Oh please. You want me to call you a Pharisee ? 
Write for you, I didn’t say that. Why are you quoting me on that? Lol
Then you reach for a statement that indicates a total unfamiliarity (or is it disregard because your personal faith trump’s everything) with actual evolutionary process - calling it “random” is patently misleading. There are natural physical parameters that put boundaries on this random, chance and change.
Claiming a relationship with “creation” that is the physical process of evolution is simple. After all, we are star dust, are we not? On top of that your body is infused with genetic tricks of the trade, some developed billions of years ago, other’s simply hundreds of millions of years ago.
So please don’t assume I don’t possess a spiritual connection to the universe and its origins.
You didn’t say this?
No man the other guy said that.
I never assumed that, in fact I told you earlier that you do have spirituality with earth and the physical and I like that.
Seriously?
Have you done biology in school? Write4u just posted a video yesterday of a talk from 2015 of a scientist saying the same thing: he said SOMEHOW the first molecules were created into a primordial soup.
This SCREAMS statistics.
Yes this is true and I see this as purposeful not as random. Everything guiding this universe is purposeful.
I think you misunderstood something there.
You’d have to unpack that a bit more before I could offer anything meaningful.
Also sometime Write gets carried away with this math is god thing, or matter is math, or how ever he’d phrase it. But that I fear is an example of the distinction between our imagination and physical reality getting all muddled up because too few take the time to really contemplate the implications of the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide.
I am neither a scientist, neither a religious man.
My views are very simple.
If you go back to the beginning of the beginning of universe, science can explain " How ? " but cannot explain " Why ? "
Not, if it not possible to explain " Why ? " by science, do we need to invent a creating god ?
I don’t see 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical experiments (interactions) as purposeful. This is the definition of the natural stochastic function, until a particular combination is just right and evolves into a new more complex organization.
This statistical discipline is scientifically named “Large Number of Rare Events” (LNRE) . It allows for some very precise identification of a specific attribute, a signature property.
p.s. CC
My concept of a mathematical universe is in the form of:
“Mathematical (Logical) functions as a guiding principle in all relational physical interactions.”
Look your theory of Human Mindscspe - Physical Reality divide if pretty good, I’m not gonna lie to you, but it is something that wasn’t very persuasive in my journey because the explanation of the mind is in our brain - if you ask one group - and the mind is something else entirely if you ask another group. So what this means is that you gotta take a bit of a leap of faith here and it just didn’t make me jump.
You don’t have to but this is a logical belief-based process which someone like me or others engage internally to make sense of “The Why”.
Some people are perfectly happy with not addressing this - which is also something I find very interesting.
This doesn’t sit right with me.
See the other thread (where you’re in) for more explanation.
Consequences of a thought proven to be true.
Its true (more or less) for chemical reactions on Earth. Hazen showed how he arrived at that figure.
And it is evidence of “natural selection” where eventually a chemical reaction may yield a more complex form with greater inherent potential and that “evolved” pattern becomes the foundation for even more complex patterns and interactions, all via natural selection.
This is why the correct definition of Darwinian evolution is:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”
On the Origin of Species (or, more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin that is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › On_the_Origin_of_Species
Note that the term “species” applies to variety in general and not to living organisms exclusiely"
There are “mineral species”.
I know you don’t see that it’s you who has set their mind on one idea, and is not interested in considering another point of view.
My scientific outlook demands that i consider all evidence. But, bias sometimes creeps in, so i will allow for a speck in my eye.
You however, have not presented good evidence, and have deflected most evidence presented. Thus, plank for you.
Is it that you confuse probabilities with randomness?
Because civilization uses a caste system. To reach the very top where you can go no further upward is the deity. Science (from Latin scientia ‘knowledge’) Thus science and god’s root of the word are the same. Both meaning “knowledge”.
[quote=“mikeyohe, post:116, topic:9361”]
Because civilization uses a caste system. To reach the very top where you can go no further upward is the deity.
Just like Trump is the pinnacle of American civilization? Or Putin is the pinnacle of Russian civilization?
Science (from Latin scientia ‘knowledge’) Thus science and god’s root of the word are the same. Both meaning “knowledge”.
God’s root word does not mean “knowledge” at all. You just made that up.
Just as the term gnostic has nothing to do with god.
Gnosticism is the belief that human beings contain a piece of God (the highest good or a divine spark) within themselves, which has fallen from the immaterial world into the bodies of humans . All physical matter is subject to decay, rotting, and death. Apr 9, 2021
Gnosticism - World History Encyclopedia
https://www.worldhistory.org › Gnosticism
Of course we know that we are made from REAL stardust which has fallen from the MATERIAL world into the bodies of all living things on earth and on Earth itself . That is how we find gold on earth that was made in “heaven” and in the death of a star gone supernova in particular.
According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the most common theory is that the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore. Dec 15, 2015
See this is were spirituality can adopt any kind of definition that tends to confirm the concept of God.
But when I ask what are the properties of God, no one can offer a single property that is common in every religion, other than God is all-knowing and all-powerful, which is patently and demonstrably false.
May I remind you Mike , you are an atheist for just 1 less god than me.
Do you believe in all gods? If not then you are atheist in respect to those gods.
One for each pathway. Very easy task. But I would like to hold off on that right now. And cover the viewpoint of science.
Lausten brought up a very good and true point. “History always needs interpreting. As soon as words as said, we ask what they meant.” The number one book in the world that needs interpreting happens to also be the most popular and most quoted book in the world.
For me to explain my viewpoints so that you would understand. You would have to have an open mind about this subject. Open-minded religious believers are rare. Belief is more than a logical reasoning. My grandparents are in heaven with God. Yet, I don’t believe in heaven. I am an atheist. Just part of the human nature.
Paul’s Christianity was never that popular in the beginning. Jesus’s Gnostic religion was quite popular. And even James’s Christianity was more inline with Mary’s and Jesus’ teachings. The main religious colleges were teaching Gnostic. Paul’s Christianity increased during a couple of plagues and then was backed by political powers for political reasons and was you could say put together in the 4th century. In the fourth century the oral interpreting of Jesus’ outlawed religion was passed on to a declining base. All religions including Jesus’s Gnostic was banned and erased from written history. The written word of the only Roman approved religion at the time spread to the Muslim religions. By the seventh century Alawi, son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad, incorporated some of the elements of Gnostic teachings into the Muslims beliefs. By the end of the seventh century Islam was the dominant religion in the Middle East.
A common factor is that they were like Judaism, an Abrahamic religion. In Judaism, Jesus was nonessential in the Christ circumstance.
If one is to discuss Christianity. The OT is part of the Christian biblical canon. Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. That said all Abrahamic religions are somewhat connected and should not be left out trying to understand Christian religion.
Back to Lausten point of interpretation. The word “God” came about in the sixth century. The word “Gnostic” came from the seventeenth century. Both mean the same thing. “knowledge”. A common factor in all religions is “knowledge”. You can find hundreds of words all meaning “knowledge”. Jesus’ religion was named “knowledge”. Science consists of a body of knowledge and the process by which that knowledge is developed. The core of the process of science is generating explanations.
The Abrahamic religions were built upon older religions including Egyptian. The father of all creation was the god Ra. Ra was a word meaning “knowledge”. Thus, “knowledge” was the creator and the deity of just about all religions that came after the beginning of history about 5,000 years ago. In pre-history it was the upper and lower gods (people of knowledge). Today’s modern Christianity looks at God as omniscience.
Point being. The bible is a book about morals. Civilizations operate by Rules of Laws. The laws are only as good as the morals of the people. To this day, nobody has been able to come up with a better way to teach the people a set of morals. Our founding fathers look for a better system and could not find one.
The Bible is a relationship book which explains a relationship to our creator.
Yes, that means the science of morals (ethics) is about you and the creator.
Google - What is the difference between science and morality? Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Morals: A person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
The way I view this is that religious science is the “knowledge” and morality is the acceptance or rejection of the “knowledge”. Can’t have one without the other.
Google - In the weakest sense, ethics is a science if it can be organized into a coherent body of knowledge; in the moderate sense, ethics is a science if it can use the traditional epistemological canons of science to gain moral knowledge; and in the strongest sense ethics is a science if in addition to using the methods of science it also makes reference only to the entities and processes accepted by the extant, successful natural sciences.
I beg to differ. And here is why:
Just a random sample:
The great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. - Revelation 17:1-2
I don’t think it can be called a theory. It is a fundamental aspect of our reality.
Most put it under the heading of Body Mind Problem or some such thing.
Thing is our consciousness is an emergent property of living creatures, our’s happens to be light years beyond other creatures, but we are unique, we are born of mammals, the beast feeders. You’ll find the origins for our gods somewhere within their interactions and communities as they evolved through eons, it simply took the human mind to be able to embellish and enunciate it to the spectacular, if self destruct peak it has reached.
It’s about consciousness and the fact that consciousness is an emergent property of living creatures.
And it’s most significant insight, something that I believe is a first base requirement before any of the rest of the big questions and proposed answers can make any sense.
… without any explicit enunciation of an “Appreciation for the Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide” with its inevitable conclusion that our very existence is proof that our universe and Earth unfolded down one particular pathway.
One internally consistent cascade since the earliest moments of time, no matter what stories we humans create for ourselves. Ignoring that, leaves us without a Benchmark for sorting out our thoughts
That’s a misunderstanding. The mind is a product of the brain. As for brain you need to also include neural networks that interlace your body, your 7, or is it 20, senses, and we shouldn’t forget those microbes of Write’s who inhabit our guts.
I love how Dr Solm describes it, Consciousness is the inside reflection of your body interacting with itself and its environment.
1 Like
‘knowledge’ - are a large body of religious texts originating in ancient India. Composed in Vedic Sanskrit, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. There are four Vedas: the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Search for a word gnos·tic
Adjective - relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.