One Global Faith -- Is It Possible?

[DigitalShadow]

Your question: Who created the creator? So you claim that there was no cause to creation and no caused to that cause? But there must be a cause to creation because things exist. Then what was the cause of that cause and so on and so on. We are no better off – unless you can prove that something exists without a cause and without anything to precede it. Something without a cause makes no sense to me – in a roundabout way it appears that you agree but I am not sure. And so the term random is used but what stopped cause and inserted randomness? We are back to a cause even when we consider randomness. Why do we want to make an exception to everything we experience – that is that all things have a cause?

I was merely pointing out that whether you think the initial conditions of the universe simply exist or that some creator simply exists, either way at some point you have to concede that something simply exists and we have no idea why. What I don't understand and what I don't think you answered is: What exactly makes it more logical to you to assume that there is a creator that simply exists (without a creator of his own) rather than the universe simply existing in an initial state ready to explode into all the complexity we see today?

There are areas within our solar system that are less extreme than some places on earth that harbor life – but there is no life beyond earth. So we have a conflict. Life on earth is the default and no life the extreme exception – but life anywhere else but earth there is no life as the default and no exceptions. It does not make sense that there is life on earth

Perhaps in order for life to form the conditions cannot be too extreme, but once life has taken root so to speak, it can branch out into even the most extreme conditions? Makes sense to me. You say that we have found no life outside of earth with "no exceptions", but considering the infinitecimal percent of the universe that we have access to, I don't think that really means much at all when it comes to determining how common or uncommon life is.

Your realization that humans are different than other primates but not really different is interesting. Why human pass on massive amounts of knowledge and no other primates have done so despite all the same environmental pressures and much longer time breaks down the theory that something acted on humans that does not act the same on other primates. The only logical conclusion is that humans are different because something different (unique to humans) caused it. This is made more interesting because it also appears that you believe that unless humans change (stop communicating massive amounts of knowledge that makes us different so we become more like other primates?) then the intelligence that separates us from other primates and gives us advantage is not really an advantage and we will become extinct – To be honest I do not see this logic; it seems to be rather illogical (quoting Spock).

My point was that while yes, by virtue of our genes we do have larger brains and greater capacity for processing information than other primates, it is not such a monumental difference as you seem to have been implying. Without the tools and knowledge that have been honed for thousands of years passed on to us, we would behave very similarly to other primates. Given the same environmental pressures, different species can evolve quite differently based on the genetic mutations specific to their population. That is the nature of an imperfect system to transcribe DNA. I'm not sure what you are going on about me thinking we would become extinct or what you are inferring I believe, but to be honest, the last half of that paragraph made little to no sense to me and I would appreciate it if you could clarify a bit.

Edited October 16, 2008 by DigitalShadow
typo

[Hemidakota]

. . Your realization that humans are different than other primates but not really different is interesting. Why human pass on massive amounts of knowledge and no other primates have done so despite all the same environmental pressures and much longer time breaks down the theory that something acted on humans that does not act the same on other primates. The only logical conclusion is that humans are different because something different (unique to humans) caused it. This is made more interesting because it also appears that you believe that unless humans change (stop communicating massive amounts of knowledge that makes us different so we become more like other primates?) then the intelligence that separates us from other primates and gives us advantage is not really an advantage and we will become extinct – To be honest I do not see this logic; it seems to be rather illogical (quoting Spock).

The Traveler

Traveler, totally agree. I don't see any primate for the last six-thousand years manufacture an aircraft, a boat, a car, a computer and so forth.

The question that needs an answer, who created the Primates? Then, neither will a primate, in its physical surroundings or conditions placed upon it, can be equal to any man in this mortality. Now, if I remove the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of GOD, will I begin to see a start of a denigrate society to implode upon itself?

[Traveler]

I was merely pointing out that whether you think the initial conditions of the universe simply exist or that some creator simply exists, either way at some point you have to concede that something simply exists and we have no idea why. What I don't understand and what I don't think you answered is: What exactly makes it more logical to you to assume that there is a creator that simply exists (without a creator of his own) rather than the universe simply existing in an initial state ready to explode into all the complexity we see today?

Perhaps in order for life to form the conditions cannot be too extreme, but once life has taken root so to speak, it can branch out into even the most extreme conditions? Makes sense to me. You say that we have found no life outside of earth with "no exceptions", but considering the infinitecimal percent of the universe that we have access to, I don't think that really means much at all when it comes to determining how common or uncommon life is.

My point was that while yes, by virtue of our genes we do have larger brains and greater capacity for processing information than other primates, it is not such a monumental difference as you seem to have been implying. Without the tools and knowledge that have been honed for thousands of years passed on to us, we would behave very similarly to other primates. Given the same environmental pressures, different species can evolve quite differently based on the genetic mutations specific to their population. That is the nature of an imperfect system to transcribe DNA. I'm not sure what you are going on about me thinking we would become extinct or what you are inferring I believe, but to be honest, the last half of that paragraph made little to no sense to me and I would appreciate it if you could clarify a bit.

I have always enjoyed conversation with you DS. Thank you for reading my posts. When we consider initial conditions for the universe and how it continues to operate we must realize that such conditions are complex. Any scientific analysis of complex systems based on contributing or controlling parameters indicate that at some point there must be ordered complexity. Even with computers with simple binary code complex systems can be modeled but only by ordering the complexity through programming. If a complex software program is working (producing anything worthwhile or useful) I find it much simpler to assume that someone produced and debugged it. I have a really hard time believing the computer just happened to have the complex program as an initial condition.

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

Now, if I remove the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of GOD, will I begin to see a start of a denigrate society to implode upon itself?

Humanity did just fine for thousands of years before belief in the Holy Ghost took hold in the minds of many of us, so I would say no.

Any scientific analysis of complex systems based on contributing or controlling parameters indicate that at some point there must be ordered complexity. Even with computers with simple binary code complex systems can be modeled but only by ordering the complexity through programming. If a complex software program is working (producing anything worthwhile or useful) I find it much simpler to assume that someone produced and debugged it. I have a really hard time believing the computer just happened to have the complex program as an initial condition.

You have to take into account the non-theist belief that all of the complexity we see today is the product of ~4 billion years of evolution and biological development. That's no small number. Things work the way they do because we have been refined over a very long period of time to do so. Interestingly enough, we as humans have the advantage over other animals in intelligence, industry, and general cognitive capability. In all areas not relating to the brain, however, we are the most poorly evolved species on the face of the earth. We have put our brains to use because otherwise we wouldn't survive.

[Traveler]

You have to take into account the non-theist belief that all of the complexity we see today is the product of ~4 billion years of evolution and biological development. That's no small number. Things work the way they do because we have been refined over a very long period of time to do so. Interestingly enough, we as humans have the advantage over other animals in intelligence, industry, and general cognitive capability. In all areas not relating to the brain, however, we are the most poorly evolved species on the face of the earth. We have put our brains to use because otherwise we wouldn't survive.

I have taken all this into account. Some species lived and evolved for over 100 million years and are now extinct and did not evolve the intelligence of humans (evolution less than 100,000 years) even though they evolved a vast array of other complex traits. The shark preceded the dinosaurs and yet live today with very little evolutionary differences despite the fact that their food sources have evolved and changed greatly over hundreds of millions of years. The bat had to evolve 4 extremely diverse and complex traits simultaneously and relatively instantly to survive that are so complex that their existence is a mathematical impossibility.

The point is that complexity comes from order not chaos. Chaos produces singularity over time. I have never found an exception. I think it is kind of humorous that anyone that has ever attempted to produce anything complex would have any other opinion and think it logical.

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

I have taken all this into account. Some species lived and evolved for over 100 million years and are now extinct and did not evolve the intelligence of humans (evolution less than 100,000 years) even though they evolved a vast array of other complex traits. The shark preceded the dinosaurs and yet live today with very little evolutionary differences despite the fact that their food sources have evolved and changed greatly over hundreds of millions of years. The bat had to evolve 4 extremely diverse and complex traits simultaneously and relatively instantly to survive that are so complex that their existence is a mathematical impossibility.

1. Humans are the product of much more than merely 100,000 years of evolution. Our more primative ancestors may have had lesser cognitive abilities than us, but you have to walk before you can run, right?

2. Sharks have been at the top of the ocean's foodchain for a very long time. Hence, no further evolution is necessary.

The point is that complexity comes from order not chaos. Chaos produces singularity over time. I have never found an exception. I think it is kind of humorous that anyone that has ever attempted to produce anything complex would have any other opinion and think it logical.

The Traveler

There's no such thing as irreducible complexity. Everything complex that we see in nature came from something slightly less complex, and so on and so on for hundreds of millions of years.

[DigitalShadow]

I have always enjoyed conversation with you DS. Thank you for reading my posts. When we consider initial conditions for the universe and how it continues to operate we must realize that such conditions are complex. Any scientific analysis of complex systems based on contributing or controlling parameters indicate that at some point there must be ordered complexity. Even with computers with simple binary code complex systems can be modeled but only by ordering the complexity through programming. If a complex software program is working (producing anything worthwhile or useful) I find it much simpler to assume that someone produced and debugged it. I have a really hard time believing the computer just happened to have the complex program as an initial condition.

The Traveler

Take for example a snow flake. No one is guiding or controlling its formation and yet we see incredibly intricate unique patterns of snow flakes all over the place. Also, out of curiousity have you read much about Chaos Theory?

[DigitalShadow]

The point is that complexity comes from order not chaos. Chaos produces singularity over time. I have never found an exception. I think it is kind of humorous that anyone that has ever attempted to produce anything complex would have any other opinion and think it logical.

As you may already know, I make software for a living. I know better than most, that humans can indeed make incredibly complex things, but the things that we can make are orders of magnitude less complex than living creatures. At some point you reach the limit of what can be created by directly designing something and you need some sort of automated process to evaluate what works and what doesn't. To me, that is exactly what evolution is and it makes quite a bit of sense to me that no one being could simply "design" all the complexity we see today, it looks far more like the work of an automated system.

[abqfriend]

I am a Catholic. I and my Church have no problem with evolution- that is God directed.

The signs of archeology/biology/geology point-in my opinion- point to an evolutionary process.

Where the difference lies-is in some leaving God out of the equation.

-Carol

As you may already know, I make software for a living. I know better than most, that humans can indeed make incredibly complex things, but the things that we can make are orders of magnitude less complex than living creatures. At some point you reach the limit of what can be created by directly designing something and you need some sort of automated process to evaluate what works and what doesn't. To me, that is exactly what evolution is and it makes quite a bit of sense to me that no one being could simply "design" all the complexity we see today, it looks far more like the work of an automated system.

Edited October 17, 2008 by abqfriend

[DigitalShadow]

I am a Catholic. I and my Church have no problem with evolution- that is God directed.

The signs of archeology/biology/geology point-in my opinion- point to an evolutionary process.

Where the difference lies-is in leaving God out of the equation.

-Carol

God directed or God created? Do you think that God still meddles with or guides the process? or do you just think that He is the one that set it all up?

[abqfriend]

My personal view is that God does indeed direct all of creation.

He has not left His creation to go elsewhere.

He is "not asleep at the switch."

God directed or God created? Do you think that God still meddles with or guides the process? or do you just think that He is the one that set it all up?

[DigitalShadow]

My personal view is that God does indeed direct all of creation.

He has not left His creation to go elsewhere.

He is "not asleep at the switch."

Thanks for clarifying :)

[Misshalfway]

As you may already know, I make software for a living. I know better than most, that humans can indeed make incredibly complex things, but the things that we can make are orders of magnitude less complex than living creatures. At some point you reach the limit of what can be created by directly designing something and you need some sort of automated process to evaluate what works and what doesn't. To me, that is exactly what evolution is and it makes quite a bit of sense to me that no one being could simply "design" all the complexity we see today, it looks far more like the work of an automated system.

To me, I look at the earth and all of its elements and possibilities and then man's ability to create and to harness and produce using these resources as a reflection of man's divine heritage.

I believe part of what makes God is his ability to create and organize and that this sphere is given to us to stretch our creative capacities. It is like God has said "Here is an earth. Go see what you can do with it. When you come back home, I'll show you even greater stuff or even give you opportunities to try your hand at what I do."

If we are indeed children of God, why wouldn't we have creative capability and why wouldn't God give us space to try?

Edited October 17, 2008 by Misshalfway

[Traveler]

Take for example a snow flake. No one is guiding or controlling its formation and yet we see incredibly intricate unique patterns of snow flakes all over the place. Also, out of curiousity have you read much about Chaos Theory?

Snowflakes are not evolving - a snowflake is no more complex and intricate today than they were 12 billion years ago. Because of my background and training in math and physics I consider myself knowledgably and capable of using Chaos theory to model complex systems. I am aware that Chaos theory utilizes probabilities within ranges based on parameters within defined ratios to predict possible outcomes of complex systems. Even in Chaos theory a parameter(s) must change beyond defined ratios before the probable outputs can be redefined. Since the parameters of a snowflake are very limited within the range of the crystallization of water there will never be evolution of snowflakes thus Chaos Theory is incapable of telling us anymore about a snowflake than what we already know.

Since Chaos theory deals with initial parameters within defined ranges the outcomes are given as probabilities. I contend that if you can know all the parameters precisely enough you could predict the outcome exactly – even in a snowflake.

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

Since Chaos theory deals with initial parameters within defined ranges the outcomes are given as probabilities. I contend that if you can know all the parameters precisely enough you could predict the outcome exactly – even in a snowflake.

The Traveler

I agree with that completely. In fact I further contend that if you knew the initial parameters of the universe and the rules that governed matter well enough you would be able to predict the outcome right down to us typing to each other right now.

[DigitalShadow]

Snowflakes are not evolving - a snowflake is no more complex and intricate today than they were 12 billion years ago. Because of my background and training in math and physics I consider myself knowledgably and capable of using Chaos theory to model complex systems. I am aware that Chaos theory utilizes probabilities within ranges based on parameters within defined ratios to predict possible outcomes of complex systems. Even in Chaos theory a parameter(s) must change beyond defined ratios before the probable outputs can be redefined. Since the parameters of a snowflake are very limited within the range of the crystallization of water there will never be evolution of snowflakes thus Chaos Theory is incapable of telling us anymore about a snowflake than what we already know.

Since Chaos theory deals with initial parameters within defined ranges the outcomes are given as probabilities. I contend that if you can know all the parameters precisely enough you could predict the outcome exactly – even in a snowflake.

The Traveler

The snow flake comment and my chaos theory question were not really related. In fact I assumed you had probably studied chaos theory more in depth that I have, I was just confirming that assumption. I brought up the snow flake because many people say that order and organization require intlligence guiding it. I submit that snowflakes are orderly and organized but have no intelligence guiding their creation.

Think of a fractal; beautiful and infinitely complex patterns arise from initial parameters and a simple equation. That is how I think of the universe. Infinite complexity exploded from initial coditions and relatively simple rules governing them. Not to say that is the only way of looking at things, but to say that your way of looking at a "designed" universe is the only logical conclusion is a bit of a stretch.

[DigitalShadow]

To me, I look at the earth and all of its elements and possibilities and then man's ability to create and to harness and produce using these resources as a reflection of man's divine heritage.

I believe part of what makes God is his ability to create and organize and that this sphere is given to us to stretch our creative capacities. It is like God has said "Here is an earth. Go see what you can do with it. When you come back home, I'll show you even greater stuff or even give you opportunities to try your hand at what I do."

If we are indeed children of God, why wouldn't we have creative capability and why wouldn't God give us space to try?

To me, I look at God being made in man's own image rather than the other way around

We often give human traits to things. For example, my wife often states that her computer is mad at her. It's called anthropomorphism.

[Starfish]

Well, for now, I'd be happy to be accepted by mainstream Christianity as fellow Christians. When we all work together, we are a formidable force in society. Yet too often, we are met with suspicion by the religious world.

[Misshalfway]

To me, I look at God being made in man's own image rather than the other way around

We often give human traits to things. For example, my wife often states that her computer is mad at her. It's called anthropomorphism.

I believe your wife. I am pretty sure my computer is absolutely out to get me! Not to mention my dishwasher..........

And I don't think I can disagree with you on your first statement because without revelation, the ideas of men are all we have really.

[DigitalShadow]

the ideas of men are all we have really.

I agree completely

Edited October 17, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[Guest Godless]

And I don't think I can disagree with you on your first statement because without revelation, the ideas of men are all we have really.

But how do you distinguish between revelation from god and the ideas of men? I've asked this question to members before and all answers I receive reek of confirmation bias.

[DigitalShadow]

But how do you distinguish between revelation from god and the ideas of men? I've asked this question to members before and all answers I receive reek of confirmation bias.

That's been my biggest question since I came to this forum and the main reason I am not a member.

[john doe]

Since you two won't accept the 'confirmation bias' answer, how else do you expect to find truth?

[Guest Godless]

Since you two won't accept the 'confirmation bias' answer, how else do you expect to find truth?

Empirical evidence. And I have no problem whatsoever with admitting that there are some things that we don't know and may possibly never know about the world we live in. Not all questions need answers.

[Guest The_Doctor]

Take for example a snow flake. No one is guiding or controlling its formation and yet we see incredibly intricate unique patterns of snow flakes all over the place.

That's true but where did the material that created the snowflake come from? Was it always here? Which by my understanding of the Expanding Universe theory could be possible, but you still don't answer where it came from. Either it was created from nothing: (Which science states is impossible, I can't remember the law though. You know the whole matter and energy can't be created or destroyed thing.) came from outside of the universe which implies something is beyond the nothingness of space (or nothing is something, which is a can of worms better left alone): or, like I said before, it was always here. Perhaps someday science will answer this question or maybe it never will. As for me I say that the lack of logical, scientific answers to these questions is proof that Heavenly Father exists.

Please don't take this the wrong way; I hate how cold and emotionless the written word can be.