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

[_Z_]

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

is evolution universal? The expansion of the universe is equally an evolution, the periodic table can be seen as an evolution of the elements ~ from the start of the big bang elements formed as the universe cooled...

Generally speaking evolution can be seen as a set of patterns [like trees of species etc] which like laws come before that which follows them/works by then/utilises them. in both cases we have to ask what makes the laws by which all things go by, and why is the universe so beautifully designed?
This doesn’t mean you have to have a creator god, i don’t even know how a god or anything else can make laws of the universe. however existence itself has/belongs to infinite intelligence which would be a faculty of the ultimate nature and being.

Something has to be that which shapes existence, i can draw no other conclusion that this shaping has to occur in the primary state before and after a given universe [outside of it]. this could simply be the workings of infinity, but surely that itself would be ‘god’ as i see it i.e. it would possess all that we are at the very least!

It then follows that all patterns and potential evolutions are cast before the singularity goes bang ~ hence evolution is gods workings.
up until now i have always said that ‘creation’ is an invalid concept or an impossible notion, because we don’t see any creation we only have evidence and observations of transformation of what is already there.

i am now starting to see where this is flawed, creation would necessarily be external to existence as a baby is from its mother ~ once born. there is a strange state between the birth of a universe and the death of an old one [if it is cyclic], there must necessarily be an absence of physical existence otherwise the one would get tied up with the other in terms of time, dimension and the limited or conserved nature of energy etc.

within this gap lies infinity and hence god, everything that went before i.e. in the previous incarnation of the universe, would be wrapped up in the emptiness and form the foetus of the next. within that space laws and principles are changed to form the ‘new model universe’, this would occur necessarily so as to avoid exacting repetitions of each version.

creation is literally a miracle [the reality and the very form of] and hence the universe is too.

ps. and my idea of the ‘humanative’ is true [that humans were set to happen and occur throughout the universe and possibly in any universe before or after this one.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Z!! Nice to see you again

Originally Posted by _Z_

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

is evolution universal? The expansion of the universe is equally an evolution, the periodic table can be seen as an evolution of the elements ~ from the start of the big bang elements formed as the universe cooled...

Generally speaking evolution can be seen as a set of patterns [like trees of species etc] which like laws come before that which follows them/works by then/utilises them. in both cases we have to ask what makes the laws by which all things go by, and why is the universe so beautifully designed?
This doesn’t mean you have to have a creator god, i don’t even know how a god or anything else can make laws of the universe. however existence itself has/belongs to infinite intelligence which would be a faculty of the ultimate nature and being.

If you turn it on its head you begin to see that evolution is not at all mysterious but inevitable. Perfect copies of anything are an impossibility. No matter what you look at from an individual molecule to a tree species it cannot remain unchanged and static forever. Taking the tree as the example the fact that the species it belongs to will evolve into one or more other species over time is to be expected. For it to suddenly turn into a carrot would be weird. This astatic nature of all things when multiplied amongst all possible scenarios gives an essentially infinite potential. In reality it is governed, or regulated by what is possible in the local environment. So the tree could become a carrot but only using classical constraints within evolution theory. Chief amongst them in this case being time.
But evolution theory is designed to describe the changes that take place in things that can reproduce. In the wider universe we see a lot of recycling but not reproduction. So whilst I appreciate what you are describing I feel it is a bit of a false trail to follow. The molecular changes we see in a stellar crucible are governed not by random mutation but by the variances of heat and pressure. Its really not at all like evolution.

Given that if there was no God we would expect to see a lot of randomness driven mostly by 'cause and effect' then I would most definitely conclude that God does not exist. The fundamental laws that govern our local universe are very probably just as vulnerable to small changes in the wider locality as say an ocean current is to sea temperature fluctuations. Some are beginning to think, for example, that there is a lot less dark matter in the universe than was estimated but rather gravity and mass may hold different values in different parts of our heavens. If mass and gravity have higher values the suns in such regions would produce elements that are heavier than those on our periodic table. So what we observe even down to the elements are at the mercy of the cause and effect conditions that prevail in that locality. Over a wider area still, roaming into the multiverse, if we extend the same logic then all we see is randomness defined by local conditions. No order except that. And certainly no God.

Tao

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Over a wider area still, roaming into the multiverse, if we extend the same logic then all we see is randomness defined by local conditions. No order except that. And certainly no God.

Tao

I don't see how that is a lack of order. It's just a different kind of order, driven by local rather than universal conditions. I don't think it's any "less" of an order either.

I don't see how order or the lack thereof does or does not prove God's existence. As a panentheist, I believe God is in all things, and beyond all things. No particular order is necessary for such. God just is. Once one experiences God in this way, there isn't much in science that shakes that experience because the two are in entirely different categories of perception. Science can't approach the issue of God very well. It simply isn't set up to speak to the issue.

Whether the universe is random chaos, exquisite order, or something in between... God is there. Why not God in the chaos? In what is random?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Z

Something has to be that which shapes existence

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

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Whether we find the primal object of our quest, or not, it will always be an object of our own creation. And if we should arrive at that ultimate destination it will be no accident, as it will be our own footsteps that brought us. But in the meantime.., nostalgia for the "lost" referential controls. The essence of spin neutralization is in the realization that the "pristine" ideal is itself a creation of semantics.

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I don't see how that is a lack of order. It's just a different kind of order, driven by local rather than universal conditions. I don't think it's any "less" of an order either.

I don't see how order or the lack thereof does or does not prove God's existence. As a panentheist, I believe God is in all things, and beyond all things. No particular order is necessary for such. God just is. Once one experiences God in this way, there isn't much in science that shakes that experience because the two are in entirely different categories of perception. Science can't approach the issue of God very well. It simply isn't set up to speak to the issue.

Whether the universe is random chaos, exquisite order, or something in between... God is there. Why not God in the chaos? In what is random?

For me, what allows me to conclude as I do is that local cause and effect hold sway, always. There is no universal. On another thread I talk of degrees of magnitude within this 'chaos' but I believe even this kind of mandlebrot set expression of actuality is not nearly so uniform and pretty as our computer generated expressions. And with respect I personally feel that invoking a God of Chaos is like a small print get out clause. Nowhere that I look have I been able to detect any slight hint that anything but the natural progression of processes is taking place. There is no "intervention" to be found. The universe is clinically indifferent to our notions. If 'something' was at play then we could reasonably expect to see some sign of it. We dont.

Tao

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

.............. The universe is clinically indifferent to our notions. If 'something' was at play then we could reasonably expect to see some sign of it. We dont.

Tao

Tao,
You may not, but many do.

- c -

[Alex P]

I think Ciel has a point brother... This something... What would it look like?

[cyberpi]

I find that God is a better scientist than anyone, and God allowed science to help reveal God to me. Dare I ask a question: What is the purpose of science: because on both ends of that purpose there is God.

I do find that the Universe is clinically indifferent to our notions. So then like every good scientist, I will not be clinically indifferent to the Universe. That will is thus non-clinical, and different than the Universe.

Why not God in the chaos, someone has asked. I hear someone who played with light had said: God does not roll dice. My reply to him would be: No but he can let others roll them, and that is dicy enough. As a child a lot was chaos to me, but now there is less that is, so I figure to God there is very little chaos if he made everything that there is.

Evolution is like a roll of the dice, which brings things into light. Good things like diseases, viruses, and maggots. Why you might hopefully ask. Well if you go to take the jump from Darwin's cliff in that great leap of hope, something has to clean up the mess.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

There is no universal.

Perhaps the universal that some of us experience is not the one for which you are looking. Absence of personal experience or observation is not absence of existence. Any scientist knows that.

And with respect I personally feel that invoking a God of Chaos is like a small print get out clause.

Well, that is your perogative to see it that way. I experience God in All. So what appears to be chaos or random occurrence to me is actually God, just like what appears to be order to me is also God. Perhaps you are looking for a different kind of God than I have experienced, and of course I can't speak to that. For me, I am simply operating based on my own experiences and observations. I can't speak to others', nor do I particularly think it matters if they agree with me. I'm just pointing out the possibilities. Defining God and then searching for It unsuccessfully only proves that your definition of God is erroneous.

Nowhere that I look have I been able to detect any slight hint that anything but the natural progression of processes is taking place.

Ah, but what is the natural progression of processes? I find nature to be "the living, visible garment of God." To a panentheist, nature IS the face of God.

There is no "intervention" to be found.

Do you mean that God does not intervene into natural processes? Or into our lives? Or ???

I think God has no need to intervene into natural processes- there is no supernatural. God is in natural processes, and whether something is interpreted by a human to be natural or supernatural is irrelevant.

The universe is clinically indifferent to our notions.

Could you explain this further? Are you saying the universe is clinically indifferent to our conceptualization of God? If so, I would agree. The universe is a manifestation of God, and our definitions and notions really have no impact on what God (or the universe) is. However, having certain notions does have the capacity to change our experience of the universe and our interactions with it.

If 'something' was at play then we could reasonably expect to see some sign of it. We dont.

No offense, but you don't. Some do, including me.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Tao,
You may not, but many do.

- c -

And this is why we are here talking in the first place. The expression goes that the leopard never changes its spots, but in the case of beliefs its a whole different kettle of fish. My own, and from what I read, those of several others have remained far from fixed through life. I dont know about you, if you have changed yours, but I bet you a close analysis would reveal a lot more about you than it would about God. Belief is a very personal thing. So personal in my experience that when its 'cause' is not indoctrination it can reveal the psyche like nothing else. This is why atheists get such a rough ride from those of faith.... because to explain atheisms stance on belief you really have to get into the psychology of religion. This is of course extremely problematic and causes the kind of emotional responses that make meaningful dialogue almost impossible. Who wants to hear that everything they hold so dearly is an delusion? How do you put forward that possibility without appearing arrogant and insensitive? Its a tightrope. But science does have very good research to back the proposition that the sense of belief is the result of certain physiological and psychological factors, that it is a side effect of our ancestors developing a big brain. But that's a whole other thread.

I do truly appreciate the point you make, and make my posts in the full knowledge that I may be wrong. But I am not here to discuss such things from anyone else's point of view and so I propose what I currently believe in my own way. How else should it be!

Originally Posted by Alex P

I think Ciel has a point brother... This something... What would it look like?

Anomalous. Inexplicable. Finite. Effect without explainable cause. Daffodils with signatures

Tao

[Alex P]

I think if we "look around us!!!" (You've heard of the show Tao my brother ) We'll see those things are here :\

Sincerely
Confused.com

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I find that God is a better scientist than anyone, and God allowed science to help reveal God to me. Dare I ask a question: What is the purpose of science: because on both ends of that purpose there is God.

To make such statements you have to be committed to that belief. The purpose of science is not singular, its method is.

Why not God in the chaos, someone has asked. I hear someone who played with light had said: God does not roll dice. My reply to him would be: No but he can let others roll them, and that is dicy enough. As a child a lot was chaos to me, but now there is less that is, so I figure to God there is very little chaos if he made everything that there is.

Einstein is sometimes quoted as a famous atheist, sometimes as a man of God. Truth is he was probably as torn between the two as much as any man could be. Being able to calculate the fundamental laws as he did he had a mind of vast ability to answer the question for himself, but he couldn't. So what hope do any of us have without blind faith?

Chaos is not our inability to make sense of things. Its an effect of random chance in infinitely complex systems. For there to be a God that was in control then It would have to be able to calculate everything simultaneously and be able to make changes. To have set it all in motion at some point in the past and for all we see to be "his plan" It would have had to calculate on an unimaginable scale. If that had been the case and It got the velocity of a single atom at any given time in the history of the universe wrong, then it may all look entirely different. Chaos theory's most startling observation is just how fast a complex system breaks down. Setting it all in motion and leaving it to run is so improbable a choice to make that I cannot believe it. Proactivity would be visible somewhere, but it is not.

Evolution is like a roll of the dice, which brings things into light. Good things like diseases, viruses, and maggots. Why you might hopefully ask. Well if you go to take the jump from Darwin's cliff in that great leap of hope, something has to clean up the mess.

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

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Perhaps the universal that some of us experience is not the one for which you are looking. Absence of personal experience or observation is not absence of existence. Any scientist knows that.

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

For me, I am simply operating based on my own experiences and observations.

And they are infallible?

Defining God and then searching for It unsuccessfully only proves that your definition of God is erroneous.

I do not define God. I have attempted, recently, to define its absence. Subtle change of language but a fundamental difference of approach. I never chose to take this position. I arrived at it only very recently, previously I was more agnostic and genuinely open to the idea. Even today I do not close myself off to the possibility. Rather I go with the best scenario that the available evidence points to at this time. I am not dogmatic. 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 attempt at all times to apply the scientific method because it has no bias, no preconceptions to uphold. 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. So you will measure what I say and finding it correct impose your belief upon it. Adding an unmeasurable to it does anything but make it valid. 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.

Ah, but what is the natural progression of processes? I find nature to be "the living, visible garment of God." To a panentheist, nature IS the face of God.

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.

Do you mean that God does not intervene into natural processes? Or into our lives? Or ???

Anywhere!!

Could you explain this further? Are you saying the universe is clinically indifferent to our conceptualization of God?

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.

No offense, but you don't. Some do, including me.

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

Tao

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I do truly appreciate the point you make, and make my posts in the full knowledge that I may be wrong. But I am not here to discuss such things from anyone else's point of view and so I propose what I currently believe in my own way. How else should it be!

Tao

Tao,
To be honest I doubt your point of appreciation of any post of a different view to your own. Except it enables more of the voice of Tao. The point was your use of the royal "we". And you speak from your own reckonings and connections as I do. So who is this "we"?

- c -