...
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] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Unless you are going to show me that there was some form of "divine intervention" in the process of creating life on earth and human intelligence then it is all [b]the result of "natural" forces in the universe[/b]. Those are the only two options at this point. [/QUOTE]How did you come to the conclusion that "divine intervention" is not "natural"? Maybe a bell will ring if I try it this way. Because you're blatantly ignoring all the links talking about the universe [b]having consciousness[/b] (which you keep misrepresenting as 'intelligence', as if you have something to back up your claim that it's not real consciousness :rolleyes: ). The truth is, you don't know the universe, to know what is or isn't natural. All you can possibly know about nature is what you're experiencing in the macroscopic and visible world. What you call "natural" is a distortion of nature. [IMG]https://i2.wp.com/www.chromacademy.com/lms/sco736/images/Electromagnetic-spectrum.jpg[/IMG] So how did you come to the conclusion that "divine intervention" is not "natural"? What scientific findings did you use to define "natural"? You are making a lot of assumptions here that you can't substantiate. How many of the other dimensions of physics did you explore and familiarize yourself with, before you started to invent your own notion of "natural"? [IMG]http://www.sexandquantumphysics.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/vol2-05.jpg[/IMG] [/qb][/QUOTE]Depends on what you mean by "divine". Because one of the underlying definitions of "divine" is "of a god or deity". And "gods" in the traditional sense (or Christian sense) in most people's minds implies operating outside the forces of life/death and therefore physical nature. So you are going down a slippery slope because there are many ways people interpret "divine". When I say "nature" I mean processes that can be quantified and calculated based on observed rules and laws in the physical realm of reality. Gravity is not "divine intervention". Chemistry is not "divine intervention". At this point you are going back to what I said a few pages ago which is that the "mystics" symbolized the functioning of the universe in many of their "gods" as a symbol of the "intelligent universe" in a META physical way. So you are getting into the whole issue I mentioned earlier that the origin of math,science and physics lay in ancient mans mind attempting to understand the universe and the "nature" of creation and the various ideas and concepts that came out of that cognitive evolution in the brain related to creation and evolution. I can't believe you are trying to almost imply to be presenting a new argument here. These concepts are all related in the history of philosophy, cosmology and theology. So how is what you are saying "new or different" from what I already posted about the history of human thought? So that being said, how do you "prove" that "divine intervention" is natural? These terms themselves like "natural", "divine", "physical", "meta physical" are all part of the process of human cognitive evolution and the search for the origins of creation. And as such, these words and their meanings have been debated for many years. The point being if you are going to make an argument, you have to be clear how you are using the terms and what they mean so that your argument is understood. You didn't make an argument. You made a statement but then turned around and asked me to prove what I have read when I have already posted numerous pages of references to the history of human thought and the meaning of various words..... Such as: [QUOTE] "That it is not a science of production is clear even from the history of the earliest philosophers. For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for the myth is composed of wonders); therefore since they philosophized order to escape from ignorance, evidently they were pursuing science in order to know, and not for any utilitarian end. And this is confirmed by the facts; for it was when almost all the necessities of life and the things that make for comfort and recreation had been secured, that such knowledge began to be sought. Evidently then we do not seek it for the sake of any other advantage; but as the man is free, we say, who exists for his own sake and not for another's, so we pursue this as the only free science, for it alone exists for its own sake. "Hence also the possession of it might be justly regarded as beyond human power; for in many ways human nature is in bondage, so that according to Simonides 'God alone can have this privilege', and it is unfitting that man should not be content to seek the knowledge that is suited to him. If, then, there is something in what the poets say, and jealousy is natural to the divine power, it would probably occur in this case above all, and all who excelled in this knowledge would be unfortunate. But the divine power cannot be jealous (nay, according to the proverb, 'bards tell a lie'), nor should any other science be thought more honourable than one of this sort. For the most divine science is also most honourable; and this science alone must be, in two ways, most divine. For the science which it would be most meet for God to have is a divine science, and so is any science that deals with divine objects; and this science alone has both these qualities; for (1) God is thought to be among the causes of all things and to be a first principle, and (2) such a science either God alone can have, or God above all others. All the sciences, indeed, are more necessary than this, but none is better. "Yet the acquisition of it must in a sense end in something which is the opposite of our original inquiries. For all men begin, as we said, by wondering that things are as they are, as they do about self-moving marionettes, or about the solstices or the incommensurability of the diagonal of a square with the side; for it seems wonderful to all who have not yet seen the reason, that there is a thing which cannot be measured even by the smallest unit. But we must end in the contrary and, according to the proverb, the better state, as is the case in these instances too when men learn the cause; for there is nothing which would surprise a geometer so much as if the diagonal turned out to be commensurable. "We have stated, then, what is the nature of the science we are searching for, and what is the mark which our search and our whole investigation must reach. [/QUOTE] http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html [/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