R
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
TheCuriousCat
Guest
Think this through for a second: Was the human brain formed exclusively for Christ to serve the will of the Father? If Jesus had a fully human brain, at least part of it, was for the good of preserving his fully human body. Even more, it was also formed for the good of all of his ancestors who had a human brain.So, by exclusively setting about to do the will of the Father, the brain of Christ (as a human structure) was formed exclusively for the good of another species (God) and therefore annihilates Darwin’s theory.
If Jesus had a unique brain, that didn’t serve any other good, then he wasn’t fully human.
T
tonyrey
Guest
No response!Biology is science, and to ask when something happened is a legitimate question in science. Questions like, “When did the Chicxulub meteorite impact?”
“invented by man” implies that spiritual values do not correspond to reality and did not exist before man appeared on the scene - rather an anthropomorphic view which excludes the spiritual development of non-human beings.All religions are invented by man, and all the different denominations within those religions are also invented by man. The Buddha was a man, as was Jesus.
No response!
It reinforces the fact that you believe existence is purposeful yet you cannot explain the origin of purposeful existence.
I also believe that Christianity is wrong in some aspects. Does that mean you accept what I believe as necessarily true? This issue has nothing to do with Christianity but with the lack of an explanation for the origin of purposeful existence - which is to be found in Design.
No response!
The topic is biological Design.
Agreed. When did this Biological design happen? It is occurring all the time in the physical and spiritual development in which you believe. So, design is occurring now. Do I take it that the designer is shuffling DNA molecules around? How does he/she/it/they do that? Are there lab experiments showing the molecules moving under the influence of the designer? What physical forces does the designer use: gravity, electromagnetic, weak, strong? If there a fifth force, currently unknown to physics, that the designer uses to move molecules? It there is, then there’s a Nobel Prize for someone.
Biological design is a physical thing, involving physical molecules. Where is the scientific evidence of the designer physically rearranging molecules? Molecules and their movements are well within the boundaries of science.
You seem to think molecular activity is the sole activity! Does it explain everything else - including spiritual development?
Does a non-purposeful universe/multiverse explain its own existence - and spiritual development?If the designer has purposeful existence, then you have not explained the origin of purposeful existence until you have explained the origin of the designer. If the designer does not have purposeful existence, then purposeful existence can arise from non-purposeful existence and there is no problem to be solved since we already have a non-purposeful universe/multiverse to explain the origin of things.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
No. He knew in advance that his allegiance and complete dedication to God’s will would result in his death, so clearly that allegiance excluded, or at least overrided his will for self-preservation.Think this through for a second: Was the human brain formed exclusively for Christ to serve the will of the Father? If Jesus had a fully human brain, at least part of it, was for the good of preserving his fully human body. Even more, it was also formed for the good of all of his ancestors who had a human brain.
If Jesus had a unique brain, that didn’t serve any other good, then he wasn’t fully human.
As to your last point, you assume that being fully human necessarily means considering human goods above all others. Perhaps that is precisely what reduces human beings in stature, and makes them less than fully human, especially if the good is an objective and transcendent reality that supercedes humanity. Merely human goods would then have subordinate status to the supreme good and a failure to grasp that fact as an aspect of truth could lead us to even more catastrophic failures. One being that evolution is not “the truth” at all, as far as humans are concerned, and recognizing that might get us beyond a necessarily self-limiting point of view.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Why was it necessary to respond with “No response”? If you had nothing to contribute, simply skipping the “No response” would avoid unnecessary clutter.No response!
No response!
No response!
You seem to think molecular activity is the sole activity! Does it explain everything else - including spiritual development?
Does a non-purposeful universe/multiverse explain its own existence - and spiritual development?
Molecular activity is accompanied by activity within the atom, which is responsible for much of our energy. Electricity is purely electronic movement. Electromagnetic activity is a byproduct of electrical activity. Do you think that spiritual phenomena can be explained by electron movement or electromagnetic influences? How about radiation such as X-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, Alpha waves, Beta waves, etc.?
B
buffalo
Guest
How so? - the mousetrap does not fulfill its intended function if a part is removed.Professor Behe tried to use the first of these when devising his concept of Irreducible Complexity. It was a failure, but an interesting and useful failure in that it produced some good work and helped advance the theory of evolution.
rossum
T
TheCuriousCat
Guest
You have completely missed the point of what ‘exclusive good’ is in the context we’re talking about.Originally Posted by **TheCuriousCat **
How old was Jesus when he was crucified? If the answer is anything greater than a few seconds, then his brain was engaged in the process of keeping him alive. He couldn’t breath, eat, drink, walk, or talk without engaging his brain. He may have been dedicated to a single purpose, but that thing at the top of his neck had an additional job on its hands.
As to your last point, you assume that being fully human necessarily means considering human goods above all others.If Jesus had a unique brain, that didn’t serve any other good, then he wasn’t fully human.
I don’t know where you got that idea.
The human brain functions to keep a human body alive. That isn’t necessarily its only function, but that is one of its big functions. If his brain wasn’t engaged in keeping him alive, then he wasn’t physically human.
You are confusing two senses of the word ‘good’. You are using it in the sense of ‘virtue’. ‘Good’ in the context of evolution means ‘aiding the survival of’.Perhaps that is precisely what reduces human beings in stature, and makes them less than fully human, especially if the good is an objective and transcendent reality that supercedes humanity. Merely human goods would then have subordinate status to the supreme good and a failure to grasp that fact as an aspect of truth could lead us to even more catastrophic failures. One being that evolution is not “the truth” at all, as far as humans are concerned, and recognizing that might get us beyond a necessarily self-limiting point of view.
R
rossum
Guest
No question was asked so no response is required.No response!
The title of this thread includes the word “Biological”. All biological activity is molecular activity. I do not think that the Catholic Church includes spiritual development under the heading of “Biology”.You seem to think molecular activity is the sole activity! Does it explain everything else - including spiritual development?
You are reifying purpose again. I reject all reification.Does a non-purposeful universe/multiverse explain its own existence - and spiritual development?
An eternal multiverse does not need to ‘explain’ its own existence, any more than an eternal deity does.
The multiverse is not a living being, and hence is incapable of spiritual development. Only living beings can attain nirvana.
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you have nothing to contribute it implies that you cannot refute the other person’s statements or explain why they are irrelevant.Why was it necessary to respond with “No response”? If you had nothing to contribute, simply skipping the “No response” would avoid unnecessary clutter.
I don’t believe any form of electrical activity causes our thoughts, beliefs, values, choices or decisions. Otherwise we would be biological machines with no responsibility for anything whatsoever.Molecular activity is accompanied by activity within the atom, which is responsible for much of our energy. Electricity is purely electronic movement. Electromagnetic activity is a byproduct of electrical activity. Do you think that spiritual phenomena can be explained by electron movement or electromagnetic influences? How about radiation such as X-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, Alpha waves, Beta waves, etc.?
T
tonyrey
Guest
No question was asked so no response is required.
R
rossum
Guest
Professor Behe’s Irreducible Complexity is a good example of how science works.How so? - the mousetrap does not fulfill its intended function if a part is removed.
When Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species”, he included ways to show how his theory could be falsified; falsification is important in science. Behe thought about what Darwin said, IIRC he actually quotes it in one of his books. Behe came up with his idea of Irreducible Complexity and proposed a hypothesis:
Irreducibly Complex systems cannot evolve.
Other scientists took this away and tested it. Science is big on testing hypotheses. That testing produced some good and interesting work, for example Thornhill and Ussery (1999) and Lenski (2003). The result of this work was that Behe was partially right; IC systems cannot evolve by a direct route however they can evolve by indirect routes. Behe’s idea triggered some useful work and helped to refine the theory of evolution.
Behe then modified his hypothesis to reflect the results of the experiments. This is again correct science. If a hypothesis is badly wrong it is rejected. If it is not so badly wrong, then it is modified and retested. Behe’s hypothesis was partly correct, so he modified it. This was good science on Behe’s part. The modified hypothesis now reads:
Irreducibly Complex systems cannot evolve by direct routes and are unlikely to evolve by indirect routes.
Work now concentrated on just how unlikely the indirect routes were. Behe himself has done work on this, see Behe and Snoke (2004). That paper indicated that a simple IC system could evolve in 20,000 years.
Behe was partly correct, and his correct observation has been incorporated into science. Further work, including Behe’s own paper, has shown that although it is more difficult to evolve IC systems by indirect routes that they can evolve within reasonable timescales. 20,000 years is not a long time over 3.7 billion years.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Both time and space started at the Big Bang, and are confined to our current universe. The multiverse is not located in the time and space specific to our universe. It may possibly possess some equivalents of its own; no doubt cosmologists are working on that.No **physical **phenomena can explain themselves because they are located in time and space.
Since living beings have always existed, then yes it has.Has spiritual development always existed?
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
The multiverse is an unsubstantiated hypothesis which presupposes other physical attributes and forms of time and space.*No **physical ***
Since living beings have always existed, then yes it has.Has spiritual development always existed?
It’s good to know you believe spiritual development has always existed. That is sufficient reason to believe life is intrinsically purposeful and not due solely to physical causes. It is not economical to believe spiritual and physical reality have always co-existed independently.
R
rossum
Guest
I do not. The Buddhist material universe is intermittent. There are times when a material universe exists, and there are times when one does not. The immaterial universe always exists. (Strictly, a series of vanishingly brief immaterial universes exist, each conditinoned by its predecessor.)It is not economical to believe spiritual and physical reality have always co-existed independently.
rossum
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Actually the Darwin quote was:Think this through for a second: Was the human brain formed exclusively for Christ to serve the will of the Father? If Jesus had a fully human brain, at least part of it, was for the good of preserving his fully human body. Even more, it was also formed for the good of all of his ancestors who had a human brain.
If Jesus had a unique brain, that didn’t serve any other good, then he wasn’t fully human.
“Any part” would mean any part of a part, as well. So if any part of Christ’s brain was formed for the exclusive good of another species, Darwin’s theory would fall. Obviously, some parts of Christ’s brain were set fully on the willed good of the Father (Divine Beings would count as “another species”) to the detriment of Christ’s human good (survival).If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection. (emphasis added)
It might also be argued that Buddhists seeking Nirvana have a part of the structure of their brains that do not seek the “good” in any sense of the word, but seek a negation or emptiness. The “blowing out” of all seeking of desire, aversion and delusion, good or otherwise. Definitely not an outcome consistent with an evolutionary quest for survival.
T
TheCuriousCat
Guest
If there was a part of Jesus’ brain that was not in a human brain, that was magically created in order to serve the Father, then yes, it would not have evolved.Actually the Darwin quote was:
“Any part” would mean any part of a part, as well. So if any part of Christ’s brain was formed for the exclusive good of another species, Darwin’s theory would fall. Obviously, some parts of Christ’s brain were set fully on the willed good of the Father (Divine Beings would count as “another species”) to the detriment of Christ’s human good (survival).
This part would have to be unique, of course. It couldn’t be a brain cell because humans use their brain cells for other purposes. It couldn’t be a lobe of the brain because those have been used for other purposes. It couldn’t be the dendrites, axons, cell bodies because, again, those all have other purposes in other humans. What is this unique part of his brain you have evidence of?
Again, what special part of their brains did they not inherit from their parents? Please point to this unique feature of their brain that is different from ordinary parts of humans brains. What tissue, which region, what part of their brain isn’t of the same substance as the rest of our brains?It might also be argued that Buddhists seeking Nirvana have a part of the structure of their brains that do not seek the “good” in any sense of the word, but seek a negation or emptiness. The “blowing out” of all seeking of desire, aversion and delusion, good or otherwise. Definitely not an outcome consistent with an evolutionary quest for survival.
T
TheCuriousCat
Guest
See my above post for why your argument fails on a biological level, but it fails on a theological level as well.“Any part” would mean any part of a part, as well. So if any part of Christ’s brain was formed for the exclusive good of another species, Darwin’s theory would fall. Obviously, some parts of Christ’s brain were set fully on the willed good of the Father (Divine Beings would count as “another species”) to the detriment of Christ’s human good (survival).
Most Christians believe in the trinity (Catholics, Orthodox, the established churches):
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,** begotten of the Father** before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;”
From a theological perspective, Jesus shares one being with the Father, he is begotten,ergo not a separate species.
So, in order for you to prove your point, you not only have to:
- Prove that Jesus had a unique brain
- Prove that part of his brain was developed for the sole purpose of serving the Father
- Prove that God was a different species
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I don’t think any of those items need to be proven for the point to hold.See my above post for why your argument fails on a biological level, but it fails on a theological level as well.
Most Christians believe in the trinity (Catholics, Orthodox, the established churches):
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,** begotten of the Father** before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;”
From a theological perspective, Jesus shares one being with the Father, he is begotten,ergo not a separate species.
So, in order for you to prove your point, you not only have to:
This would run contrary to the beliefs of pretty much everyone in the world (Christians, Jews, Muslims, and atheists for a start) who disagree with you for various and different reasons.
- Prove that Jesus had a unique brain
- Prove that part of his brain was developed for the sole purpose of serving the Father
- Prove that God was a different species
- Jesus did not require a unique brain, perhaps every human being has some aspect of their brain ordered towards doing the will of God, which would mean that the ordering itself could not have arisen as an evolutionary advance ( Darwin’s contention was that every part of every biological species must have been the result of evolutionary advance in order for his theory to hold.) I am merely claiming that a brain (any human brain) that is ordered supernaturally to the will of God could not have that ordering as a sheer result of natural selection. It wouldn’t make Darwinian sense.
- He was crucified for doing the will of God, knew he would be in advance but continued on that path anyway. Obviously, he had one purpose in mind: doing the will of God. He even claimed to be doing that and that alone and apparently had the full cooperation of his brain.
- God is not essentially a biological or physical creature, according to virtually all mainline religions except Mormonism, ergo God could not be a biological species. Are you claiming God is, by nature, physical, and of the biological species homo sapiens sapiens?
N
nmgauss
Guest
What I can’t figure out is the genetics of Jesus. By asserting that God had a son with Mary, in biological terms, he was automatically a male. In that case, women had no representative in heaven. If God is masculine and Mary was feminine, then the haploid part of God would have to combine with the haploid part of Mary to develop a normal real diploid human. Now the fact that in human terms, the chances of Mary having a son vs. a daughter were 50-50, how was it a sure thing that the child that developed in Mary’s womb would be a son? Would God have achieved its purpose if the child had been a female?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Masculine and feminine are more like roles in the creative process than they are actual “natures.” Feminine is the receptive ground and masculine the catalyst that initiates creative change. Human genders are the biological representations of the archetypes of masculine and feminine, but the archetypes are not constrained by biology. And neither is God.What I can’t figure out is the genetics of Jesus. By asserting that God had a son with Mary, in biological terms, he was automatically a male. In that case, women had no representative in heaven. If God is masculine and Mary was feminine, then the haploid part of God would have to combine with the haploid part of Mary to develop a normal real diploid human. Now the fact that in human terms, the chances of Mary having a son vs. a daughter were 50-50, how was it a sure thing that the child that developed in Mary’s womb would be a son? Would God have achieved its purpose if the child had been a female?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.