...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] If the universe works as Darwinists think (i.e. everything arose on its own) then selective pressures are always random. In the Darwinian model, there is no reason why the temperature, predators and other selective pressures need to be as they are on earth. They could have been configured any other way. Not all these other ways support life, but I'm saying you could for instance have had some thing resembling the tropics on the north pole if the earth was at the right distance from the sun (presumably). In mainstream scientific thought, if you throw the dice with the formation of the universe, you could have other configurations of the earth and therefore other selective pressures. And selective pressures themselves vary over time as well, in a way that is necessarily random (ultimately) if one rejects 'divine intervention' at all levels. People need to make up their minds. You can't dismiss 'divine intervention' yet try to insert signs of 'divine intervention' in your model and insist you're being rational. This has been boggling my mind since page one, where you have people co-signing mysticism, yet dismiss direction in evolution. Is your problem a lack of education or something else? If you dismiss direction and support a purely chemical basis of life, then you can't have authentic consciousness and therefore no mysticism. At best you may have some sort of pseudo consciousness of the kind Dennet describes, where consciousness is just an illusory [b]by-product[/b] of electro-chemical activity in the brain. Needless to say, that type of consciousness can't lead to mystical experiences. It can't collapse the wave function, either. Yet that is exactly what humans have been observed doing in controlled laboratory settings. This is why life could never have arisen due to a purely chemical process. Everyone in the real world understands what's at stakes very well, which is why the topic of consciousness is so polarized and politicized. Only here on ES do you have people who don't understand that you can't have consciousness/mysticism evolving out of a purely chemical basis of life. It's always the same handful of people weirdly combining claims that are internally inconsistent. [/qb][/QUOTE]Again Swenet, when I discuss "mysticism" I am talking about the evolution of HUMAN THINKING about the process of creation as ultimately a "hidden LANGUAGE" within ones own mind as a result of interacting with the physical world. That same process of human cognitive thought function is what is the basis of all modern THEORIES of creation, whether it be evolution or divine intervention. All of it comes from human cognitive abilities that do not exist in other species. Rabbits don't sit around pontificating about the origins of the universe. The ability for abstract thought in humans leads to the creation of ARCHTYPES as stand ins or symbols for complex processes in nature which humans have seen and experienced since the beginning. Therefore most of the "gods" in history are SYMBOLS FOR complex processes in nature that have been given human forms and other attributes. And from this ability to generate symbols for things in nature comes the ability to create language and then ultimately writing and then more abstract symbolic concepts such as math. You cannot ignore this history of ultimately all these things as originating in human cognitive function. Ptah, Hermes and many of the earlier dieties or even Christ Logos are PHILOSOPHICAL SYMBOLS of this evolution in cognitive thought unique to humans, same as Buddha. And all of these systems have a symbolic language that describe some of these more meta principles of creation in a "mystical" or hidden way. From this pattern comes ALL of the modern sciences and philosophical frameworks we use today. So theoretical physics and science is a modern form of cosmology based on its own form of "hidden" language which is math. In saying that I am not saying that mysticism is an argument for divine intervention in the way that you claim it is. Mysticism in its most ancient form is just a way of explaining how things came to be with its own "hidden language" for revealing the patterns within nature as "meta" principles which form the basis of reality. These "meta" principles being abstracted into symbols or archetypes which later "rationalists" sometimes confuse as "gods". For example, Christ the Logos is an ancient symbol of cognition within the human creature AND the concept of a "idea realm" of non manifest ideas that can be "born" into existence. This is a philosophical and mystical "meta principle". Jesus Christ then becomes the "manifestation" of the "idea of a human" born from the "holy spirit". [QUOTE] In Christology, the Logos (Greek: lit. "Word", "Discourse", or "Reason") is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity.[/QUOTE]http:// ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Logos_(Christianity).html In the philosophical sense, logos is the root of ontology and the concept of "how things came to be". [QUOTE] Logos, (Greek: "word," "reason," or "plan")plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus. The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bc philosopher Heracleitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bc), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos. Philo of Alexandria, a 1st-century-ad Jewish philosopher, taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. According to Philo and the Middle Platonists, philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teachings of the 4th-century-bc Greek master philosopher Plato, the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.[/QUOTE] https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos Therefore, in the original "mysticism" of Greece and Egypt or the East, divine intervention did not always mean that "god" literally came down and formed humans out of clay (even though in some cases it did). It meant that the laws of nature were the "hidden language" of the gods and that all of the universe was a physical reflection of the "hidden mind" of god. And thus all branches of math and science were intertwined with the cosmologies and "mysticism" of cognitive thought. However, Christian doctrine is based on the literal acceptance of Christ as a flesh and blood creature for the purpose defining the "divine word" of the Bible as the basis for secular law and authority. Therefore, the symbolic and "mystical" aspects were downplayed in terms of how Christianity was taught to the masses as a form of blind obedience to Christ (and Christian based secular authority). And from that literal acceptance of Christ in the West came the rise of Christian biblical literalism. At the same time there came the rise of scientific rationalism. And this is what created the split we know as evolutionism vs creationism. This is a more recent debate based on "literal" acceptance of the bible where if it says that god created the universe in "seven days" then it must be interpreted literally as opposed to the "rationalist" view of science of being devoid of any concept of divinity. That is not how ancient philosophers necessarily looked at creation in all cases. I am not saying that am in any camp, as opposed to describing how these ideas and concepts came to be and therefore somewhat are illogical in that they ignore the history of their own existence. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3