Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
maybe milton did it 
I agree -- under such a scenario, the probability of random accident and God did it are both possibilities which cannot be dismissed. But, if it is true that God is part of the natural universe, then where is the physical evidence of God?
Science can measure the amino acids. It can't measure the spirit force. And, if it can't measure it, then it can't assign a probability, so we're back where we started.
Sone contend that proof of God is found in symbolisms, such as love, thoughts, mathematics, etc., because these things have no physical manifestation.
However, I suggest that in the absence of human physical existence, none of these symbolisms would exists, because all of them exist from moment to moment in the electrochemical reactions which are part of the human brain.
Were no human left alive, the books, art, science, religion, philosophy, etc., while written symbolically for a future reader unknown, would all be dead until that reader appeared with the necessary synaptic powers to raise the symbols beyond their written status.
What makes the symbolisms real is the energy and matter that is the human brain -- not some unmeasurable spirit force.
All in my opinion, of course.
Kojak?
yo kojack, where'd you get your degree in quantum physics?
Science can't measure concepts either, but these concepts do exist in a non physical space. We commonly talk about fields in physics, yet there is mostly silence when discussing the measurement of mathematical, or conceptual fields.
We are within the Universe, yet we have ideas and concepts which are not part of the physical universe by any physical measurement.
Which came first?
The Universe, or the math of the Universe? If the Universe is destroyed, does that destroy the math of the Universe?
Yes, we do use symbols to represent ideas for the sake of communication, but while the symbols are a human creation for the purpose of communication and are merely means to represent the underlying concepts, the underlying truths the symbols represent have been shown logically to be indestructible...that is if you are implementing logic.
The tree falling in the forest does make a sound even if no one hears it, the logical and mathematical truths continue to exist even if all life were to vanish.
Just try to imagine a situation where zero doesn't exist.
Better yet, try to imagine the existence of non existence.
LOL!
We are within the Universe, yet we have ideas and concepts which are not part of the physical universe by any physical measurement.
Which came first?
The Universe, or the math of the Universe? If the Universe is destroyed, does that destroy the math of the Universe?
Yes, we do use symbols to represent ideas for the sake of communication, but while the symbols are a human creation for the purpose of communication and are merely means to represent the underlying concepts, the underlying truths the symbols represent have been shown logically to be indestructible...that is if you are implementing logic.
The tree falling in the forest does make a sound even if no one hears it, the logical and mathematical truths continue to exist even if all life were to vanish.
Just try to imagine a situation where zero doesn't exist.
Better yet, try to imagine the existence of non existence.
LOL!
The universe is an expression of god's awareness.. which is a nice way to say that existence (god) is pure living mind and the universe and everything in it (including us) are aspects of that flow of consciousness.. this has been the Hermetic opinion for millenia
the uneeverse is an expression of cold hard process. thank your lucky stars you hit the LIFE lottery.. cause the odds are far against YOU even existing. far less still you typing here. the Q is "how you going to spendit?" (your life lottery ticket, of course)? you gonna be a jerkoff your entire life/ :||
What are the probabilities that what's called "physical existence" is images in a mind?
I suggest that the images are symbols, each representing some idea. I suggest that the prime idea behind any of the images is the idea of rejection. That is, what is seen outside is what the mind does not want. Even more, it is what the mind wants to torment and kill. Notice that all the images die.
It's a leap for some to even consider the idea of an IDmind. Even more to take responsibility for it as one's own. But consider that the IDmind is also something that is rejected for fear of its power and what it has done with it.
Yet if one can take the leap, and thereby reconnect with the mind that makes the images, one can change what he sees, just as hallucinations can be changed when one comes back to their right mind.
It's possible to see beyond the images this way. They are there because of rejection, so the way to see beyond is acceptance. The symbols mask a 'real' world beyond, and beyond that reality itself.
Pantheism applies only to the extent that the images could not be seen without the power of God's mind. That is, the mind that sees them is using the power of God's mind to see them. And what it sees is a distorted view of God, reduced to symbols of ideas. Behind the ideas remains the essence of what is real, what cannot be divided.
Psychology, mind and motive are a better place to start a study of probabilities in this regard. If the theory is correct, then science should eventually line up with it. What I'm talking about is best explained with quantum physics rather than Newtonian physics. This is to say that science is not, and ought not to be the leader in this kind of research.
Start with a theory. Maybe its' just something that "makes sense" to you. Then observe, daily, hourly, repeatedly, whether outward conditions confirm the theory. If they repeatedly confirm the theory, the probabilities increase, and more confidence can be placed there. Is that not scientific? Who cares how you come up with the theory? Science should not dictate theory, it should confirm it.
The theory I propose reads like a Stephen King novel. So what? It is only as complicated as the problem is confusing. The purpose is to get at the truth. When you try to breathe life into math equations to come up with the theory, it's like actively attempting not to come up with the truth because you are concerned about what other images will think of you. It's called 'peer pressure'. Its the wrong tool for the job. Just because everyone is using it doesn't mean you have to. Instead, you must think outside the box.
As you wish,
Jesus
Magic makes this world, yes. But it begins not with awareness. It starts with a restriction of awareness, imposed by the mind that makes magic. Consciousness makes it, but consciousness is not fully aware. It represents the first split in an otherwise aware mind.
The world is an expression, yes. But what expresses opposing attributes of God does not really represent God, wouldn't you agree?
Technically God does not "exist". Being simply is. Images exist. The consciousness that makes this world "exists". In a state of unawareness, it is thought of as "God". Unsure of it's existence, it seeks confirmation through interaction and experience. This leads to a world of multiplicity, action and constant doing.
Yes, we are aspects of that flow of consciousness. At least, that's how it is set up magically. But that consciousness is ultimately not real because it is a limit on full awareness. Rather, we are actually the flow of creation itself...fully aware, having knowledge that does not require the experiences of unawareness to know itself. Unawareness judged to be awareness is rather...magical.
Jesus