Identity/Creativity: Necessary Intermediate Stage

Justatruthseeker said:

No, that’s the role of evolution to believe one thing can be more evolved than another.... better than something else.

Click to expand...

The other belief is that an Omni-all God created two people. He told the people He did not want them to learn. They disobeyed Him, as He knew they would. Then he feigned anger and blamed them for their disobedience. He then proceeded to severely punish them and all their descendants.

Evolution isn't perfect. It's "just good enough". Your Omni-all God isn't even good enough.

Justatruthseeker said:

...we both think we are higher than the other animals

Click to expand...

I don't. Cockroaches have been around for 300,000,000 years as compared to our meager existence of around 200,000 years. They survived the cataclysmic event that doomed the dinosaurs.

Check back with me in half a billion years. I may have changed my mind by then.

Etritonakin said:

From the human perspective, we see that "nature" will follow its present course based on its present arrangement and characteristics of its present components -which are themselves based on smaller components with specific characteristics -UNTIL the development of true conscious decision coupled with mechanisms necessary to alter the otherwise-inevitable course of nature.

Only then could certain things become possible -which would themselves be indicative of an identity and creativity.

As human (and previous) identity and creativity are believed by some to be purely natural developments, it would stand to reason that they were inevitable developments which required no conscious decision.

However, our identity and creativity developed/were developed within an already-extremely-complex environment -and we had absolutely nothing to do with the process of creating that environment or ourselves. Furthermore, by the time we have any decision-making power or personal identity, we ourselves are already extremely complex and capable -essentially mass-produced before our personal identity is initiated -after which we learn to use our bodies and minds.

As that which presently exists is an arrangement of that which existed before, it stands to reason that what is true from our perspective is true of the whole -an all-inclusive perspective -and that between the most simple state possible and the present, similar developments in similar order were necessary to alter the otherwise inevitable course of nature to that which is extremely and purposefully complex.

In other words, it would be perfectly "natural" -even necessary -for "everything" to have naturally developed an original identity and creativity in order to bring the universe and ourselves into being from initial simplicity.

An original, however, would necessarily be involved as increasingly able in becoming more complex and able -not able to decide to exist or develop, but increasingly responsible for every possible decision which required identity and creativity -certain things becoming possible only after becoming able to realize "I AM".

Click to expand...

I think this sort of discussion is interesting but your posts are a bit too long even for me.

I take it that your OP is aimed at explaining the relationship between creation and a self-aware creator, correct?

If so, can you provide a one paragraph or less definition of what would be the difference between something made by a self-aware entity and something which is not?

Etritonakin said:

Anyway..... You should -at the very very least -be able to accept that which produced the singularity (defined by scientists as "we don't know", by the way) /Big Bang/universe was capable of doing so -that the portion of what happened we see could not have happened without the portion we do not see or yet understand completely.

"Bang" is simply not sufficient -and that particular Bang was as complex and specific as we know to be possible thus far.

It was also as purposeful as it has specifically unfolded to become thus far.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that there must have been a "creative ground" out of which the Universe arose but of a nature that is not accessible to us?

tas8831 said:

Funny thing - you didn't grasp why I wrote what I did.

Still waiting for your support for your claim that courts do complete genome comparisons.

That you've abandoned that thread tells me something...

Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to show courts snip out 16% of one, 23% of the other, then use algorithms to randomly match segments to show relationship or guilt of a subject.....

By your argument we could convict anyone of a crime by randomly matching using algorithms..... sorry, doesn’t work that way.....

ecco said:

All those falsified theories? Really? I guess you didn't bother to actually read and try to understand either of the articles.

In your first link, did you fail to see the words "Expert Says"? It is the opinion of one scientist from 2011 when there were 500 known exoplanets.



Today...

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/faq/6/how-many-exoplanets-are-there/
How many exoplanets are there?

To date, nearly 4,000 exoplanets have been discovered and considered "confirmed." However, there are nearly 3,000 other "candidate" exoplanet detections that require further observations in order to say for sure whether or not the exoplanet is real.
​

It should not be surprising that new ideas and theories are constantly emerging. The important thing is that 50 years ago many people believed the planets in our solar system were the only planets in the universe.

You are typical of fundies and creos who see each new scientific discovery as:
SEE, THE DUMB SCIENTISTS JUST PROVED THEMSELVES WRONG AGAIN.

Science doesn't know everything and science will never know everything. However, we do know that stars are not pinholes in the firmament.

Click to expand...

Yep, and all those exoplanets is what has falsified your theory of how planets form.

As NASA’s exoplanet database manager Caltech Astronomer Mike Brown said:

“Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.”

This is the guy responsible for cataloging all the systems and understands exactly what we have found and it’s implications.... unlike others that have just looked at a small subset....

Actual pictures of star formation in galactic filaments is what falsified your star formation theory.

Every time they look they are surprised, mystified, perplexed, because the theories are all wrong and have no predictive power.....

Who believes stars are pinholes in the firmament? They certainly are not. Nor are they even close to what you think they are.... But then I expect nothing less from an evolutionist to misrepresent the facts....

Our Solar System Is Even Stranger Than We Thought

You could just save time by admitting we know nothing about the universe. That our theories are wrong.

For people that claim not to know everything you sure act like you do....

sealchan said:

Are you saying that there must have been a "creative ground" out of which the Universe arose but of a nature that is not accessible to us?

Click to expand...

What happened before the BB isn’t accessible to us. All of our laws of physics break down because all of our laws of physics did not exist then.

Not only is it’s nature not accessible to us, but we really can’t even imagine what that nature was since none of the laws of physics operating today were operating then...

If the BB theory is even kind of correct, it itself insists that all the laws we know did not form until “after” the event..... so we can never use the laws of physics that we understand to even attempt to describe what existed before...... they don’t apply....

There is no theory for all forces being unified into one all encompassing force because experimentation and testing is impossible....

So saying a mind of pure energy could not exist because man requires atoms, is not a valid argument as those laws did not exist until “after” the event. Physics as we have never known existed..... Possibilities that we can’t even comprehend were possible, the laws of physics as we understand them were not a constraining factor.....

ecco said:

The other belief is that an Omni-all God created two people. He told the people He did not want them to learn. They disobeyed Him, as He knew they would. Then he feigned anger and blamed them for their disobedience. He then proceeded to severely punish them and all their descendants.

Evolution isn't perfect. It's "just good enough". Your Omni-all God isn't even good enough.

Click to expand...

Lol. He gave them the knowledge to name all the animals. He didn’t want them to learn evil, because they couldn’t control themselves with that knowledge. And hence murder, genocide, and evil continuously is the result....

Yes, I know, you are mad at God because He gave them free will instead of making them robots..... all choices have a consequence. You are free to follow the law or break the law. But if you break it be prepared to suffer the consequences for your actions.

Because once knowledge of evil entered, it could not be unlearned...... once you understand something, you can never de-understand it..... unless you make robots that you can program to do only as you ask.....

Justatruthseeker said:

Yep, and all those exoplanets is what has falsified your theory of how planets form.

“Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.”

Click to expand...

And before we got telescopes we thought that planets like Saturn and stars like Betelgeuse and galaxies like Andromeda were all pretty much the same.

Yep, once again new discoveries in science bring about new questions and new knowledge. Oh, the horrors. It was so much simpler when everyone just accepted that stars were pinholes in the firmament. Oh, if only we could go back to those simpler times.

Justatruthseeker said:

But then I expect nothing less from an evolutionist to misrepresent the facts....

Click to expand...

I do understand your need for simplistification. The simplistic "facts" of God made Adam; God took a rib from Adam and made Eve. Wow. Who needs book lernin'? And the good thing is that once you learn Genesis, you never have to learn anything else - ever! Pinholes - Pillars - Four Corners - Incest - nothing ever changes. It is truly wonderful. Simplistic things have a great appeal to simpl certain people.

ecco said:

And before we got telescopes we thought that planets like Saturn and stars like Betelgeuse and galaxies like Andromeda were all pretty much the same.

Yep, once again new discoveries in science bring about new questions and new knowledge. Oh, the horrors. It was so much simpler when everyone just accepted that stars were pinholes in the firmament. Oh, if only we could go back to those simpler times.

Click to expand...

But your basing your belief in habitual zones and life elsewhere on theories you know to be false.

Granted when you actually quit relying on those falsified theories you’ll realize you got nothing to base anything on except FAITH.....

I do understand your need for simplistification. The simplistic "facts" of God made Adam; God took a rib from Adam and made Eve. Wow. Who needs book lernin'? And the good thing is that once you learn Genesis, you never have to learn anything else - ever! Pinholes - Pillars - Four Corners - Incest - nothing ever changes. It is truly wonderful. Simplistic things have a great appeal to simpl certain people.

Click to expand...

God didn’t take a rib. He took half of the perfect genetic code that was Adam. Used it to make Eve.

And when the two once again recombine they make one flesh, a new life....

You see, I do update my learning.... too bad you never do yours and keep using falsified theories to make claims of life on other planets....

Which fits with all observation. All the various dog breeds capable were contained in the primordial pair. But Poodles don’t have the same information any longer, they have lost information due to mutations and hence can only produce limited variation within their own breed. Until mixed with another breed which has also lost information, but not the same information Poodles lost.

Just as Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. They have lost information, not gained it. They remain Asian despite all the mutations with every birth. New variation within the species only happens when the Asian mates with a different race, breed, subspecies, whatever you wish to call it from century to century.....

Yes, I agree, simple, I mean certain people find it easier to keep using falsified theories instead of updating their knowledge to understand that their claims are all based upon theories already shown to be wrong..... be that galactic, stellar or planetary formation to evolution......

Justatruthseeker said:

We won’t mention their entire belief stems from a priest understanding that “God stretched out the heavens”.

Of course to get accepted and published in secular journals he needed to avoid all mention of God as the cause to the effect.... and rightly stated that the cause could not be known scientifically.... because ALL our physics breaks down at the beginning..... because physics as we know it did not exist either......

But they want to understand God and creation using physics that did not then exist. But were themselves part of the creation...

Click to expand...

Not sure who "they" are, but those in the past certainly did not understand the details as we do today -and did not have a collection of specific knowledge to reference.
However, they were not any less intelligent.

I have been thinking about writing a thread about the fact that the faith spoken of in the bible is more similar to scientific method than the blind belief many today think it to be.

"prove all things, hold fast that which is good"

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

If you remove "word of God" from the sentence, you'll se that they understood that that which exists and is visible is made of things which are not visible -also note "the worlds" -plural. The heavens were also indeed stretched out.

"Cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you after many days" shows that the cyclical nature of things was understood. Though an analogy, that from which bread is made is recycled and may become bread again.

Anyway -they attributed the universe to a creative power great and capable enough to cause it from that which previously existed. As anything created which was different than their present nature happened by intelligence and creativity, it was not an illogical thought.

("Science" is from a limited perspective -and increases. "True" religion would be from the perspective of the all-knowledgeable -and dependent upon the willingness of such to reveal and conceal for whatever reason. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek out a matter". Both basically believe in a present total sum of all knowledge, but the religious generally believe things presently beyond us can be revealed. "Seek ye first the kingdoms of God and his righteousness, and all else will be added to you". Actually, the first mention of the spirit of God after the first chapter of Genesis describes God using it to directly impart knowledge, understanding and talents to an individual -quite like "The Matrix" learning programs.)

sealchan said:

Are you saying that there must have been a "creative ground" out of which the Universe arose but of a nature that is not accessible to us?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily inaccessible, but the focus has been on the initiation of the universe and after.

I don't know any who don't believe in some way that the universe was arranged from that which previously existed -the question is how.

The evidence would be all around us -but we are certainly not finished considering it.

Justatruthseeker said:

What happened before the BB isn’t accessible to us. All of our laws of physics break down because all of our laws of physics did not exist then.

Not only is it’s nature not accessible to us, but we really can’t even imagine what that nature was since none of the laws of physics operating today were operating then...

If the BB theory is even kind of correct, it itself insists that all the laws we know did not form until “after” the event..... so we can never use the laws of physics that we understand to even attempt to describe what existed before...... they don’t apply....

There is no theory for all forces being unified into one all encompassing force because experimentation and testing is impossible....

So saying a mind of pure energy could not exist because man requires atoms, is not a valid argument as those laws did not exist until “after” the event. Physics as we have never known existed..... Possibilities that we can’t even comprehend were possible, the laws of physics as we understand them were not a constraining factor.....

Click to expand...

On the most basic level I would agree with this...I wrote a creation story, inspired by the Bible and other traditions, that describes the state of the Universe as The Nothing-Yet of Infinite Potential. I treated this state as it were a conscious being. In doing so I realized that I had exited through the door of scientific experience and into a "space" where the imagination has a fairly free range.

But on the practical side, nothing of objective usefulness, I think, can be derived from this. The only usefulness would be the exercise of subjective need to articulate and formulate personal issues in such a way as to overcome personal obstacles. This, in turn however, becomes objective truth as the individual enacts those subjective gains and creates real outcomes as a result.

However, given my systemic view of the nature of the Universe at, apparently, every level, it seems that it is reasonable to assume that there was/is a complex, creative reality/potential out of which this complex, creative Universe arose. I think that the notion that there was literally nothing and out of that spontaneously arose all that we know today is a extremely narrow possibility out of a full range of possibilities for their having been a creative, yet inaccessible background.

It may be that today we have no practical way of discerning between these two possibilities and, perhaps, it makes sense to go with "nothing" vs a "creative ground" for reasons of elegance. But if the history of science has taught us anything it is that what we imagine to be the boundaries of our Universe will change in the future just as they have changed in the past.

Justatruthseeker said:

So show me life elsewhere......

Or I could say interesting belief that you hold to. Your faith is indeed strong in the unobserved and unproven.....

Oh wait, that’s the claim against creationists, my bad....

Click to expand...

Funny stuff - subtleties are lost on the creationist - black and white,up and down, that is about all they can handle:

Given the size and age of the universe the probability that something more intelligent than us has arisen, many multiples of times, is probably greater than 99.999.

Click to expand...

Or zero if you go by the evidence.....

Click to expand...

Show me Yahweh - or does your criterion only apply to extraterrestrial life?

Justatruthseeker said:

But your
basing your belief in habitual zones and life elsewhere on theories you know to be false.

Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing what my beliefs are based on. Certainly not anything about "habitual zones" which I have never discussed. Therefore your comment is a baseless falsehood. That makes you a (redacted).

Justatruthseeker said:

Granted when you actually quit relying on those falsified theories you’ll realize you got nothing to base anything on except FAITH.....

Click to expand...

see above. Also, when you used the term "FAITH" in capital letters are you referring to the 2nd definition of "faith"?
If so, that would make the third time you have falsely accused me personally.

Justatruthseeker said:

God didn’t take a rib. He took half of the perfect genetic code that was Adam. Used it to make Eve.

Click to expand...

Your bible says a rib. Earlier versions probably said it was the penile bone. Nothing in your holy scripture says anything about the perfect genetic code. What gives you the authority to make up stuff about what's written in the bible?

Justatruthseeker said:

You see, I do update my learning....

Click to expand...

You really didn't have to admit that you update your learning by making stuff up. We already knew that.

Justatruthseeker said:

Just as Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. They have lost information, not gained it. They remain Asian despite all the mutations with every birth. New variation within the species only happens when the Asian mates with a different race, breed, subspecies, whatever you wish to call it from century to century.....

Click to expand...

It really doesn't surprise me that you harbour racist beliefs. Many biblical fundamentalists do.

Justatruthseeker said:

Yes, I agree, simple, I mean certain people find it easier to keep using falsified theories instead of updating their knowledge to understand that their claims are all based upon theories already shown to be wrong..... be that galactic, stellar or planetary formation to evolution......

Click to expand...

None of which is as simplistic as "In the beginning" and "It takes a Man's Rib to make a Woman". That's something that first graders can comprehend. Of course with your more sophisticated "knowledge" you know that it was really God extracting DNA from Adam to make Eve. Moses would be proud that you saw through his silly rib comment.

Justatruthseeker said:

Still waiting for you to show courts snip out 16% of one, 23% of the other, then use algorithms to randomly match segments to show relationship or guilt of a subject.....

Click to expand...

How and why would I show you your naive, ignorant strawman fantasy?

By your argument we could convict anyone of a crime by randomly matching using algorithms..... sorry, doesn’t work that way.....

Click to expand...

Nothing works that way, except for how creationist try to do science.

Etritonakin said:

Not sure who "they" are, but those in the past certainly did not understand the details as we do today -and did not have a collection of specific knowledge to reference.
However, they were not any less intelligent.

Click to expand...

“They” would be anyone that insists we should be able to explain God using the physics that we currently understand. That physics did not exist until after creation. It was created with creation. A being that existed before our physical laws came into effect would not be subject to those laws or explainable by those laws...

I have been thinking about writing a thread about the fact that the faith spoken of in the bible is more similar to scientific method than the blind belief many today think it to be.

Click to expand...

It’s why science was started by men of faith. They expected to be able to deduce and use laws to describe a created universe.

In reality no scientists really believes in randomness. If they believed that they wouldn’t become scientists hoping to be able to formulate orderly laws to understand the universe. Oh yes, many claim they do to sell a book or get their name in print, recognition of peers, etc.

"prove all things, hold fast that which is good"

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

If you remove "word of God" from the sentence, you'll se that they understood that that which exists and is visible is made of things which are not visible -also note "the worlds" -plural. The heavens were also indeed stretched out.

Click to expand...

Of course, they didn’t have our scientific word “energy”, instead using words like spirit or power. They understood quite well that what we see was made from what we can not see. That what we can not see exists in everything, that everything was made from it, and everything will return to it. As noted, they simply did not have our scientific word energy....

"Cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you after many days" shows that the cyclical nature of things was understood. Though an analogy, that from which bread is made is recycled and may become bread again.

Anyway -they attributed the universe to a creative power great and capable enough to cause it from that which previously existed. As anything created which was different than their present nature happened by intelligence and creativity, it was not an illogical thought.

("Science" is from a limited perspective -and increases. "True" religion would be from the perspective of the all-knowledgeable -and dependent upon the willingness of such to reveal and conceal for whatever reason. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek out a matter". Both basically believe in a present total sum of all knowledge, but the religious generally believe things presently beyond us can be revealed. "Seek ye first the kingdoms of God and his righteousness, and all else will be added to you". Actually, the first mention of the spirit of God after the first chapter of Genesis describes God using it to directly impart knowledge, understanding and talents to an individual -quite like "The Matrix" learning programs.)

Click to expand...

Because God is Energy/Mind/Thought.

The image man was made in was not fleshly, but was the mind/knowledge imparted to him and thus “the man has become as one of us “knowing” good and bad. The first image was of only good.

Our best definition of energy is “work”, and so God worked during creation.... although I am a firm believer that both evolutionists and creationists have the length of time the universe existed wrong....

Evolutionists because they refuse to adjust for time dilation in a universe increasing in velocity. Creationists because they refuse to adjust their rulers and so don’t understand length of days change as well.

To God one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, because Energy controls the thing we call time...

Unlike computers we “understand” things.

ecco said:

You have no way of knowing what my beliefs are based on. Certainly not anything about "habitual zones" which I have never discussed. Therefore your comment is a baseless falsehood. That makes you a (redacted).

Click to expand...

Well I’m certainly glad to hear you don’t belief in falsified theories..... but I notice you refrained from stating your belief? So you can change it from post to post because you never actually say anything????

see above. Also, when you used the term "FAITH" in capital letters are you referring to the 2nd definition of "faith"?

faith
/fāTH/
noun

2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
​

If so, that would make the third time you have falsely accused me personally.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, cherry pick often? Why not go with the first and primary one?

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Your bible says a rib. Earlier versions probably said it was the penile bone. Nothing in your holy scripture says anything about the perfect genetic code. What gives you the authority to make up stuff about what's written in the bible?

Click to expand...

My Bible says no such thing.....

It says part of his side.... it seems you that wants to refuse to acknowledge that genes control everything....

You really didn't have to admit that you update your learning by making stuff up. We already knew that.

Click to expand...

At least I’m not proposing multiverses, twenty dimensions, etc and calling it science.....

It really doesn't surprise me that you harbour racist beliefs. Many biblical fundamentalists do.

Click to expand...

Says the evolutionist who’s theory insists that one day a mutation will make one man and his descendants better than everyone else..... looking in the mirror is all you did... racism is natural for survival of the fittest. Get rid of the weak and unfit to not pollute the bloodline and make it less fit for survival.....

Unlike you mine says all men were created equal, not that one man might be born superior to another.... that’s evolutionary theory, not a religion I follow at all...

You want to get into racism, let’s. Evolution is an inherently racist theory....

None of which is as simplistic as "In the beginning" and "It takes a Man's Rib to make a Woman". That's something that first graders can comprehend. Of course with your more sophisticated "knowledge" you know that it was really God extracting DNA from Adam to make Eve. Moses would be proud that you saw through his silly rib comment.

Click to expand...

I would hope they can understand it.....

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” - Albert Einstein

But then you go on to more advanced knowledge once you grow up. When you are ready let me know....

tas8831 said:

How and why would I show you your naive, ignorant strawman fantasy?
Nothing works that way, except for how creationist try to do science.

Click to expand...

So you are unable to support your false belief that tests used in a court of law are like the tests used to compare human and chimp. Understood.

Except it’s not me insisting that we can randomly compare any matches found regardless of their true placement and function and think we can say they are similar.....

Especially when even you supposedly know that a sequence in one place has a different function than the same sequence elsewhere.... it’s you insisting against everything we know of the genome that it’s location in the genome is irrelevant by randomly comparing random segments.....

tas8831 said:

Funny stuff - subtleties are lost on the creationist - black and white,up and down, that is about all they can handle:



Show me Yahweh - or does your criterion only apply to extraterrestrial life?

Click to expand...

Why would you expect me to be able to show you by the laws of physics currently operating, a being that existed before those laws came into operation?

I can no more do that than you can describe the beginning of the universe where all the physics break down......

Physics as we understand it does not apply....

Oh no, I recognize my belief is based on faith and is a religion. You are the one insisting yours is science.... don’t be upset because I recognize belief in extraterrestrial life is also based upon faith and is a religion too....