Intelligent design and extinctions

[I am...]

Quote from Hansel H:

Hans: This sounds like classic solipsism. It's a tough nut to crack because though any objection to the "Whatever you say is just me talking to myself." argument may be obviously correct to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. parties, said objection can be dismissed by the solpisist as just another solipsistic event.

Yes, what I mean by "nobody out there" is this "self" that makes this world is really a nobody, as in, does not exist. And the legion of selves it makes are also nobody. But more than that, whatever this personality is which expresses as a legion of 'different' personalities...it is alone. And this is it's private little kingdom...just the way it wants it.

Once you realize this, you will be in a position to understand this passage as quoted from the gospel of Thomas:

Quote from gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, "Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again."

To be "chosen" simply means you've made up your mind to return to the kingdom you came from. This calls for a pure non-dualistic viewpoint in which the mind that makes this world chooses entirely against itself to return to the reality of Self. This is important. The mind that makes this world perceives that it has privatized the shared vineyard of God in order to make an unshared vineyard of its own. This conjures up fears about retaliation and repossession. It expects a battle. And these feelings play out in all of it's scripts.

This alt. kingdom is the "grapevine" spoken of here:

Quote from gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, "A grapevine has been planted apart from the Father. Since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by its root and will perish."

So there is this fear of extinction that finds its way into all the scripts running in the makers mindset. Look at the fruit this fear has produced, then decide if it would not be better to let the idea of self die on the vine. The vine is pulled up one grape at a time. It's totally voluntary. But your cooperation is inevitable.

Jesus

 

[stu]

Quote from yip1997:

I don't think my belief is "unreasonable". Our intelligence is built on the rules learned by observing the nature. If the nature is dumb, can we learn from it? (Of course, we can. Everything is possible.)

What is "Intelligence"? Is it an ability to learn and reason? Is it an ability to discover?

The "better" one performs, the more intelligent one is. The concept of "better" provides an "optimization" concept. When we build an intelligent system, we mean we build a system that can learn and adapt. We mean the system can optimize.

An intelligent system doesn't need to have a mind. It might not live. However, it can adapt and optimize in a certain way.

The natural evolution is a powerful optimization process. It is indeed unreasonable for me not to use "intelligent" to describe the process.

Your belief appears to be, the process of design would need to have intelligence in it to optimize.
Although didn't you agree, a spider is not intelligent, does not have intelligence, but operates a process of design that optimizes. A plant, mountains, a mud-puddle. Even more so.

I was interested to hear on what grounds you based that particular belief, though I do not think it unreasonable. Contradictory and irrational yes, but surely not unreasonable to hold it.

 

[armoured saint]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Evidence of extinctions are evidence of extinctions.

Period.

Why they happened may be due to poor design, but there are other possibilities.

When you watch a play, you see some characters come into the play in the first act, play their part, then leave not to return to the second act. Their part is "extinct" in the second and third acts of the play.

The playwright knows why he wrote their parts into extinction, and if the play accomplishes his goal perfectly, then the extinctions were perfect, not poorly designed.

No offense, but you really do need to expand your horizons, let go of the trappings of your religion that are incongruent with your relativistic logic, and simply have faith in God to guide you if you trust in Him.

Trust what?? Trust in some Thing that you argue that you can never know? Can never know its motives? How FOOLISH is it to place trust in something that is a complete mystery to you? Would you trust your money in this manner to a complete stranger? LOL

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

It is a complete mystery if we will take another breath, life another moment.

Yet most every trusts that this breath, this moment is not their last...

Quote from armoured saint:

Trust what?? Trust in some Thing that you argue that you can never know? Can never know its motives? How FOOLISH is it to place trust in something that is a complete mystery to you? Would you trust your money in this manner to a complete stranger? LOL

 

[armoured saint]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is a complete mystery if we will take another breath, life another moment.

Yet most every trusts that this breath, this moment is not their last...

Ahh, a trap! I'm supposed to reply trust in the next breath is based on experience, not whole blind faith, and therefore, a reasonable belief (until the next after the last . Then you say ..'ahh but MY faith in God is also derived from experience, I have personal knowledge of Him based in faith, as does anyone else who 'believes.' To which i would reply "PROVE IT.."

so on and so on..

We spiral away on another of your infinitely circular paths

But I *won't* say this and allow you to run and hide

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

It is reasonable to assume that any breath could be the last.

Yet you have faith that it is not.

So you live by faith in the next breath, and the next, and the next...

Fine by me.

As far as "proving" God to you, that's really not my job, that would be your job if you wanted it. If you want proof, seek it, but seek that proof not with the constraints of limited intellect and limited senses, as they are by their nature the wrong tool for that job.

Quote from armoured saint:

Ahh, a trap! I'm supposed to reply trust in the next breath is based on experience, not whole blind faith, and therefore, a reasonable belief (until the next after the last . Then you say ..'ahh but MY faith in God is also derived from experience, I have personal knowledge of Him based in faith, as does anyone else who 'believes.' To which i would reply "PROVE IT.."

so on and so on..

We spiral away on another of your infinitely circular paths

But I *won't* say this and allow you to run and hide

 

[armoured saint]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is reasonable to assume that any breath could be the last.

Yet you have faith that it is not.

So you live by faith in the next breath, and the next, and the next...

Fine by me.

As far as "proving" God to you, that's really not my job, that would be your job if you wanted it. If you want proof, seek it, but seek that proof not with the constraints of limited intellect and limited senses, as they are by their nature the wrong tool for that job.

Yes, i wake up every morn with faith that gravity will still be there. Gravity has always been there in my past experience, and good evidence even prior to that, and i have no evidence that it won't be there this morn.

I have nothing against faith, in form of reasonable expectation. In this case direct experience of the effect of gravity, and material evidence that gravity has been around for a long long time.

I also realize that my knowledge of gravity is limited and meager, and should it cease one day i would be surprised but would not be completely unexpected. (Are YOU also willing to admit ERROR in your faith of God?)


Proving God is not your job? Oh yes it IS! If you wish to argue HERE on this board it most certainly is your job.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So you have your faith.

That's nice.

You have faith in something limited, I have faith in something unlimited.

So where is the argument?

Quote from armoured saint:

Yes, i wake up every morn with faith that gravity will still be there. Gravity has always been there in my past experience, and good evidence even prior to that, and i have no evidence that it won't be there this morn.

I have nothing against faith, in form of reasonable expectation. In this case direct experience of the effect of gravity, and material evidence that gravity has been around for a long long time.

I also realize that my knowledge of gravity is limited and meager, and should it cease one day i would be surprised but would not be completely unexpected. (Are YOU also willing to admit ERROR in your faith of God?)


Proving God is not your job? Oh yes it IS! If you wish to argue HERE on this board it most certainly is your job.

 

[armoured saint]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So you have your faith.

That's nice.

You have faith in something limited, I have faith in something unlimited.

So where is the argument?

I have faith that my feet will be firmly planted on the earth tomorrow because many 'feet' have been for many many many years. And I have faith in my next breath because i have taken many breaths in the past and MOST others my age have taken many more for quite some time. I have knowledge, albeit limited, to support my belief.

YOU, on the other hand, have NO evidence because you, admittedly, can not know ANYTHING AT ALL about your "something unlimited". A limited mind cannot know the unlimited, remember your words If you can have no knowledge at all how can you place faith in it? Only a fool (or schizo) would believe with complete ignorance

{here you go with your circular argument again)

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Yes, you have your faith, and I have mine.

I see no problem.

I don't think you are wrong in your faith, you have taken a particular point of view and act accordingly. No one is forcing you to take that position, I don't know of anyone who is telling you that you are wrong.

So, what really is your problem?

Quote from armoured saint:

I have faith that my feet will be firmly planted on the earth tomorrow because many 'feet' have been for many many many years. And I have faith in my next breath because i have taken many breaths in the past and MOST others my age have taken many more for quite some time. I have knowledge, albeit limited, to support my belief.

YOU, on the other hand, have NO evidence because you, admittedly, can not know ANYTHING AT ALL about your "something unlimited". A limited mind cannot know the unlimited, remember your words If you can have no knowledge at all how can you place faith in it? Only a fool (or schizo) would believe with complete ignorance

{here you go with your circular argument again)