Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

No, not for me. Why would you think that?

Me neither. There is no real evidence of any kind that anything at all happens after death. Make the most of it now. Be the best you can.

 

[Selaphiel]

No, not for me. Why would you think that?

Of course believing in an afterlife is not the same as stating that life here is awful. However, hope of an afterlife is a perspective that reinforces the meaning of this life, it puts it in a context of absolute meaning.
If there is no purpose whatsoever, and then of course no afterlife, that provides another perspective on this life. All the toil and hardships are a waste and life is, it is to put it in Shakespeare's words: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
People can still talk about making their best out of it, but that very activity itself becomes meaningless in such a worldview (I find the notion of creating your own meaning to be nonsense, since the very act of creating meaning would be meaningless as well, it is like choosing to read meaning into meaningless chaos). Not to mention, it is slightly easier for us that are privileged to live in the good part of the world, might not be so glamorous if your family was killed in war and you were maimed by a landmine at a young age and is suffering from serious disease.

Not sure what the afterlife has to do with creation versus evolution though, a thread title that is in itself ridiculous, since there is no necessary contradiction between the two terms.

 

[noguru]

Just a reminder that this is to what I was responding:

Wouldn't it be awful if living one lifetime down here were ALL that it was about?

Notice the word "awful" there?

Of course believing in an afterlife is not the same as stating that life here is awful. However, hope of an afterlife is a perspective that reinforces the meaning of this life, it puts it in a context of absolute meaning.
If there is no purpose whatsoever, and then of course no afterlife, that provides another perspective on this life. All the toil and hardships are a waste and life is, it is to put it in Shakespeare's words: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
People can still talk about making their best out of it, but that very activity itself becomes meaningless in such a worldview (I find the notion of creating your own meaning to be nonsense, since the very act of creating meaning would be meaningless as well, it is like choosing to read meaning into meaningless chaos). Not to mention, it is slightly easier for us that are privileged to live in the good part of the world, might not be so glamorous if your family was killed in war and you were maimed by a landmine at a young age and is suffering from serious disease.

Not sure what the afterlife has to do with creation versus evolution though, a thread title that is in itself ridiculous, since there is no necessary contradiction between the two terms.

Where did I say anything about "creating your own meaning"? In reality we don't create anything in this life. We discover things and learn how to utilize them for some purpose. That purpose is life. Whether one is an atheist or theist, believes in an afterlife or not.

How about if you intimately watched for 2 years as your mother's mind slipped away from Alzheimer's. And in the process lost the rest of your family and belongings as well?

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

I completely agree with your last paragraph.

 

[Selaphiel]

Where did I say anything about "creating your own meaning"? In reality we don't create anything in this life. We discover things and learn how to utilize them for some purpose.

That part wasn't aimed particularly at you. Nor was the post intended as being purely contrary to what you said. I merely used what you said as a starting point, and I ended up commenting on what the other posters wrote as well.

That purpose is life. Whether one is an atheist or theist, believes in an afterlife or not.

Life in and of itself is not a purpose without a greater context. If we assume that existence is absolutely meaningless, which would be the case if an atheistic ontology is correct (taking atheistic to refer to a denial of any form of transcendent reality here), then life is utterly meaningless as well, it would simply be one fact among many in an equally meaningless existence. My point was that the hope found in most forms of theism makes both life here and now and the entirety of existence absolutely meaningful.

How about if you watched you mother's mind slip away from Alzheimer's and in the process lost the rest of your family and belongings as well?

Obviously that is terrible, of course terrible things happen to people in the rich part of the world as well. Not my intention to dismiss any genuine suffering you have experienced. But generally speaking we get to live fairly full lives.
And I did watch my mother slip away, not to Alzheimer's disease, but she did shrivel away and died of cancer 6 years ago. So I do have some perspective on how terrible such events can be. However, I do see such events in a larger context than just life itself, I see it in light of a fundamental and everlasting reality that is love and in light of the resurrection (and I assume you do as well). Absent of that, I can't say that I would see much meaning in it, to me it would simply be a brute fact and nothing else, a blip on the radar of an ultimately sterile and indifferent reality. That alone is obviously not an argument for the content of my hope, I'm simply listing what I see as consequences of different views.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Life in and of itself is not a purpose without a greater context. If we assume that existence is absolutely meaningless, which would be the case if an atheistic ontology is correct (taking atheistic to refer to a denial of any form of transcendent reality here), then life is utterly meaningless as well, it would simply be one fact among many in an equally meaningless existence. My point was that the hope found in most forms of theism makes both life here and now and the entirety of existence absolutely meaningful.

Why are you so uncomfortable with a meaningless existence?

 

[noguru]

Life in and of itself is not a purpose without a greater context.

I disagree. Assuming a greater context, which according to Christian theism is just "more life", is not necessary to appreciate this life for its own essence.

Do you treat animals (or other humans) that are not in on the "afterparty" with less respect for their current lives, simply because their lives do not exist in some greater context?

If we assume that existence is absolutely meaningless,

Who is assuming that existence is meaningless?

which would be the case if an atheistic ontology is correct (taking atheistic to refer to a denial of any form of transcendent reality here), then life is utterly meaningless as well, it would simply be one fact among many in an equally meaningless existence.

No, I disagree again. Life brings meaning to everything else. Without life itself, there would be no meaning.

My point was that the hope found in most forms of theism makes both life here and now and the entirety of existence absolutely meaningful.

No, it does not. Life itself, either this one or the "afterparty", has meaning. Each moment we live brings more meaning. That meaning does not go away at the end of each life.

Obviously that is terrible, of course terrible things happen to people in the rich part of the world as well. Not my intention to dismiss any genuine suffering you have experienced. But generally speaking we get to live fairly full lives.
And I did watch my mother slip away, not to Alzheimer's disease, but she did shrivel away and died of cancer 6 years ago. So I do have some perspective on how terrible such events can be. However, I do see such events in a larger context than just life itself, I see it in light of a fundamental and everlasting reality that is love and in light of the resurrection (and I assume you do as well). Absent of that, I can't say that I would see much meaning in it, to me it would simply be a brute fact and nothing else, a blip on the radar of an ultimately sterile and indifferent reality. That alone is obviously not an argument for the content of my hope, I'm simply listing what I see as consequences of different views.

I agree. But I added that scriptural reference for a reason. Do you understand why?

 

[Selaphiel]

I disagree. And in assuming a greater context, which according to Christian theism is just "more life", is not necessary to appreciate life for its own essence.

It is not just more life. It is life in its truest form. And it is not just because life is everlasting in a Christian context, it is because life and existence itself was the will of an everlasting, perfect and absolute transcedent reality, which everything participates in. In a Christian context the essence of life is defined by participating in such a greater reality. I would claim that the "essence of life" at least partially defined by the greater reality in which it is a part of. And that is my point, life is meaningful because the essence of life as I see it is defined by its participation in this greater reality.

Who is assuming that existence is meaningless?

How would you argue for meaning in an atheistic ontology (understood as a complete lack of any transcendent reality)?

No, I disagree again. Life brings meaning to everything else. Without life itself, there would be no meaning.

Why? Absent any greater context, with a purely materialistic reality with no transcendent reality, how is life any more meaningful than any other process? And by "any more" I mean more than absolutely nothing. Sure, we could come up with subjective meaning, but I would argue that such meaning is ultimately meaningless, since its greater context is absolutely meaningless and thus is ultimately futile.

No, it does not. Life itself, either this one or the "afterparty", has meaning. Each moment we live brings more meaning. That meaning does not go away at the end of each life.

You can argue that a life holds a subjective meaning for some time after death, due to subsequent generations remembering you and is affected by your choices and so forth. But ultimately, how did it have any meaning? When the universe reaches a state of absolute entropy, what difference did life make? Would it be any different if there were no life at all? I would say no, nobody cared and nobody even noticed.

I of course agree that life has meaning, but only due to being part of a greater reality which makes it meaningful. Without that, I just do not see why life, as one process among many, is anymore privileged with retgards to meaning than for example dune wave formations.

I agree. But I added that scriptural reference for a reason. Do you understand why?

Feel free to elaborate.

 

[Selaphiel]

Do you treat animals (or other humans) that are not in on the "afterparty" with less respect for their current lives, simply because their lives do not exist in some greater context?

Did not see this part when writing the previous post, you may have edited in, so I will answer it in a new post.

Who said that I believe that animals won't be at the "afterparty"? I love animals and I have very great respect for animals and nature in general.
Just as a I believe the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ redeemed all of creation (the entire cosmos to use the word the Bible use), I do believe their existence ultimately participates in this greater context as well. In what way? I have no idea, but I believe the nature of God to be absolutely limitless love, a love which embraces of all of creation, not only human beings.

 

[noguru]

I have no idea, but I believe the nature of God to be absolutely limitless love, a love which embraces of all of creation, not only human beings.

This is my answer to your previous questions.

And with this being said, whether my individual eternal existence is the reality or not, this statement remains true regardless.

Also this accepted premise for a higher purpose does not have to be limited to a theistic view. Can you see the truth in this statement?

I believe in the nature of absolutely limitless love, a love which embraces all of creation, not only human beings.

 

[Selaphiel]

This is my answer to your previous questions.

And with this being said, whether my individual eternal existence is the reality or not, this statement remains true regardless.

Also this accepted premise for a higher purpose does not have to be limited to a theistic view. Can you see the truth in this statement?

I agree that you can conceive of meaning absent any eternal existence of us as individuals, I do believe a transcendent and absolute reality is required though.
I also agree that it is not necessarily limited to a theistic view per se, but it does require a transcendent and necessary reality. That being said, I think a theistic conception of such a reality (without specifying it to a particular religion based on that alone) is the best candidate for such a reality.
What I still reject is the notion that there can be a higher purpose without a transcendent reality.

To sum up: I think life and existence in general are profoundly meaningful, but not in isolation from the supreme reality I believe they participate in. As I see it, the profound meaning of life and existence is due to it being the will of an everlasting, transcendent all loving reality.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

Wow! Have a party without me! I feel in this life, God is giving us free choice: To choose Him and His Son, or to not choose Him and His Son. I also know that God made spirit and it does not die. Those of us who choose Him and His Son go to be with Him for eternal life. Living for longer than just 1 to 120 years is just tons of fun and we can play, and begin our works in heaven, which is to do what the angels do: help other souls on earth to guide them towards heaven and away from hell. Now for those who don't choose God and His Son, they go to sleep for a while or to hell for a while. To burn and crave water. A spirit does not die, but it definitely doesn't like to be that hot. Those who's sins are grievous go to hell. They will not be afforded a chance out of hell until after the second death and resurrection. If any atheists are wondering, please see that those in hell are also judged according to their works and some go to heaven while some go to the lake of fire, our sun, to burn eternally, since life is eternal. See Rev. 20:13. The sea and hell (the center of our earth; the bottomless pit where it is very hot with magma and lava). The center of the earth is a bottomless pit because it has a top and a center, but no bottom. Everyone on earth is on top because of gravity or they are in the center, which is hell, the bottomless pit. Thus the earth has no 'bottom,' figuratively. And I'm not saying these things are a POSSIBILITY. I'm saying they are the truth as the Lord has TOLD ME. These are of the seven thunders which John heard and was about to write them down, and was told to seal them up until the time of the end (for man was not ready yet mentally and spiritually to handle them yet). See Rev. 10:4. I KNOW about these things without any DOUBTS because I truly received them from the Lord God and angels. Yes, the Lord has spoken to me when He has wanted to. I also pray to Him every day for guidance. My life is quite meaningful, but life on this earth right now is awful, and I look forward to a peaceful, fun life in the future in heaven, while all the atheists can look forward to is a surprise that this life isn't all that there is and they get to enjoy being burned for a long while. That's how it goes. You're on this earth to choose being good and evil, just like Adam and Eve. You either don't choose to eat the fruit, or you do. You get what you ask for or believe in. That's why I grieve for the atheists, because they are my brothers and sisters too, but all I can do is try to talk with them, but if they won't change their minds, there is little else I can do.

Of course there is more to life than this earthly life. We have already lived many lives and returned back in different bodies to get another chance at choosing God over Satan, but this right now is the last chance for a long time to come. So whoever goes to hell this time around has to burn for at the very, very least for a thousand some years. See Rev. 20:5. I can't say for sure that our animals will be in heaven, but I presume they will be. It is not something that I have been told by the Lord Jesus yet. He says Yes!! OK, I'm outta here for a bit.

In Christ's Love,

MichaelC

 

[wincam]

I disagree. Assuming a greater context, which according to Christian theism is just "more life", is not necessary to appreciate this life for its own essence.

Do you treat animals (or other humans) that are not in on the "afterparty" with less respect for their current lives, simply because their lives do not exist in some greater context?




Who is assuming that existence is meaningless?



No, I disagree again. Life brings meaning to everything else. Without life itself, there would be no meaning.



No, it does not. Life itself, either this one or the "afterparty", has meaning. Each moment we live brings more meaning. That meaning does not go away at the end of each life.




I agree. But I added that scriptural reference for a reason. Do you understand why?

that which is material and/or physical can and will fade and die but what is mental and/or spiritual cannot and will not fade and die - all our heartaches and headaches and dead ends are based on our acceptance of the mesmerising illusion of a material and physical reality whereas in fact no such reality exists - wincam

 

[alwight]

It is so nice to have all these different religionists around to explain how it really is, according to them.
Reality isn't real oh no, what is real is what we can't detect or test.

 

[Hedshaker]

Why are you so uncomfortable with a meaningless existence?

If there was no wizard behind the curtain then the meaning of life the universe and everything would not equal 42. :salute:

 

[Selaphiel]

It is so nice to have all these different religionists around to explain how it really is, according to them.

Because we all know that if there exists difference of opinion or different views, that invalidates everything...Oh wait.

Reality isn't real oh no, what is real is what we can't detect or test.

Just because you can do measurements does not necessarily mean that what you measure is ultimately real. Niels Bohr thought this, and if you know anything about science, you will know that Bohr wasn't exactly an idiot. He believed quantum mechanics ultimately demonstrated that what we describe is not reality itself, but how our experience presents reality (The complimentary view of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, as in being two contradictory ways of experience ordering reality). A view that inspired the instrumentalist view of science (which I personally disagree with), which renders science into mere technology. That is mere pragmatism since the merit of the description is not measured by how well it describes actual reality, it is measured based on how useful they are to us.

Of course there exists other view of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, von Neumann's view being one example (he rejects the classical subject (measurer)-object (measured) distinction of classical realism and insists on ultimately treating the entirety of reality quantum mechanically in order to be ontologically coherent). But that is besides the point, the point is that it might not be so smart to ridicule a position (even if it was formulated somewhat crudely) that is/was held by some of the smartest minds out there.

 

[gcthomas]

Just because you can do measurements does not necessarily mean that what you measure is ultimately real. Niels Bohr thought this, and if you know anything about science, you will know that Bohr wasn't exactly an idiot.
...
But that is besides the point, the point is that it might not be so smart to ridicule a position (even if it was formulated somewhat crudely) that is/was held by some of the smartest minds out there.

Neils Bohr said "Physics concerns what we can say about nature, nothing more!"

You are suggesting that we can say more about the nature of reality than Physics can manage in principle. Well, you can say much more, but you will find it says more about your psychology that it does reality.

"Insight, untested and unsupported, is an insufficient guarantee of the truth." Bertrand Russell

 

[Selaphiel]

Neils Bohr said "Physics concerns what we can say about nature, nothing more!"

You are suggesting that we can say more about the nature of reality than Physics can manage in principle. Well, you can say much more, but you will find it says more about your psychology that it does reality.

"Insight, untested and unsupported, is an insufficient guarantee of the truth." Bertrand Russell

Well that is the question. Not everyone, including physicists agree with Bohr. Namely because Bohr arbitrarily makes a division between measurer, the measured and the system in which the measurement takes place. He insisted on treating the measuring apparatus and the system classically while treating what was measured quantum mechanically. That was the source of his complementary view. And it was, as I've mentioned, challenged by John von Neumann, another equally eminent physicist. There are ways to make quantum physics ontologically coherent , but it requires that you break down the subject-object distinction of classical realism That is not to say that we are supposed to form some dogmatic metaphysics, it merely means that we can engage in a continual exchange between general metaphysics and empiricism. And of coure, complementarity is a philosophical view as well, not a scientific one.

One person who started such a projected, a projected which is expanded upon today was A. N. Whitehead, funnily enough the tutor of Bertrand Russel, who you just cited (they also co-authored the famous Principia Mathematica).
I see nothing wrong with trying to make our conceptions of nature rationally coherent (Whitehead envisioned metaphysics as an oscillation between the general and the particular). It seems to me that an ontology that can make classical mechanics and quantum mechanics coherent is superior to abandoning scientific realism. Although I would claim that it cannot return to classical realism, but rather a form of critical realism which acknowledges that models are ultimately abstractions. But simultaneously denies instrumentalism, because while they are abstractions they at least imperfectly point to (increasingly with progress)what is actually real.

 

[freelight]

touch points.......

touch points.......

Dear All,

Wow! Have a party without me! I feel in this life, God is giving us free choice: To choose Him and His Son, or to not choose Him and His Son. I also know that God made spirit and it does not die. Those of us who choose Him and His Son go to be with Him for eternal life. Living for longer than just 1 to 120 years is just tons of fun and we can play, and begin our works in heaven, which is to do what the angels do: help other souls on earth to guide them towards heaven and away from hell. Now for those who don't choose God and His Son, they go to sleep for a while or to hell for a while. To burn and crave water. A spirit does not die, but it definitely doesn't like to be that hot. Those who's sins are grievous go to hell. They will not be afforded a chance out of hell until after the second death and resurrection. If any atheists are wondering, please see that those in hell are also judged according to their works and some go to heaven while some go to the lake of fire, our sun, to burn eternally, since life is eternal. See Rev. 20:13. The sea and hell (the center of our earth; the bottomless pit where it is very hot with magma and lava). The center of the earth is a bottomless pit because it has a top and a center, but no bottom. Everyone on earth is on top because of gravity or they are in the center, which is hell, the bottomless pit. Thus the earth has no 'bottom,' figuratively. And I'm not saying these things are a POSSIBILITY. I'm saying they are the truth as the Lord has TOLD ME. These are of the seven thunders which John heard and was about to write them down, and was told to seal them up until the time of the end (for man was not ready yet mentally and spiritually to handle them yet). See Rev. 10:4. I KNOW about these things without any DOUBTS because I truly received them from the Lord God and angels. Yes, the Lord has spoken to me when He has wanted to. I also pray to Him every day for guidance. My life is quite meaningful, but life on this earth right now is awful, and I look forward to a peaceful, fun life in the future in heaven, while all the atheists can look forward to is a surprise that this life isn't all that there is and they get to enjoy being burned for a long while. That's how it goes. You're on this earth to choose being good and evil, just like Adam and Eve. You either don't choose to eat the fruit, or you do. You get what you ask for or believe in. That's why I grieve for the atheists, because they are my brothers and sisters too, but all I can do is try to talk with them, but if they won't change their minds, there is little else I can do.

My views on ECT (eternal conscious torment in 'hell') are shared here and elsewhere. Infinite Love avails itself to all souls able/capable to RESPOND to Love's call. Whether a soul can make a final and eternal choice to die (cease functional existence as an individual entity) or will eventually return to 'God' and put on immortality, is subject to speculation,...however Love's eternal will and divine nature remains, regardless of free will.

Of course there is more to life than this earthly life. We have already lived many lives and returned back in different bodies to get another chance at choosing God over Satan, but this right now is the last chance for a long time to come.

Yes, life is cyclic....we cover in our Reincarnation thread here. It is logical to love and the divine will that many embodiments are provided for the soul's experience in space-time.

So whoever goes to hell this time around has to burn for at the very, very least for a thousand some years. See Rev. 20:5.

I'm not so sure about the specifics provided for by John in Revelation, being rather allegorical, and of an 'astral' nature. In any case, the universal law of karma and grace mediates in all situations and dispensations.

I can't say for sure that our animals will be in heaven, but I presume they will be. It is not something that I have been told by the Lord Jesus yet. He says Yes!!

Animals are spoken of in the visions of the Spirit, so it would be natural to have some animal life-forms of one kind or another in the after-life and various spirit-planes beyond the physical.

All that exists in space-time as a manifestation of life within universal consciousness is 'creation'. - evolution is its natural movement guided by an intelligence principle, or impetus to express itself. You cannot separate evolution from creation.



pj

 

[alwight]

Because we all know that if there exists difference of opinion or different views, that invalidates everything...Oh wait.

What it does indicate, if there is but one truth, is that the overwhelming number of religionists are in some aspects wrong if not completely wrong compared to some religions. I'd go one further, they're probably all very wrong indeed.
It doesn't invalidate a possible deity of some kind which if true imo remains simply unknown.

Just because you can do measurements does not necessarily mean that what you measure is ultimately real. Niels Bohr thought this, and if you know anything about science, you will know that Bohr wasn't exactly an idiot. He believed quantum mechanics ultimately demonstrated that what we describe is not reality itself, but how our experience presents reality (The complimentary view of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, as in being two contradictory ways of experience ordering reality). A view that inspired the instrumentalist view of science (which I personally disagree with), which renders science into mere technology. That is mere pragmatism since the merit of the description is not measured by how well it describes actual reality, it is measured based on how useful they are to us.

Well done for bringing in quantum physics btw, always worth an outing to impress. It is however an indication of something not as yet fully understood and how science doesn't then invent conclusions it simply lets them remain as unknown.
If we suppose that one religion is after all true, then all the others indicate just how readily invented alternatives are fashioned by humans, as supposed answers for what they don't actually know but like to pretend they do.

Of course there exists other view of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, von Neumann's view being one example (he rejects the classical subject (measurer)-object (measured) distinction of classical realism and insists on ultimately treating the entirety of reality quantum mechanically in order to be ontologically coherent). But that is besides the point, the point is that it might not be so smart to ridicule a position (even if it was formulated somewhat crudely) that is/was held by some of the smartest minds out there.

As long as I can ridicule most religions I'll be happy.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I just love Seraphiel. What a great person. A Christian who realizes there is a God. And freelight, who also believes in a God and much more. What a wonderful person indeed. As far as the rest of you, you just bother us Christians with your disbelief in God, or Jesus. The Lord told me that He made it so a spirit does not die. It lives eternally with Him and He has a glorious life for those who choose Him. Or it lives eternally in the Lake of Fire, and wood for the fire and burns forever, tormented by accusations and flames. That's it. We are on earth to learn good from evil. Just as simple as the story of Adam and Eve. We chose God and Jesus, or we chose atheism. Glorious life or lake of fire. Which will you choose. Tune in tomorrow for further results!!

Much Love To Those Christians Who Made This More Interesting!!

Michael