Intelligent Designer (ritual, Earth, beliefs, soul, Jehovah)

[EnhancedSpirit]

I told you they could be tough. I love the way you are debating this. I too, try to show them so that they will see. Using the 'science' that they put all their faith into. But we can only show them, we cannot make them see.

[KKawohl]

Originally Posted by KKawohl In order to intelligently appreciate something there has to be complete truth.

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

That statement is equally meaningless and fully warrants its affective, diminutive format.

The key point is, In order to "intelligently" appreciate something.

[KKawohl]

Originally Posted by EnhancedSpirit

I told you they could be tough. I love the way you are debating this. I too, try to show them so that they will see. Using the 'science' that they put all their faith into. But we can only show them, we cannot make them see.

I agree. I love your site and your quote, "Of all the different religions I have studied, I have found that every religion is based on truth and spoiled by tradition and opinion".

Namaste,
Kurt

[justa_gurl]

... there are a thousand topics here and i'm not sure which to approach first.

" Why do people shy away from the concept of connecting an Intelligent Designer with evolution? "

It is the nature of evolution for things to make small changes over a long period of time. Nature is not moral or immoral but functions in a steady flow in an efficient yet adaptative way according to specific rules. These rules are observable and repeatable, always changing but never deviating and completely without any sort of hierarchical prioritization of it's parts. Upon immediate mention of "God" you suggest to stray from those most basic principles. Religion does what science does not. It affirms knowledge of a metaphysical element in nature, knowledge essential to its entire structure can not be confirmed, agreed upon, or even morally justified by a great many people. It is also knowledge which very often prioritizes people over animals or people over people based solely on these unconfirmed and variable beliefs.

Hypothesizing or theoreorizing that the universe in its vastness was designed intelligently is one thing but Religion doesn't make theories, it makes assertions. It attempts to confirmation knowledge fundamental to its cause while entirely unconfirmed by any natural means. It is a BIG assertion not to mention an extremely dangerous one. Saying one can know God is saying once can understand the nature, attitudes, and motives of a 'force behind all creation'. It is a very presumptuous claim with many pits and turns. Religion can attempt to "strive to promote that truthfulness and rationality" but you must understand that 'what is' and 'what might be' should not be confused and makes for a very dangerous combination. Religion is a moral and spiritual foundation for personal understanding and relation to life, it is NOT a pass to make wild assertions and ethical judgements about the 'will and mind' of the universe in whole. That, i believe is why evolution strays away from the notion of an Intelligent Designer.

"The universe is the encompassment of ALL (matter, energy, space, time) that exists in a physical, material, tangible or intangible, natural or unnatural state in this third dimension. "

The universe is an all encompassing wisdom. I agree. By experience we gain knowledge and based on that knowledge we grow in understanding. But where we have no experience (the mind of God or what lies beyond our phsyical world) we have no knowledge and should therefore avoid making presumptious claims with any sort of false authority.

"Einstein refutes a personal God, which logic and rationality supports. "

A very bold statement. Can you explain to me how logic and rationality does not support the god of Spinoza, Einstein, and Hawking? It seems there are many forms of logic that all and none are always and never correct when beliefs are concerned.

[Tawn]

Originally Posted by EnhancedSpirit

Using the 'science' that they put all their faith into. .

Nice use of scare quotes..
I dont think science requires faith. Science is simply the term for exploring and trying to make sense of the universe. Faith is in fact the antithesis of science. Faith (as I understand it) is believing in the truth of something on baseless grounds. Science is the acceptance that anything is possible - but lets try to find out what is likely.

[KKawohl]

Originally Posted by justa_gurl

Can you explain to me how logic and rationality does not support the god of Spinoza, Einstein, and Hawking? It seems there are many forms of logic that all and none are always and never correct when beliefs are concerned.

Einstein said…."God" may very well be the "energy" that is in all matter and energy, that cannot be separated from matter/energy…."I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings.]. (Spinoza believed the more one studies and understands the universe the better one understands God) …."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 minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."….."Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."…."My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment".

Stephen Hawking stated: Physicists call the river of time a “time line” or “world line.” The time line never stops or vanishes. It may bend into a circle, or may fork, but it cannot suddenly disappear. (Even when we die, the time line of our atoms and molecules keeps right on going.) Hyperspace refers to any space that consists of more than three dimensions. The center of the universe is located in hyperspace, off the surface of the universe. Therefore the center of the universe does not exist in our three-dimensional universe at all. Now assume that our universe is expanding. The center of expansion does not exist in our universe. You cannot point a finger north, east, south, west, up, or down, and point to the center of the expansion. The universe is expanding in hyperspace. What is the universe expanding into? The answer: It is expanding in the fourth dimension, hyperspace, which is not visible, and exists off the surface of our hyper-bubble. In other words, hyperspace does not exist in our universe at all.

I submit that God is the pure energy, the spiritual intellect in the spiritual existence, the fourth dimension, consisting of a unity of souls of all who have lived righteously. Physical contact with the spiritual existence is an impossibility but wherefrom our spirit can receive inspiration and blessings to accomplish the seemingly impossible.

Please see http://transcendentalists.org

Namaste,
Kurt

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by KKawohl

I submit that God is the pure energy, the spiritual intellect in the spiritual existence, the fourth dimension, consisting of a unity of souls of all who have lived righteously.

Submit what you wish. It remains unfounded and cognitively meaningless.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by justa_gurl

The universe is an all encompassing wisdom. I agree.

With what? The statement doesn't even rise to the level of reificaton fallacy.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

It's a long post you made in reply to my comment.

You started off by exploring some science which, frankly, is not in accordance with the state of scientific knowledge. Perhaps it is trivial to you expansion, perhaps not. Einstein's failure was to incorporate gravity into a unified theory and he failed to account for the effects of Quantum Theory. That particular branch of science puts a limit on dimensions in accordance with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There was a failure in science to combine the Quatum Theroy with Einsteins Relativity. That is, until the introduction of the developing theory of strings. String theory is best explained as working within 10 dimensions, none of which contain God.

I don't believe there is an equation that describes spiritual energy; there is no transposition between scientific and spiritual energy.. What you have given us is analagy and folded it it back into the science of dimensions. Spiritual matters can not be understood by science. There is not even a direct link between observation of behaviour and spirit. It is only supposition that spirit plays a role in physical expression because other causes are just as accountible, if not more so, for religious theory.

[Prima]

Why do people shy away from the concept of connecting an Intelligent Designer with evolution?

I'd like to get to that first question, since this debate has kind of ignored it...I think that you're right that people in general 'shy away' from this idea (the people on this forum being obvious exceptions, having usually at least addressed the idea)

I think this is because the loudest voices are those of the extremes. You have the Christian fundamentalists yelling out their views, and those who believe the universe was created without God yelling out their views, and those who believe anything in between are pretty drowned out.

Also, the idea of separation of church and state has encouraged this separation of thought. Science and education are generally connected with the state/government, and the religious view is supposed to stay separate.