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Hi, Chris-

I'm in agreement. I just don't see how science has much value in exploring God, unless you define God in such a way, as I do, that it encompasses everything and so everything you observe is God. Otherwise, the two are in separate realms. And to go at it my way, one has to be operating off a certain inclusiveness in how one views God with which many people are uncomfortable (both religious and atheist). On the flip side, unless you see God as being in our reason, and reason/logic not being antithetical to emotion/intuition, God is not all that useful for science either.

As for the "must" statements, I just figure I dislike other people telling me what to think, so I try to avoid doing the same. Sure, I have my ideas and opinions, I have my experiences and observations. I can say, "I have experienced God." Each of us, whether there is God or there is not God, is on our own path of discovering ourselves, of creating ourselves. It isn't for me to shove my path down someone else's throat. Yet, I also will rail against other people of any religious or non-religious persuasion trying to do that to me or discounting my own thoughts and experiences. I am passionate about each person being the most qualified to think through their own experiences, and passionate about honoring the dignity of each person's journey in this matter.

I think we're pretty close to being on the same page here. I get a little confused when a lot of people are talking about "God" because I'm pretty sure they're not all thinking of the same thing. I'm very comfortable with something like your definition, but then suddenly It's a male being, with emotions, capable of intervention at the drop of a hat. It sent It's Son, or It's Prophet to somehow save me from my sins, and It wants me to vote GOP or I'm not a real American.

Chris

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

That is a very important point. And if the notion of God is not an ideal then nothing is!!

Tao

I don't see why G!d has to be an ideal, or how it limits anything from being ideal. An ideal what? Nor do I see G!d as an entity. Or as everything. I see G!d as the stuff that makes up everything, the space in between everything which allows us to define anything. Everything we see isn't G!d but the expression of G!d, as evolution is as well.

These are the thoughts at this moment I reserve the right to completely and utterly reject them in the next moment or when new information arises.

re: science and G!d, I see them coming ever closer and science being ever closer to understanding what G!d is. According to the agreement G!d/spirituality is still everything science can't explain. And the closer science gets to understanding everything, the amount they don't know increases proportionately.