Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So there as always been time and space then? What about energy? Possibly in some unknown form at this time. Possible?

Edit: The point is, just because the universe as we know it began with the Big Bang event, that doesn't mean that existence it self had a beginning.

Maybe there never was a beginning.

That's the basis of Dynamic Free Theism. God is eternal energy, just not impersonal mindless physical energy.

--Dave
 

noguru

Well-known member
So I guess you agree with Nietzsche.

Everyone is programed one way or another and freedom of thought and action is impossible.

In atheistic science only matter effects matter. In theistic science non-material soul and spirit can effect matter as well as matter effecting matter.

--Dave

Are you daft? Oh wait, I know the answer to that.

Are you familiar with the concept of "learned behavior" from behavioral biology?
 

doloresistere

New member
I will grant you the "supernatural soul" aspect of this for the sake of argument. But can you tell me where that "supernatural soul" is seated? Where does the rubber meet the road, would you call that "the mind"?

Also, I was not claiming that our thoughts are "purely driven" from mechanistic means. I do not know enough about the universe to say that. I would love to see an example of a thought that is independent of a "mind", however.

Are thoughts that are not governed by the laws of physics/the universe even valid? How would you test the validity of such thoughts?

The laws of physics allow the phenomena of thoughts ; they do not determine the content of them. Agree?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
There is only one science method. It's called, emm.... science. Theists who do science adhere to the same principles as atheists who do science. Unless they are doing pseudo-science.

Science creates theories that may or may not be correct. A theory presupposes what may or may not be real.

--Dave
 

alwight

New member
"Natural selection...could scarcely be less available for any hope that evolution might be cosmically rational. Natural selection is not about "improvement" or "progress" in any global sense. It is a remarkably inefficient, even cruel process. We never should have sought either solace or moral instruction in Nature, who was not made for us, or even had us in mind."--Stephen Jay Gould,​

"A strange mystery it is that Nature, omnipotent but blind, in the revolutions of her secular hurryings through the abysses of space, has brought forth at last a child, subject still to her power, but gifted with sight, with knowledge of good and evil, with the capacity of judging all the works of his unthinking Mother."--Bertrand Russell​

Mindless nature, an unthinking Mother, cannot plan anything.

The organization of anything does not happen by chance.

Whatever is "not random" has been planned, whatever is random is "not planned".

I "think" we can call this "checkmate".

--Dave

Do you really think that you have me trapped or maybe you actually don't really want to understand what I meant?
Not being random does not require any planning here Dave, there is no need to suppose any purpose or planning at all. Natural selection is simply about what is best suited to a specific environment and what actually works.
Humming birds are not naturally selectable in Antarctica, but penguins are. It is therefore not random chance that makes penguins or humming birds selectable birds for an environment it is the suitability of their physiology. If the wrong physiology is not naturally selectable then natural selection itself is not a random or guided process.
 

Hedshaker

New member
That's the basis of Dynamic Free Theism. God is eternal energy, just not impersonal mindless physical energy.

--Dave

That's what you believe anyway. What I believe is that higher consciousness has evolved over time.

Well, consciousness is self evident. God, not so much.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Please define 'freedom of thought and action' for me, as my answer will depend on your precise intended meaning.

As an atheist you should understand Nietzsche better than I do. What do you think he means? I mean what he means and that's why I quoted him.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Do you really think that you have me trapped or maybe you actually don't really want to understand what I meant?
Not being random does not require any planning here Dave, there is no need to suppose any purpose or planning at all. Natural selection is simply about what is best suited to a specific environment and what actually works.
Humming birds are not naturally selectable in Antarctica, but penguins are. It is therefore not random chance that makes penguins or humming birds selectable birds for an environment it is the suitability of their physiology. If the wrong physiology is not naturally selectable then natural selection itself is not a random or guided process.

DNA determines what is suited for what and DNA is not the product of mindless unthinking nature.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
That's what you believe anyway. What I believe is that higher consciousness has evolved over time.

Well, consciousness is self evident. God, not so much.

Whatever has evolved cannot be eternal, not even an evolving God.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So in your view something must be stagnant in order to be eternal?

No, whatever is eternal and the cause of whatever is temporal must be free, freedom is movement. Aristotle's timeless and immovable "Unmoved Mover", a.k.a., "pure actuality" is not free, nor is the timeless and immovable "Eternal Now".

Only a God who "freely actualizes his own infinite potentiality" can logically account for a universe that has a beginning. Infinite/unlimited potential works with infinite/unlimited time.

--Dave
 

gcthomas

New member
As an atheist you should understand Nietzsche better than I do. What do you think he means? I mean what he means and that's why I quoted him.

--Dave

Don't you have an interpretation then? Oh well.

We certainly have functional free will that allows for personal moral responsibility for our actions.

But if you think free will means thought is independent from the material of the brain, then the study of specific mind impairments resulting from defined brain injuries does not support that conclusion. Mind is simply a result of the operation of the brain and so absolute free will is probably an illusion. The illusion of free will is more important than the fact of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top