If evolution is everything....

[Etritonakin]

Big Bang theory contradicts Genesis 1, 2. Therefore I don't believe it. I prefer the Bible over the wisdom of men. Men change their views every so often, the Bible does not change.

Anyway, I've been in this creationism vs. evolution debate so many times that I am tired of it. I don't wish to argue it again. But you asked me so I answered you.

I'll just say that it actually does not -but you don't want to get into it and I have also made and explained that point many times.

 

[Etritonakin]

I've no idea how to start answering that.

Concerning the use of the word evolution I agree that we don't have to limit it to any specific usage but we do have to know what you mean by it. Reading through the thread it's kinda hard to make out your meaning. It sounds like you're using it as a replacement for the word nature or natural law.

Whatever it is that drives the evolution of the universe couldn't really be said to drive biological evolution which depends on descent with modification. Though I would be one of the few atheists here that don't hold that evolution is limited to living systems and that the tendency of matter to find a stable equilibrium is perhaps underneath the whole story.

I wrote
"Rather than viewing evolution in terms of element-based life, if we consider it to include essentially everything -every change that has ever been"

You wrote
Whatever it is that drives the evolution of the universe couldn't really be said to drive biological evolution which depends on descent with modification.

I didn't mean that the universe evolved by element/DNA-based evolution -but was considering whether evolution of life/intelligence was necessarily biological as we might define it.
By biological, do you mean element/DNA based?
If a life form or intelligence evolved which was -say -energy-based or based on anything other than DNA -would it still be biological?

 

[First Baseman]

I'll just say that it actually does not -but you don't want to get into it and I have also made and eplained that point many times.

I think I've seen or heard every possible argument. Arguing pointlessly just doesn't float my boat. I've never been able to change anyone's mind and nobody's changed mine so it is useless to argue about it. I think I am understanding most of the opposite points of the argument.

Anyway, thanks for,being cool about it.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think I've seen or heard every possible argument. Arguing pointlessly just doesn't float my boat. I've never been able to change anyone's mind and nobody's changed mine so it is useless to argue about it. I think I am understanding most of the opposite points of the argument.

Anyway, thanks for,being cool about it.

We can just ask God about it later.

 

[ashkat1`]

I think that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. I do not think, however, there was ever a time when God was purely unconscious. God is eternally creative. There has always been some sort of a created order or universe. Before this one, there was a different one, and so on, ad infinitum. I also believe that God is essential to explain creation. I view all creation as the actualization of a potential. So first, potential, then actualization of that potential. So before there was a universe, there had to be a potential in place to get the ball rolling. Now potentials , in and of themselves, do nothing. Potentials do not exist in a vacuum. Potentials exist only in some sort of actuality. So I posit the general potentials for the universe as existing in the creative imagination of God.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. I do not think, however, there was ever a time when God was purely unconscious. God is eternally creative. There has always been some sort of a created order or universe. Before this one, there was a different one, and so on, ad infinitum. I also believe that God is essential to explain creation. I view all creation as the actualization of a potential. So first, potential, then actualization of that potential. So before there was a universe, there had to be a potential in place to get the ball rolling. Now potentials , in and of themselves, do nothing. Potentials do not exist in a vacuum. Potentials exist only in some sort of actuality. So I posit the general potentials for the universe as existing in the creative imagination of God.

That reminded me of something I was thinking the other day about God's activities and creation being perfectly logical -and that if there was ever a point before he considered reproducing himself (not sure if that was ever the case) in the "children of God" -eventually reproducing would still have been a perfectly logical -and perhaps inevitable -decision.
I'm also looking into the scriptures for anything about whether or not God, the Father ever existed before the Word who became Christ. It says God and the Word were together in "the beginning" -but "the beginning" can refer to the beginning of various things. Is the fact that the Father is in authority indicative of something? Might the Word have been a sort of first self-replication?
Christ is called "the firstborn of many brethren" -but I am wondering if that only refers to his earthly birth, trials, death and resurrection.
Regardless..... If one is a creator -and creates awesome, wonderful and enjoyable things... the next logical steps would be to want another to experience the same things -do the same things -for you to check out and enjoy their awesome stuff and admire their awesome selves -and then compound all of that by making a bunch of creators so that awesomeness and love eternally increased and compounded.
What else would you do with eternity?

 

[Yerda]

I wrote
"Rather than viewing evolution in terms of element-based life, if we consider it to include essentially everything -every change that has ever been"

You wrote
Whatever it is that drives the evolution of the universe couldn't really be said to drive biological evolution which depends on descent with modification.

I didn't mean that the universe evolved by element/DNA-based evolution -but was considering whether evolution of life/intelligence was necessarily biological as we might define it.
By biological, do you mean element/DNA based?
If a life form or intelligence evolved which was -say -energy-based or based on anything other than DNA -would it still be biological?

That's a fair question. Biology is the study of life and living systems and so I would think it can expand to acount for any variety of life you can imagine. Life could be inorganic or based on circuit boards and I'm sure we could use the tools of bioscience to study it.

The use of the word evolution to describe the change of a system is actually quite common. We should be clear that it carries different connotations in different contexts and has a technical definition in the ToE sense.

The tendency of all material to "be in search of" an energetic equilibrium (often a ground state) might be the kind of thing we could talk about as relevant in different uses of the word evolution. The laws of thermodynamics, the principle of least action etc might be the kind of place you could find drivers behind the evolution of all kind of systems including biological ones. Do you know what I'm on about?

 

[Etritonakin]

That's a fair question. Biology is the study of life and living systems and so I would think it can expand to acount for any variety of life you can imagine. Life could be inorganic or based on circuit boards and I'm sure we could use the tools of bioscience to study it.

The use of the word evolution to describe the change of a system is actually quite common. We should be clear that it carries different connotations in different contexts and has a technical definition in the ToE sense.

The tendency of all material to "be in search of" an energetic equilibrium (often a ground state) might be the kind of thing we could talk about as relevant in different uses of the word evolution. The laws of thermodynamics, the principle of least action etc might be the kind of place you could find drivers behind the evolution of all kind of systems including biological ones. Do you know what I'm on about?

Not that last part -way too confusing for me. I like things that are just plain and work right.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not saying "the theory of evolution" -but evolution/evolving in its broadest possible sense. The singularity evolving into the elements and universe, etc.,

Evolution:
2: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

"The theory of evolution" is dependent upon many things which preceded it -which can be called the evolution of the state of reality, etc., etc.

The things described by the theory of evolution are also guided on a basic level by the same laws which govern the components which make up physical life forms.

The evolution of life is dependent on the evolution of that which preceded it -it is all part of the same overall process.

Living things are made of exactly the same stuff as non-living things -but in a different arrangement.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to it as entropy then?

 

[Etritonakin]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to it as entropy then?

I'd have to know what the hell entropy was to answer that.

 

[ashkat1`]

That reminded me of something I was thinking the other day about God's activities and creation being perfectly logical -and that if there was ever a point before he considered reproducing himself (not sure if that was ever the case) in the "children of God" -eventually reproducing would still have been a perfectly logical -and perhaps inevitable -decision.
I'm also looking into the scriptures for anything about whether or not God, the Father ever existed before the Word who became Christ. It says God and the Word were together in "the beginning" -but "the beginning" can refer to the beginning of various things. Is the fact that the Father is in authority indicative of something? Might the Word have been a sort of first self-replication?
Christ is called "the firstborn of many brethren" -but I am wondering if that only refers to his earthly birth, trials, death and resurrection.
Regardless..... If one is a creator -and creates awesome, wonderful and enjoyable things... the next logical steps would be to want another to experience the same things -do the same things -for you to check out and enjoy their awesome stuff and admire their awesome selves -and then compound all of that by making a bunch of creators so that awesomeness and love eternally increased and compounded.
What else would you do with eternity?

Well, I'm not sure about this replication idea. I am viewing creation as God's self-actualization, not God repeating or copying himself or herself.
Traditionally, in theology, the Word and Spirit are viewed as coeternal with God. Now, if you view the Word as I do, as God entering into finite reality, then you could say this follows from God having an innate, unconscious urge to self-actualize and become self-conscious. So first, there was the "primordial nature," as process thinkers, such as myself, term it. But never was a time when God was merely unconscious. God is eternally creative. The priority of teh primordial nature is logical not temporal.

 

[leibowde84]

I'd have to know what the hell entropy was to answer that.

entropy
The idea of entropy comes from a principle of thermodynamics dealing with energy. It usually refers to the idea that everything in the universe eventually moves from order to disorder, and entropy is the measurement of that change.

 

[Etritonakin]

entropy
The idea of entropy comes from a principle of thermodynamics dealing with energy. It usually refers to the idea that everything in the universe eventually moves from order to disorder, and entropy is the measurement of that change.

Are you saying evolution moves from order to disorder -or are you leading into some other point? Also... define "order" in the above. Without assuming forethought or a designer, why should anything be seen as order or disorder in the universe?

 

[leibowde84]

Are you saying evolution moves from order to disorder -or are you leading into some other point? Also... define "order" in the above. Without assuming forethought or a designer, why should anything be seen as order or disorder in the universe?

Evolution doesn't apply to the universe as a whole. That's my point. It is going from order to disorder. From the singularity to the big bang to massive expansion to where we are now the universe has gone from order to disorder, as those terms are defined (by us humans).

 

[Etritonakin]

Evolution doesn't apply to the universe as a whole. That's my point. It is going from order to disorder. From the singularity to the big bang to massive expansion to where we are now the universe has gone from order to disorder, as those terms are defined (by us humans).

DNA-based evolution does not apply to the universe as a whole. I understand that.
Are you saying that ...say... there was order -equilibrium -whatever -before the big bang, and the formation of the elements is an example of moving from that order to disorder?
If disorder means complexity or similar -I would understand that.
From a human perspective, however, that would be like moving the order of a neat stack of bricks into a comparatively disorderly home.

If everything is 1 -and 1 is order -and you start subdividing and rearranging the subdivisions of 1 into patterns, etc... and you call that moving toward disorder -sure.

(Not sure how it relates, but i was just thinking about how creation is essentially causing an imbalance in order to move things into a new balance in a different configuration -or maintaining a predetermined constant imbalance, etc., etc.)

If expansion is disorder -then I suppose the expected (by some) eventual collapse of the universe would be moving back toward order. However.... I believe that if such a tendency exists, it will be opposed by will to maintain the existence of the universe. Even we have the power to affect and oppose some of what would happen "naturally" otherwise.

 

[Etritonakin]

Evolution doesn't apply to the universe as a whole. That's my point. It is going from order to disorder. From the singularity to the big bang to massive expansion to where we are now the universe has gone from order to disorder, as those terms are defined (by us humans).

I am definitely asking "what if?" here -in case any Negative Nancys feel like pointing that out -but.......

If God exists -is before all that is and all things consist by God.....
Then science and God would mesh -and essentially be the same thing -though science would be a slow process of learning the particulars of God thus far.

If we are made in the image and likeness of God -but on a smaller scale -then God would similarly affect and change the course of that which exists. However, God would be the mind of all that exists -and all that exists essentially his body.
We are made of the same stuff we can affect by will -so he would be made of everything and able to affect everything by will.

Working backward.... Our individual will is reducible to much more simple things -and is made possible by basic interactions (yet we gain increasing mastery of interactions). Such basic interactions become arranged into that which is able to process information and change the environment -and ourselves, as we are also part of our own environment.

So... Perhaps the force which causes things to move toward what is considered "disorder" (from that perspective) could most accurately be called the will of God -even if it began as the most simple possible interaction/s and developed into an increasingly complex intelligence -an arrangement of the same stuff the intelligence could affect -increasingly affecting itself into that complex intelligence -which eventually made possible imagining and creating all that followed -including the Big Bang -which just happened to create a huge home which creators could affect.

We now look out into the universe with plans to inhabit it, and create throughout it.
Some do not believe they ever will, but prepare for other generations to do so.
We can conceive of immortality -and are even working toward that ourselves -though, again, for other generations at present.
If that thought is a continuation of evolution -and self-evolution is the next step in evolution, does that not indicate what will be in the future (as long as we do not become extinct) -even if God did not exist?

 

[ashkat1`]

I am definitely asking "what if?" here -in case any Negative Nancys feel like pointing that out -but.......

If God exists -is before all that is and all things consist by God.....
Then science and God would mesh -and essentially be the same thing -though science would be a slow process of learning the particulars of God thus far.

If we are made in the image and likeness of God -but on a smaller scale -then God would similarly affect and change the course of that which exists. However, God would be the mind of all that exists -and all that exists essentially his body.
We are made of the same stuff we can affect by will -so he would be made of everything and able to affect everything by will.

Working backward.... Our individual will is reducible to much more simple things -and is made possible by basic interactions (yet we gain increasing mastery of interactions). Such basic interactions become arranged into that which is able to process information and change the environment -and ourselves, as we are also part of our own environment.

So... Perhaps the force which causes things to move toward what is considered "disorder" (from that perspective) could most accurately be called the will of God -even if it began as the most simple possible interaction/s and developed into an increasingly complex intelligence -an arrangement of the same stuff the intelligence could affect -increasingly affecting itself into that complex intelligence -which eventually made possible imagining and creating all that followed -including the Big Bang -which just happened to create a huge home which creators could affect.

We now look out into the universe with plans to inhabit it, and create throughout it.
Some do not believe they ever will, but prepare for other generations to do so.
We can conceive of immortality -and are even working toward that ourselves -though, again, for other generations at present.
If that thought is a continuation of evolution -and self-evolution is the next step in evolution, does that not indicate what will be in the future (as long as we do not become extinct) -even if God did not exist?

I view the universe as the body of God. I feel that metaphor does the most justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. I th8ink that God definitely pushes the universe toward disorder. God is eternally creative, always ushering in the new, Hence, the old must perish, the status quo is shaken up, . Creativity is always a messy process.

 

[Etritonakin]

I view the universe as the body of God. I feel that metaphor does the most justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. I th8ink that God definitely pushes the universe toward disorder. God is eternally creative, always ushering in the new, Hence, the old must perish, the status quo is shaken up, . Creativity is always a messy process.

I do not believe the old must always perish -and God certainly will not.
The present works of the earth will be burnt up, for example, but longevity and permanence are good and necessary for some things.
After those works are burnt up, better materials will be made available for more permanent structures, etc.... And the New Jerusalem essentially becoming capital city of the universe -the earth remaining forever, etc. may even be eternal.

That may seem absurd to a scientific mind which does not consider the possibility of an intelligence having power over cosmic/universal events, but it is written that the whole creation awaits "liberation" from decay by the children of God -who will be given glorious bodies of a nature similar to that which allowed the Word to create all things in the first place. We, ourselves, will also be made permanent.

In other words -those natural tendencies and events which might threaten the universe and things therein will become subject to us under the government of God -rather than our being subject to them.
The universe will be more complex compared to the singularity, but it will very much become ordered from a perspective of civilization -allowing creation without conflict.

 

[ashkat1`]

I do not believe the old must always perish -and God certainly will not.
The present works of the earth will be burnt up, for example, but longevity and permanence are good and necessary for some things.
After those works are burnt up, better materials will be made available for more permanent structures, etc.... And the New Jerusalem essentially becoming capital city of the universe -the earth remaining forever, etc. may even be eternal.

That may seem absurd to a scientific mind which does not consider the possibility of an intelligence having power over cosmic/universal events, but it is written that the whole creation awaits "liberation" from decay by the children of God -who will be given glorious bodies of a nature similar to that which allowed the Word to create all things in the first place. We, ourselves, will also be made permanent.

In other words -those natural tendencies and events which might threaten the universe and things therein will become subject to us under the government of God -rather than our being subject to them.
The universe will be more complex compared to the singularity, but it will very much become ordered from a perspective of civilization -allowing creation without conflict.

I view perishing as essential for creativity, as the old order must perish to make way for the new. I believe that perishing does occur in God, since God's experiences are continually changing and then God is continually changing. God at time 2 is not identical to God at time 1. There is, of course, consistency in this change. God is always loving, always seeking to be creative and maximize beauty, always empathic. But that is the abstract or absolute nature of God. As concrete, conscious personality, God is continually changing, growing.

 

[Etritonakin]

I view perishing as essential for creativity, as the old order must perish to make way for the new. I believe that perishing does occur in God, since God's experiences are continually changing and then God is continually changing. God at time 2 is not identical to God at time 1. There is, of course, consistency in this change. God is always loving, always seeking to be creative and maximize beauty, always empathic. But that is the abstract or absolute nature of God. As concrete, conscious personality, God is continually changing, growing.

If the old is perfect the new can be built upon it.