Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Design is not concerned with gaps, It is a comprehensive explanation of reality.

How do we become what we already are? Do we exist before we are created?

And that you can claim that there is a purpose, other than o BE. menas that you do not comprehend part of the sstatement you yourself put forth as “proof” of “purpose!”:

I don’t know what you mean by “o BE.menas”.

Yet their closeness to God is the greatest source of joy and peace anyone can have. Just to read what the saints and mystics of different religions - and even no religion - have written about their experiences is to glimpse a higher level of existence.

“By their fruits you shall know them…”

is exactly the defeat of the idea of anthropomorphizing and objectifying God. If you doon’t see that, you have not read those authors, and neither has anyone who claims them as evidence for purpose. I will tell you ahead of time that the Catholic contemplative who stated that “As long as you think you are a person you will have a personal God” pretty much sums it up for all of the as refered to in your post quoted above. If you think I am mistaken, please go find one of them and ask “in person.”

Jesus referred to God as “Our Father”. Was He mistaken?

“some entity” is a grossly inadequate description of the Supreme Being.

It isn’t meant to be a description; it is a reference to an anthropomorphizing which is clung to in ignorance by religionists and denied by non=religionists. They are equal in standing.

“some entity” remains a grossly inadequate description of the Supreme Being.

"all the things in the physical world " is inaccurate and misleading because Design also applies to non-scientific aspects of reality like persons, truth, beauty,freedom, justice and love.

Yes, it is equally inadequate as is the idea of a “spiritual” world" As FJ said, “This is always already the ‘other’ world!”

Can you explain what you mean?

It’s not a hypothesis but an explanation which is far more cogent and fertile than materialism.

I certainly agree with Heinlein that “materialism is the least likely hypothesis.” But just because you think yours is better “organized” has no bearing on it being accurate. Valid in self reference doesn’t mean universally true.

It is not “mine”.

Here I think you misread Tyson. He doesn’t deny the wonders he can’t or doesn’t understand, only their anthropomorphized attribution of source. And he says that to shift gears from looking at the unesplainable and beautiful to contrast it to things that are pliainly not well designed, if that is the premise of explanaiton. He is simply starting the quesiton of “If “god” is so smart, why do these patently absurd things exist if they are eamples of superintelligence?” And that is a valid quesiton for a scientist to ask. We might ask that as well.

To expect everything to be designed in an extremely complex universe is absurd.

It is absurd to expect Utopian perfection in a finite, physical world.

This is a straw man. Perfection underlies reality despite any human overlay of any human interpretaion from a personal standpoint. You may be living in a Utopia and not see it because of your mimnd set. In fact, that is the case. There’s another question for you to ask of the mystic I hope you find. Just remember, that if Jesus sat dowm next t you in a bus, you might not recognize Him. Even His own Apostles hardly did. What are your chances?

Perfection may underlie reality but Tyson implies precisely the opposite.

The only comedian around here is the ignorant philistine to fails to appreciate the grace and beauty of the human body which have inspired so many great artists to produce masterpieces which will endure long after Mr Tyson is forgotten. No doubt he would prefer the genitals and anus to be non-existent or situated at opposite extremities!Yes, he is a comedian. Many atheist are superb comics in this area, and if it didn’t offend people, I’d share some of that on here. but a philistine? Or ignorant? Uh… get real. His business is the explication of wonder and beauty as far as he can understand it. In his atheism he has been far mor inspirational to me with his accomplishment in presenting the mysteries of the Universe than your unnecessary attempts at description. He has denied nothing that you attribute to non=materialism, only can’t accept your brand of explanation of how it is. Relative to God, you two are in the same boat. Except he is far more efficacious in evoking Wonder.

If wonder is evoked with questions like “And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?” heaven help us! Precisely how does he evoke wonder?

Stupidity is revealed in the hubris of a person who imagines he has the insight and knowledge to design a superior universe.

Please. He makes no such claim while you are full of that! Really???!

I am not the one who is claiming that this universe is defective and implying that I know how to design a superior one…

They are certainly far more positive than the prophets of doom and gloom who criticise but cannot create and continue to cling inconsistently to a life they supposedly condemn and detest as ill-designed…

Who might these “prophets” be? You are reading condemnation into something devoid of it. Emotionalism at best.

Tyson is one of them with his jaundiced, negative view of the human body.

 

[tonyrey]

:
Well, people plead in their extremity to the anthropomorphic God they make in their own image and likeness and remain depressed, so I guess he is wrong here. But then, there are those millions who take comfort in their daily prayers, are there not? And it is on’y “gratuitous nonesense” from the perspective of not considering beyond your own paradigm. Are you so entrenched in your own opiniion that you can’t see the validity of someone else’s equally incomplete paradigm, the only difference being that theirs can inspire to wonder? He concentrates on the mystery of it and the necessity of asking questions. You are rigidly incorporated in an explanation that I feel no Wonder emanating from your presentation, quite contrary to his.

You seem to be claiming to have privileged insight into the nature of reality. There is no point whatsoever in continuing this discussion with some one who claims to know that Catholics “ignorantly worship”.

Only a deluded person thinks science can explain everything.

I agree. I’m suer Mr. tyson does, as well. He only claims that “design” isn’t an cannot be science. And I agree. It is especially not divine science.

What isn’t the “natural world?” Hey, another question for the mystic! God is Nature,and religion is thoughts about that, ie speculation. I guess that maybe then Maisey isn completely right.

Scientists and religionists both deal in descriptions of surfaces and respectively, dofferent sorts od “depth.” Neither deals, except in rear cases, with That wihch allows those dealiings. In his assesment of “design,” Tyson is accurate. It is a stopgap until something more accurate enters the minds of those who believe it as a paradigm, or until they, and scientists, overcome the mind as such.

Privileged insight into the nature of reality!

Where do you think your mind comes from? The dust beneath your feet?

The Bible would have me think so, right? But if I know where my mind “comes from,” it would be irrelevant to your experience, save perhaps as a pointer. The big thing is, find out where your own mind comes from, and then we might have a more amicable and far mor deep, subtle, and fascinating conversation!

I don’t claim to have privileged insight into the nature of reality.

It is certainly demeaning to regard God as a Creator who has no idea of what He is doing, has no particular purpose for His creatures and produces the Big Bang without taking any further interest in the proceedings! To believe in an unDesigned universe is tantamount to atheism.

That may be demeaning to your concept of a God, but not to Reality. As you can see from your sentence, by which you sentence yourself, you are personifying, or anthropomorphizing the God whom you ignorantly worship. This is why the actual Way of things is unpalatable both to the religionist and the scientist and can only be known by the contemplative who has gone beyond mysticism. Perhaps reading those sages repeatedly repeaatedly repeatedly might reveal some chinks in your paradigm that you can use to escape from it!

You seem to be claiming to have privileged insight into the nature of reality. There is no point whatsoever in continuing this discussion with some one who claims to have privileged insight into the nature of reality and **knows **that Catholics “ignorantly worship”.

 

[Gaber]

You seem to be claiming to have privileged insight into the nature of reality. There is no point whatsoever in continuing this discussion with some one who claims to know that Catholics “ignorantly worship.”

neither is ther in continuing a conversation with someone who mistakes an invitation for a claim. I may have had an insight that you haven’t. That doesn’t make me any more priveleged than you would be if you were a Senior in high school and and I was a freshman. We are just at different points of an adventure, and I am only encouraging and inviting you to look more closely at your tools and path.

Privileged insight into the nature of reality!

No such thing. That sort of privelege is in the same category as “purpose.” It is a misconception of what is before you. Or, before “you.”

I don’t claim to have privileged insight into the nature of reality.

Why would you? I don’t. But if you wish you can expereince a different depth of your own. then we might, as i suggested, have a different kind of conversation.

You seem to be claiming to have privileged insight into the nature of reality. There is no point whatsoever in continuing this discussion with some one who claims to have privileged insight into the nature of reality and **knows **that Catholics “ignorantly worship”.

I am not claiming any sort of privelege. I am claiming that I have experienced the result of arduous work and that it is not so hard now as it was when I had to do it. I do not have anything more or less than you or anyone else in that department! And it wasn’t up to me, anyway. But I did make myself receptive. And if you would but read and re=interpret the mystics and contemplatives you claim to use for support of your arguiment, you would see that I have no ax to griind, poiint to prove, or purpose in this other than to share something that points to the Ineffable. That is an expereince to be had, I am certain, by sincere inquiry. It is only blocked by dismissal. But you might as well dismiss that I’ve been to Belize, or was born in Europe, or that the sky is blue, or that you can type on a keyboard or think about “delsign.”

That is how prioveleged I am: I can partake in this conversatoin with you or others in awareness. And I have an experiential basis for understanding what the Nature of that awareness is. And no mystic will disagree with me, except to perhaps comment on my enthusiasm to exhort “others”{ that there is more! But what else would Love do?

 

[tonyrey]

neither is ther in continuing a conversation with someone who mistakes an invitation for a claim. I may have had an insight that you haven’t. That doesn’t make me any more priveleged than you would be if you were a Senior in high school and and I was a freshman. We are just at different points of an adventure, and I am only encouraging and inviting you to look more closely at your tools and path.

No such thing. That sort of privelege is in the same category as “purpose.” It is a misconception of what is before you. Or, before “you.”

Why would you? I don’t. But** if you wish you can expereince** a different depth of your own. then we might, as i suggested, have a different kind of conversation.

I am not claiming any sort of privelege. I am claiming that** I have experienced the result of arduous work and that it is not so hard now as it was when I had to do it. I do not have anything more or less than you or anyone else in that department! And it wasn’t up to me, anyway. But I did make myself receptive**. And if you would but read and re=interpret the mystics and contemplatives you claim to use for support of your arguiment, you would see that I have no ax to griind, poiint to prove, or purpose in this other than to share something that points to the Ineffable. That is an expereince to be had, I am certain, by sincere inquiry. It is only blocked by dismissal. But you might as well dismiss that I’ve been to Belize, or was born in Europe, or that the sky is blue, or that you can type on a keyboard or think about “delsign.”

That is how prioveleged I am: I can partake in this conversatoin with you or others in awareness. And** I have an experiential basis for understanding what the Nature of that awareness is. And no mystic will disagree with me**, except to perhaps comment on my enthusiasm to exhort “others”{ that there is more! But what else would Love do?

You are assuming no Catholic has had a mystical experience - or yours is superior:

As you can see from your sentence, by which** you sentence yourself**, you are personifying, or anthropomorphizing the God whom you** ignorantly **worship. This is why the actual Way of things is unpalatable both to the religionist and the scientist and can only be known by the contemplative who has gone beyond mysticism. Perhaps reading those sages repeatedly repeaatedly repeatedly might reveal some chinks in your paradigm that you can use to escape from it!

You are giving us advice as if we are neophytes! Many of the mystics were Catholics…

 

[Gaber]

You are assuming no Catholic has had a mystical experience - or yours is superior:
You are giving us advice as if we are neophytes! Many of the mystics were Catholics…

You have me making some “bold” statements, lol! Why would I assume that, and why would you say that? Did I not say “…my favorite Catholic mystic?” Or contemplative. In my view a “contemplative” is one who has gone past mysticism and its phenomena. I have, read, and love the works of mystics and contemplatives of many traditions. And being reared a Catholic, how could I not know and appreciate that our Church is famous within itself for mystics?

Neophytes? I’m not sure what you mean by that, but in my world I make a distinction between someone who has book learning about mysticism and thinks about it, and someone who has had such expereince and explicates what it is in the best language they can. But that is why I have spent decades studying our religion’s common views and that of other traditions as well, and other pertinent disciplines. So from where I stand, I have to wonder why, when there is in the end such astonishing allignement and agreement in that group of people, why the Church doesn’t more greatly acknowledge the Truth of mystics and contemplatives not in its own tradition. I have my own answer for that, but that’s another story.

And please, what have I said to indicate that my experience is “superior” to that of any particular contemplative? That word is not one I would use with any relevancy to such experience. From what standpoint are you reading my words? But hey, there is such a wonderful thing as teleology. Keep at it!

Thanks for your persitence. You are a very highly motivated individual. I appreciate that. It is kind of a rare quality.

 

[Gaber]

How do we become what we already are? Do we exist before we are created?

We can’t become what we already are; we can only perceive beyond the discursive mind what that* is*. Personality, which we misidentify as “self,” exists as a changing construct along with the body. That is why it is called that, after "per-sona–that which is sounded through, or “mask.”

I don’t know what you mean by “o BE.menas”.

My sincere appology! This durned thing is ancient, has a wonky keyboard temperament, has no spell check, and I don’t catch all the dropped letters. I will try to do better. Sorry. So, I wretchedly typed the following:
“*And that you can claim that there is a purpose, other than o BE. menas that you do not comprehend part of the sstatement you yourself put forth as “proof” of “purpose!”:” *Boy, the nuns would have me in the coat closet for that one! It ought have been:

"And that you can claim that there is a purpose, other than “to BE,” means (to me) that you you do not comprehend part of the statement you yourself put forth as “proof” of “purpose.” --That, I’m sure, is a reference to your citing mystics.

Jesus referred to God as “Our Father”. Was He mistaken?

No, of course not. But what does that mean?

“some entity” remains a grossly inadequate description of the Supreme Being.

And it remains, simply, a pointer to an unknown, the anthropomorphic construct of God being unbelivable to many as an actuality, an actuality hypothesized by vast numbers of people. Thoughts about God are constructs, and that, not a known God, are what atheists don’t beleive in. a Known God is not and cannot be a matter of belief. The quesition is always about the beleif, that being vastly distinct from knowledge.
implies precisely the opposite

Can you explain what you mean?

No, I can only point to something that one must discover for themselves, as the ineffable is not capable of being put into words. That is why Truth can’t be stated, but only pointed to. But here’s a try: English is a language based on the assumption of duality. Little wonder: the mind functions by creating division, contrast, or difference. Linguistic patterns follow. The Teachings of the Sages of the Ages. including Jesus, are non-dual, and point to the essentially unitary nature of Being and existence. This is very difficult to do in languages that assume that there is no such basis. But expereince shows otherwise, or Jesus would not have said and done all that He did! So the “separation” of the “spiritual world” and the “material world” is a perceptual illusion necessay by dint of the nature of the limited bandwidth of human intelligence capacity in its presently evolving form. This perceptual illusion is penetrable through known means and has been taught as a means of discovery for ages. In the adumbration of ignorance which the nature of events has brought upon us, this knowledge has been largely lost and in its forms of preservation, due to lack of facility with symbology referent to experience, vastly misinterpreted by the general public. So while “this is always already the ‘other’ world” is knowable as an expereince, its methodology is shunned by thosse entenched in paradigms adhered to with the very best of intentions in a matter that is of vital importance to spiritual maturity. But despite that, many do accomplish. I just wonder what of St Teresa’s work we would enjoy had it not been burned, or what St.John of the Cross might have said had he not lived in fear. Fortunately, there were some, many others, whose words we have and can understand with radical understanding if we do the work. As Father B. said, God rest his soul, "Do you think that God is up there, tossing out little posies of sainthood? NO! You have to work. Loved that man. Brings tears to my eyes to know he is gone. A rare voice ofr sanity, he was.

It is not “mine”.

It is if you agreee with it; you built the acceptance of it. At least be responsible.

To expect everything to be designed in an extremely complex universe is absurd.

So God is not all powerful, omniscient, etc? God is not in the details, as Abbe Breule claimed? So there is design and there is slop? God made junk? Or is our perception of the Wonder of Creation a bit hole-y? It is a seamless One, broken up into incomprehensibility by our human mind. Why do you think there is something personified as “the adversary?”

Perfection may underlie reality but Tyson implies precisely the opposite.

It does, and please quote line and verse where Tyson “implies precisely the opposite.”

If wonder is evoked with questions like “And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?” heaven help us! Precisely how does he evoke wonder?

I thought that that was funny as all get-out! I love that God has a sense of humor, don’t you? What a wonder! But I guess, like so many things, that is in the I of the beholder.

I am not the one who is claiming that this universe is defective and implying that I know how to design a superior one…

Yet you are always touting your idea of design, which you designed, even if by acceptance. That acceptance constitutes your limitation on Reality, and it is a limitation you designed into your paradigm. It is not inherently there. You put it there. If it was inherently there, like awareness, everyone would have it.

Tyson is one of them with his jaundiced, negative view of the human body.

 

[tonyrey]

And please, what have I said to indicate that my experience is “superior” to that of any particular contemplative?

As you can see from your sentence, by which** you sentence yourself**, you are personifying, or anthropomorphizing the God whom you** ignorantly **worship.

Jesus referred to God as “Our Father”. Was He mistaken?

 

[Gaber]

Jesus referred to God as “Our Father”. Was He mistaken?

No, of course not. But what does that mean?

So, you claim to be a contemplative and feel that what I’ve said doesn’t apply to you? I’m sorry. I haven’t got from anything that you have said that you are in any stream of such activity that I recognize. My mistake if I’m wrong. You are, by any standard, a thinker, but I’m not sure from what you’ve posted anywhere that I’ve read that you are a contemplative.

What you do do is anthropomorphize and personalize, and in my book that constitutes ignorance, however ardent or sincere the faith behind it might be. I do not see statements relevant to the necessary conclusion of en the Catholic contemplative I"ve read. So, please point out my errror? It might be simply one of definition, yours appearing, so far, to be much much looser than mine.

 

[tonyrey]

So, you claim to be a contemplative and feel that what I’ve said doesn’t apply to you? I’m sorry. I haven’t got from anything that you have said that you are in any stream of such activity that I recognize. My mistake if I’m wrong. You are, by any standard, a thinker, but I’m not sure from what you’ve posted anywhere that I’ve read that you are a contemplative.

What you do do is anthropomorphize and personalize, and in my book that constitutes ignorance, however ardent or sincere the faith behind it might be. I do not see statements relevant to the necessary conclusion of en the Catholic contemplative I"ve read. So, please point out my errror? It might be simply one of definition, yours appearing, so far, to be much much looser than mine.

I have not claimed to be (or not to be) a contemplative because it is a personal matter and I don’t divide people into categories. Nor is it relevant to a philosophical discussion which should be concerned solely with the issue at stake - not with the experiences of individuals or whether they are “enlightened”.

According to you Jesus was anthropomorphic because He referred to God as His Father and our Father. He also committed the “error” of pointing to the beauty of lilies in field - which exceeds that of Solomon in all his glorious array - as evidence of Design. In other words He attributes their beauty not to impersonal processes but to divine wisdom and **power **which are reflected to a minute extent in human creativity.

We don’t create God in our image. He creates us in His image.** Christian doctrine is not anthropomorphic but deomorphic.**

 

[buffalo]

**It’s happening folks…
**

Seeing Past Darwin I: The Machine Metaphor

The gradual crumbling of the Darwinian consensus, and the rise of a new theoretical outlook in biology is one of the most significant but underreported news stories of our time.*

It’s a scandal that science journalists have been so slow to pick up on this story. For, make no mistake about it, the story is huge. In science, they don’t come any bigger.

The story is this:
The official explanation of the nature of living things—and therefore of human beings—that we’ve all been led to believe in for the past 60 or 70 years turns out to be dead wrong in some essential respects.

What have we been so wrong about? It’s complicated, but in a phrase, it’s this:
The machine metaphor was a mistake—organisms are not machines, they are intelligent agents.

 

[buffalo]

Identifying sources of variation and the flow of information in biochemical networks

               **Abstract**

               To understand how cells control and  exploit biochemical fluctuations, we must identify the sources of  stochasticity, quantify                      their effects, and distinguish informative  variation from confounding “noise.” We present an analysis that allows  fluctuations                      of biochemical networks to be decomposed into  multiple components, gives conditions for the design of experimental  reporters                      to measure all components, and provides a technique  to predict the magnitude of these components from models. Further, we                      identify a particular component of variation that  can be used to quantify the efficacy of information flow through a  biochemical                      network. By applying our approach to osmosensing in  yeast, we can predict the probability of the different osmotic  conditions                      experienced by wild-type yeast and show that the  majority of variation can be informational if we include variation  generated                      in response to the cellular environment. **Our  results are fundamental to quantifying sources of variation and thus are  a means                      to understand biological “design.”                   **

 

[TS_Aquinas]

It’s happening folks…

Seeing Past Darwin I: The Machine Metaphor

The gradual crumbling of the Darwinian consensus, and the rise of a new theoretical outlook in biology is one of the most significant but underreported news stories of our time.*

It’s a scandal that science journalists have been so slow to pick up on this story. For, make no mistake about it, the story is huge. In science, they don’t come any bigger.

The story is this:
The official explanation of the nature of living things—and therefore of human beings—that we’ve all been led to believe in for the past 60 or 70 years turns out to be dead wrong in some essential respects.

What have we been so wrong about? It’s complicated, but in a phrase, it’s this:
The machine metaphor was a mistake—organisms are not machines, they are intelligent agents.

Couple questions about this article,

The trouble is, it never made any sense. For one thing, it meant that all purpose is an illusion, even in ourselves, which is absurd. We know that is not true from the direct evidence of our own experience.

To play devil’s advocate, can there be a demonstration of this response?

How are systems physically capable of this sort of intelligent, adaptive behavior? Again, all the Darwinist has to say is: Intelligent agency would be a great thing to have from the point of view of natural selection, therefore natural selection will see to it that it comes into existence.

Is this really the Darwinist argument or an over generalization? Is this backed by biological evidence or just mere assumptions? Seems way too stupid for a coherent person to accept which makes me question if that is the Darwinian claim at all.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s happening folks…

Seeing Past Darwin I: The Machine Metaphor

The gradual crumbling of the Darwinian consensus, and the rise of a new theoretical outlook in biology is one of the most significant but underreported news stories of our time.*

It’s a scandal that science journalists have been so slow to pick up on this story. For, make no mistake about it, the story is huge. In science, they don’t come any bigger.

The story is this:
The official explanation of the nature of living things—and therefore of human beings—that we’ve all been led to believe in for the past 60 or 70 years turns out to be dead wrong in some essential respects.

What have we been so wrong about? It’s complicated, but in a phrase, it’s this:
The machine metaphor was a mistake—organisms are not machines, they are intelligent agents.

Scientific materialism has a mechanomorphic view of reality! We are supposed to be mindless machines…

 

[tonyrey]

Couple questions about this article,

To play devil’s advocate, can there be a demonstration of this response?

Is this really the Darwinist argument or an over generalization? Is this backed by biological evidence or just mere assumptions? Seems way too stupid for a coherent person to accept which makes me question if that is the Darwinian claim at all.

There is plenty of evidence on this forum that materialists (with scientists in their ranks) regard living organisms as biological machines. They regard the mind as the product of the electrical activity in the brain - which leaves no room for any other explanation but a complex calculating machine!

An influential book by the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle published in 1949 sums up their view perfectly.

Its title: The Concept of Mind

Its key phrase: The Ghost in the Machine !

 

[Gaber]

I have not claimed to be (or not to be) a contemplative because it is a personal matter and I don’t divide people into categories. Nor is it relevant to a philosophical discussion which should be concerned solely with the issue at stake - not with the experiences of individuals or whether they are “enlightened”.

So, it being a personal matter, we ought not let the successes of the contemplatives influence our less informed outlooks. Nor should we bring our own experience or the questioning of it, or the explication of it to a “philosophical discussion.” Were, pray, does material for such a discussion come from, then, we leaving out what in the end is the actual participation in and resolution to philosophy?

According to you Jesus was anthropomorphic because He referred to God as His Father and our Father. He also committed the “error” of pointing to the beauty of lilies in field - which exceeds that of Solomon in all his glorious array - as evidence of Design. In other words He attributes their beauty not to impersonal processes but to divine wisdom and **power **which are reflected to a minute extent in human creativity.

Yes, Toneyrey, He did, unfotunately. But He knew, Himself, what He meant while using the means He had inherited as a culture and language to speak to the level of awareness He was awash in. His own desciles didn’t understand Him, by His own admission. And there is always Mark 4:33.34 which is always convenientlydiscounted by so many. And He spoke in parables. Here we are trying to communicate directly about the substance behind public teaching. Not so well, I see.

And what constitutes “error” in pointing put the beauty of Nature? Don’t get it. and there you go again, claiming that that is evidence of “design.” How do you get there from that? And of course, being made in His image and likeness, we would have such creativeity. But that is again an anthropomorphization useful until it is seen past. But it can’t be seen past until the work is at least attempted.

We don’t create God in our image. He creates us in His image.** Christian doctrine is not anthropomorphic but deomorphic.**

Afar as I can see, Buddhism is deomorphic, not Christianity, which is the epitome of religious anthropomorphization. And any mental construct we have about God is creating God in our own image, because we only have ourselves as a model.

 

[buffalo]

Couple questions about this article,

To play devil’s advocate, can there be a demonstration of this response?

Is this really the Darwinist argument or an over generalization? Is this backed by biological evidence or just mere assumptions? Seems way too stupid for a coherent person to accept which makes me question if that is the Darwinian claim at all.

Yes - evo is all about natural selection.

 

[tonyrey]

I have not claimed to be (or not to be) a contemplative because it is a personal matter and I don’t divide people into categories. Nor is it relevant to a philosophical discussion which should be concerned solely with the issue at stake - not with the experiences of individuals or whether they are “enlightened”.

The successes of the Christian contemplatives did not lead them to reject the teaching of Jesus that the beauty of the lilies is evidence of the wisdom, power and love of our Father in heaven - which is the Christian concept of Design.

Nor should we bring our own experience or the questioning of it, or the explication of it to a “philosophical discussion.” Were, pray, does material for such a discussion come from, then, we leaving out what in the end is the actual participation in and resolution to philosophy?

You have not explained how personal experience is relevant to - or disproves - Design.

According to you Jesus was anthropomorphic because He referred to God as His Father and our Father. He also committed the “error” of pointing to the beauty of lilies in field - which exceeds that of Solomon in all his glorious array - as evidence of Design. In other words He attributes their beauty not to impersonal processes but to divine wisdom and power which are reflected to a minute extent in human creativity.

Yes, Toneyrey, He did, unfotunately.

You mean He misled everyone! Deliberately or accidentally?

But He knew, Himself, what He meant while using the means He had inherited as a culture and language to speak to the level of awareness He was awash in. His own desciles didn’t understand Him, by His own admission. And there is always Mark 4:33.34 which is always convenientlydiscounted by so many. And He spoke in parables. Here we are trying to communicate directly about the substance behind public teaching. Not so well, I see.

In other words you are rejecting in favour of your own interpretation the face value of the words of Jesus which are accepted by the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations as fundamentally true.

And what constitutes “error” in pointing put the beauty of Nature? Don’t get it. and there you go again, claiming that that is evidence of “design.” How do you get there from that? And of course, being made in His image and likeness, we would have such creativeity. But that is again an anthropomorphization useful until it is seen past. But it can’t be seen past until the work is at least attempted.

What was the intention of Jesus when He referred to the beauty of the lilies?

We don’t create God in our image. He creates us in His image. Christian doctrine is not anthropomorphic but deomorphic.

Afar as I can see, Buddhism is deomorphic, not Christianity, which is the epitome of religious anthropomorphization.

The only pretext for regarding Buddhism as deomorphic is that it has a thousand gods!

And any mental construct we have about God is creating God in our own image, because we only have ourselves as a model.

1. All our beliefs are mental constructs which are true or false according to whether they correspond to reality.
2. You haven’t even presented a mental construct of God, let alone refuted the orthodox Christian doctrine.
3. If God has created us in His image it is reasonable to believe we resemble Him even if only to a miniscule extent.
4. The Supreme Being cannot lack consciousness or insight or purpose because then we would be superior in those respects - which is absurd.
5. If you contend that all our descriptions of God are false you need to explain why they are false and why you believe in God at all.
6. To believe in the Unknowable is verging on a rejection of God because the Unknowable could be some version of physical energy.

 

[Gaber]

The successes of the Christian contemplatives did not lead them to reject… which is the Christian concept of Design.
You have not explained how personal experience is relevant to - or disproves - Design.

That is a wonderful way to evade doing the necessary work to see another viewpoint for yourself. I dont reject the teachings of Jesus regarding the symbology He had to use regarding something rather more subtle. And how in the name of Heaven do you leap to all that being evidence for what amounts to a diminution of Deity? My explanation has been offered all along: find the "off’ switch for your discursive mind and see what shifts in your comprehension of mind/Mind and Source.

You mean He misled everyone! Deliberately or accidentally?

No, of course not. Why would He do that, even if He knew some were/are not ready for the greater implicatio of His work?? But He wasn’t speaking to you directly, & were you there, & one of the infinetesmally small number who stuck around long enough to listen to more than a few stories, He might have taken you aside with the others & told you all, as it described in Mark. But here we are, two millenia later, still laying stories on to the stories in a way which fits what we wish to believe, and what is convenient for us in order to distance ourselves from any real expereince of the meaning behind those stories.

In other words you are rejecting in favour of your own interpretation the face value of the words of Jesus which are accepted by the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations as fundamentally true.

No. The face value has a function, as do the parables. Why would they be rejected? But why would they not be penetrated either? And what I am pointing to is neither my idea nor an interpretation. It is not an intellectual construct.

What was the intention of Jesus when He referred to the beauty of the lilies?

Perhaps it was to get someone like you or me or anyone to get past theories of design or whatever & simply expereince the Being or Source of that beauty and wonder?

The only pretext for regarding Buddhism as deomorphic is that it has a thousand gods!

That’s Hinduism, not Buddhism. Please keep in context, or this is uselessly diverted as it has been so often.

1. All our beliefs are mental constructs which are true or false according to whether they correspond to reality.

All of our beliefs are mental constructs approximating either experiencible and repeatable dynamics of our limited form of encounter as persons with Reality, and are thus more or less fictions convenient to consensus experience in our bandwith of perception/expression. The basis of that narrow bandwidth can be experienced and inform one’s interpretation of what thoughts run through he mind as “serving suggestions” no matter how profound. Some small portion of those suggestions can point beyond the limitations of the discursive mind to Reality. But those are usually sumarily rejected as they necessarily are contrary to the sense interpretation of appearance.

1. You haven’t even presented a mental construct of God, let alone refuted the orthodox Christian doctrine.

Why would I attempt a mental construct of the Ineffable??? If you haven’t been to NYC and I wished to share that experience with you, or demnstrate that you could have it yourself, would I hand you a picture post card of Central Park or the Bonx, or the Village, and inform you “OK, now you;ve been there!” B and S. I’d hand you a map, or advise you to get a ticket and go. Telling you about it can only inform you that I am enthusisitic about theplace. And again, I’m not refuteing, nor do I want to refute anything. I am offerig an invitation to anyone who wishes a more foundational expereince to do the work. If you dont want to go to NYC, then forget about it. Or enjoy the post cards. Ultimately, it matters not a whit.

1. If God has created us in His image it is reasonable to believe we resemble Him even if only to a miniscule extent.

Yes, I keep saying that that Image and Likeness is what this whole thing is about. And it is more than a matter of resemblance, it is the substance of what we are. And why just believe it? Why nor know it?

1. The Supreme Being cannot lack consciousness or insight or purpose because then we would be superior in those respects - which is absurd.

The "Supreme Being IS–Consciousness itself, and awareness is the image and likeness of That. Find the Spource of your awareness and you will make a magnificent discovey!!! And when you do that, you will understand with pelucid clarity why I insist that there is no other purpose than to BE. But until you see that, there is no other option for you than to believe that there is purpose. It is part of the paradigm of sense limitation.

1. If you contend that all our descriptions of God are false you need to explain why they are false and why you believe in God at all.

I don’t believe in God, I know God is ALL in all. How can any description of God, of Divine Infinitude, do anything but fall utterly and miserably short of Reality??? Throw all the adjectives you wish at any noun name of God and you will inevitably have only words. But if you have gone beyond your mind, those words might have a useful referent. Otherwise you only have a promise of future fulfillment of what you always already in essence are.
6. To believe in the Unknowable is verging on a rejection of God because the Unknowable could be some version of physical energy. You are taking an instance of mental gymnastic for the Unmistakable. Fear if you wish. Discovery is inevitable. The Unknowable is exactly that. There is no need to believe in it, it is an expereince and a condition of mortal mind. You don’t know what you mentally can’t. But who says all you have is your mind?

 

[tonyrey]

That is a wonderful way to evade doing the necessary work to see another viewpoint for yourself. I dont reject the teachings of Jesus regarding the symbology He had to use regarding something rather more subtle. And how in the name of Heaven do you leap to all that being evidence for what amounts to a diminution of Deity? My explanation has been offered all along: find the "off’ switch for your discursive mind and see what shifts in your comprehension of mind/Mind and Source.No, of course not. Why would He do that, even if He knew some were/are not ready for the greater implicatio of His work?? But He wasn’t speaking to you directly, & were you there, & one of the infinetesmally small number who stuck around long enough to listen to more than a few stories, He might have taken you aside with the others & told you all, as it described in Mark. But here we are, two millenia later, still laying stories on to the stories in a way which fits what we wish to believe, and what is convenient for us in order to distance ourselves from any real expereince of the meaning behind those stories.No. The face value has a function, as do the parables. Why would they be rejected? But why would they not be penetrated either? And what I am pointing to is neither my idea nor an interpretation. It is not an intellectual construct.
Perhaps it was to get someone like you or me or anyone to get past theories of design or whatever & simply expereince the Being or Source of that beauty and wonder?
That’s Hinduism, not Buddhism. Please keep in context, or this is uselessly diverted as it has been so often.All of our beliefs are mental constructs approximating either experiencible and repeatable dynamics of our limited form of encounter as persons with Reality, and are thus more or less fictions convenient to consensus experience in our bandwith of perception/expression. The basis of that narrow bandwidth can be experienced and inform one’s interpretation of what thoughts run through he mind as “serving suggestions” no matter how profound. Some small portion of those suggestions can point beyond the limitations of the discursive mind to Reality. But those are usually sumarily rejected as they necessarily are contrary to the sense interpretation of appearance.
Why would I attempt a mental construct of the Ineffable??? If you haven’t been to NYC and I wished to share that experience with you, or demnstrate that you could have it yourself, would I hand you a picture post card of Central Park or the Bonx, or the Village, and inform you “OK, now you;ve been there!” B and S. I’d hand you a map, or advise you to get a ticket and go. Telling you about it can only inform you that I am enthusisitic about theplace. And again, I’m not refuteing, nor do I want to refute anything. I am offerig an invitation to anyone who wishes a more foundational expereince to do the work. If you dont want to go to NYC, then forget about it. Or enjoy the post cards. Ultimately, it matters not a whit.

Yes, I keep saying that that Image and Likeness is what this whole thing is about. And it is more than a matter of resemblance, it is the substance of what we are. And why just believe it? Why nor know it?
The "Supreme Being IS–Consciousness itself, and awareness is the image and likeness of That. Find the Spource of your awareness and you will make a magnificent discovey!!! And when you do that, you will understand with pelucid clarity why I insist that there is no other purpose than to BE. But until you see that, there is no other option for you than to believe that there is purpose. It is part of the paradigm of sense limitation.
I don’t believe in God, I know God is ALL in all. How can any description of God, of Divine Infinitude, do anything but fall utterly and miserably short of Reality??? Throw all the adjectives you wish at any noun name of God and you will inevitably have only words. But if you have gone beyond your mind, those words might have a useful referent. Otherwise you only have a promise of future fulfillment of what you always already in essence are.

Philosophy is not concerned with subjective experiences but objective facts. The experiences which have enlightened you can be discussed on the forum for non-Catholic Religions. I wish you well.

God bless.

 

[Gaber]

Philosophy is not concerned with subjective experiences but objective facts. The experiences which have enlightened you can be discussed on the forum for non-Catholic Religions. I wish you well.

God bless.

That I have, and you have, subjective experiences is itself an “objective” fact. And philosophy includes ways of discerning that claim that there is only subject/Subject. And I do not practice a religion. In any case, I wish you well as well. Nice chatting with you Thanks.