Yes, and philisophically (as I'm not a scientist) I can even understand the necessity of the division of gender. If survival is priori then the inherent structures allowing for change (to survive) must be in place. It makes sense that certain speciation required two genders. It not only allows for visual acceptance of a mate but also allows for a variety or multiplicity of selective qualities to be "tried" before becoming dominant.

Good addition to the thread. (I think, anyway)

I would argue that "free will" requires creation that is independent of god. In other words, if a decision I make is nothing but one of the options allowed to me by god, then it is really not "free" will, it is "controlled" will.

Hi Skyhook,


Free will is the ability to assess the world around you (ie. Already in existence) and, via past experience, use your cognitive ability to determine (take an educated guess) as to the best choice of action. Aside from the ability to ask yourself questions and base the answers off previous experience, there is no creativity involved. However, you are not controlled, either so one doesn’t have to give up believing they have free will to the power of some universal force.

I would also point out, that “our” free will is still at the mercy of the forces of nature. So even in free will there seems to be a scale of priority. Don’t you think? Yet I don’t see nature as god or as anything other than the action that belongs to a part of the natural universe. That happens to be the way this universe continues to exist as it does, through the “natural” order of things, what’s called in philosophy, metaphysics.

Did the
ELEMENTS
Come About by Chance?


"EVERY object in the Universe, even the most distant star, is made of atoms," explains The Encyclopedia of Stars & Atoms. Individual atoms are too small to see, but packed together they make up familiar chemical elements. Some of these elements are solids that we can see; others are invisible gases. Can the existence of all such chemical elements be explained by chance?

Elements 1 to 92
Though hydrogen is the simplest of all atoms, it fuels stars like our sun and is vital for life. An atom of hydrogen has one proton in its nucleus and one electron moving around that nucleus. Other chemical elements, such as carbon, oxygen, gold, and mercury, are made of atoms with many electrons moving around a nucleus of many protons and neutrons.

Some 450 years ago, only 12 chemical elements were known. As more were discovered, scientists noticed a natural order to them. And when the elements were placed on a chart in rows and columns, scientists discovered that elements sharing a column had similar characteristics. But there were also gaps in the chart, representing unknown elements. This led Russian scientist Dmitry Mendeleyev to predict the existence of the element with the atomic number 32, germanium, as well as its color, weight, density, and melting point. Mendeleyev's "prediction about other missing elements—gallium and scandium—also turned out to be very accurate," notes the 1995 science textbook Chemistry.

In time, scientists predicted the existence of other unknown elements and some of their characteristics. Eventually all the missing elements were discovered. There are no longer any gaps on the chart. The natural order of elements is based on the number of protons in the nucleus of their atoms, starting with element number 1, hydrogen, and continuing to the last element that generally occurs naturally on earth, number 92, uranium. Is this just a coincidence?

Consider, too, the rich variety of chemical elements. Gold and mercury are elements with distinctive shining colors. One is a solid, and the other a liquid. Yet, they follow each other as elements 79 and 80. An atom of gold has 79 electrons, 79 protons, and 118 neutrons. An atom of mercury has just one more electron, one more proton, and more or less the same number of neutrons.

I don't think religion in itself is a bad thing Redy. Many people need to believe in something spiritual. Myself included. Without a spiritual world to believe in I may very well be inclined to turn off the boob tube of life.

After all, if when I die it's just lights out then it seriously doesn't make much difference when I die.

There are other factors as well for me personally.

However, I'm in total agreement with you that we don't need any dogmatic religions that claim to speak the word of God or claim that evil demons are out to get us. That kind of absolute dogma is for the dogs and serves no positive purpose for humanity.

i have no reason to doubt or not doubt what you repost here....

how it helps you is as you determine....

i am not a scientist of lab cultures, so there is no point of reference to even digest this data to generate greater wisdom of lab cultures....

these studies shown here are not things as "untouched by mortal man", as was stated in the hypothesis, as the basis of logic used in the original post, lol....

have i thought about it.....

indeed, as much as there is point of reference for.....

peace

Hi Red



It seems we have different definitions for "free will". In my view, "free will" is simply "the ability to make self-determined choices". As such, it is not subject to anything other than my own viewpoint. The "creativity" comes in at the point of choosing. That is, no choice has been made before I make it. And it is my act of "choosing" that brings the choice into being. (That's tricky because two different meanings of the word "choice" are being used, but I think you'll get it without me having to go into grammar and sematics. ) (Also note that the word "decision" could replace the word "choice" without altering anything significant in the argument. In this sense, "choice" and "decision" are totally synonymous.)

Yes, I will agree that acting on and/or carrying out those choices is subject to certain laws.

free will is not unlimited will......

the free will to create within the spectrum of what is placed in front of oneself within environment, using all data known at any present time......

to take **** and turn it into shinola!

Perhaps you don't ask enough questions.

If a computer program was progressed enough to LEARN from it's actions it would be quite a thing, wouldn't it?

Let's say we offered that computer program the periodic chart of elements, the history, properties, resources, uses, isotopes, forms, and every other piece of information that we know for each element. Then we ask the computer to create a virtual universe. As long as we’re pretending to be that advanced, let’s give the computer holographic capabilities. Of course this computer program is already inclusive of all other human knowledge of cells, atoms, everything we know.

No doubt the computer would already understand the theory of evolution and would use that theory in order to create a universe that would become self-sufficient. Every element not only has its specific purpose but when combined with others, has greater purpose. Eventually there will be things that exist due to the combination and the ways in which incubation occurs. With each new “thing” there are opportunities for more. The idea that large masses cannot be drifting aimlessly out in space must be addressed (obviously), so it is. In so doing the movement and basic stationary position of that mass becomes an intragal part of the nature of planets and of the “nature” of outer and inner space conditions. All these things affect future eveolution.

As you can see this could go on – but the real question is this – is the computer program god? If such a universal “organizer” actually existed would it be god? And if that organizer had no thought beyond it’s purpose “to organize” would it have human attributes? Would it still be god? Would that “organizer” be our creator or simply the organizer of something that already existed? And if that something (the building blocks for a universe) already existed, why not create what was intended and not allow so much to attributed to “possibilities”?

And the biggest question – why create a self-subsisting universe in the first place. What interaction would be necessary of a god in a world “evolved” out of universal properties, to be self sufficient?

Another part of this question gets back to my previous post – if we are the product of secondary procreation, then we are evolved and not created at all.

People are going to believe what they will, and those who are lucky enough to have the free will to admit what they believe will most likely do so.

Aside from the individual, it seems to be human nature to follow, to seek shelter with the “group”. Maybe the group that seems to afford the most protection. There are those who seek to protect some possibility of an immortal status. This kind of belief can be detrimental as is can and has been used to reak the worst kind of human destruction.

From this point of view, Abra, I see no good in religious belief. If people actually have some inherent valuable human nature, then I would like to think that nature can be led, formed, molded to see the value of the role they can play in their very existence. No religion is required to make a person feel they a have a reason for being.

On the other hand, there will always be those who, for whatever reason, can not find their own value and Abra, we both know that those people will give up no matter what they proclaimed to believe.

Religion does not give one value, how can one think that immortality can make one any more worthy of their being than they think right now? Consider that. If I’m of no value now, here as I am in this world – why would immortality make me anymore valuable and to whom? To what?

I have to go now everybody, thanks for talking with me, i should be rejoinging in three hours, if you are here then i will see you.

Take care of yourselves ok... Bye

I'm in harmony with Skyhook's views here. There are two ideas concerning 'creation'.

One idea is that of a magician pulling things out of a hat, or out of nothingness. (i.e. the very creation of the physical universe itself)

The other idea of 'creation' is the idea of what you do with this stuff we call life.

If you build a sand castle you have 'created' something and you have 'created' it by choice. You could have choosen to just lay on the beach instead.

Neither choice is 'good' or 'bad' they are simply different choices.

Our choices are how we create. But we create much more than just sand castles or buttprints in the sand.

We also create relfections in others. We can create emotions, feelings and temperments.

We create much more than we realize. Something as simple as choosing a screen name on an internet forum automatically creates a perception in someone else's mind.

We are responsible for creating things in others as much as we are for creating our own decisions and feelings.

This is the true creation of humans.

Precisely how the Big Bang got started is a whole different concept of 'creation'.

That is a cute story. I'd like to take a little side trip and examine the logic, just for fun.

god's requirement that the scientist create a man in order to prove that he had the answers to the universe was reasonable. However, god's subsequent requirement that the scientist create dirt from which to make the man leads to the logical extrapolation that god would eventually require the scientist to create an entire physical universe. Now provided the scientist did actually have "the answers to the universe” (which is implied by the scientist beginning the process of creating a man from god's dirt) that would not have been a problem for the scientist either. So, if looked at logically, the story is quite ironic in that it actually illustrates that there CAN be creation other than god’s, instead of the opposite as it is usually intended to do.



Also, I’d like to expound on Abracadabra’s example of the sand castle.

Simply put, “the castle is not the sand”. Even though god may have created the sand, he did not create the “castle” any more than a lumber mill created my house or a steel mill created my car.


Just some thoughts.

Abra and Sky have both given an interpretation of what it means to create.

Why do we create a sand castle?
Why do we paint a picture?
Why do we paint a wall, for that matter?

When we discovered the secret to trees shedding less leaves and genetically altered the tree gender - were we creating? or changeing? In creating an abundance of pollen in the process, did we save ourselves time or do we now spend more money for allergy relief?

What does it mean to be creative?
What responsibilities should be taken by a creator?

You see, what we create, according to what I've heard, is not in any way on a level equal to any god not even equal to a "creator essence".

Not only that, but Abra brought up an exceedingly good point.


It's consitent with what I've been saying all along. The most important thing we have, the most valuable characteristic, the greatest ability that is independent of heritage, culture and physical attributes, is our ability to "create" a feeling of worth in others.

That's about the closeset creative value to a creator that I see in our possession, and religion is not needed for that purpose.

Thank you first and foremost.

Your absolutely dead on with your statement as well. The more complex the 'organism' is, the more 'material' needed to be passed down. In all of us, and every other species, there is an instinct (some louder than others) to perpetuate our biology. Seeing as no one truly wants to be extinct, we do it. When a species creates life (gives birth) it passes its biological identity along with it. Thus, pigs give birth to pigs, cats to cats, trees to trees, people to people, etc.

If this is proof of god allow me to make an argument. If god modeled us in his image where did his image come from? Something or someone had to give it to him. Maybe its like the Bush family.... Maybe god is just some dude who partied to much at college, and is now playing puppet for his fathers "secret" master plan of a New Galaxy Order.

OR!! Man invented the thought of god (thus we are made in his image because we are his "parents") to strengthen the sense of order in the world. Go outside and watch how the world works without human influence. Watch how the different forms of life work with or against each other. You should be able to see the "unwritten laws of nature" or law of the jungle if you will. We are the same as all forms of life. We have these same understandings/laws in theory, but we hardly practice them. Instead of keeping your head in the clouds I say plant both feet on the ground and wake up. There is a very real world outside and it will not wait for you to catch up. With new ages comes new understandings and new principles. Ideologies will change over time for the sake of "survival". Those which don't will eventually "die off" and become "extinct". (evolution takes charge when it needs to and where it needs to)

Abra I agree with you about finding truth in a shifting set of variables.

However its not even absolute, the word doesn't even apply.

It would be like calling a single answer within a function absoulute(misspelling intended)

No single answer is true for all reasons & circumstances and I like his original post becuase David was able to write out some pretty fundamental thoughts, and liked abra interpretation of it extremely.

Cheers!

I dont believe in god and this made sense to me in many contexts . . . minus the god.

I will attempt to explain in my next post.

Hello everyone, i am back
I went a way for sometime

Hi Emit - catch up, but it's about time for me to sign off now.
Don't know when I'll be back, but the conversation and the company has been nice.

I hope I didn't belittle the OP in any way. It was simply my intension to point out what I see as an error in thought. That error is the mixing of theologies. That's exactly how the old myths, became the new old ones and how they have evolved to be the beliefs of today.

Thanks sgtpepper for the info. Hey bushi, take care Abra and Davidben - man you do have patience, I really like that about you.

Oh sorry Sky - nice chatting with you & anyone else I forgot.

redy

I'm with you 100% on that one Di.

I don't feel that religion (or spirituality) is necessary for humanity in general.

However, it may be something that individuals prefer to believe in. And for this reason I feel that they should be encouraged to believe in spirituality. Or at least encouraged to follow their own intuitions on the matter.

This may sound strange coming from someone who is so opposed to the teachings of the Mediterranean-based religions. However, we have seen that those religions pit man against man, and nation against nation. They are judgmental religions that all claim to have the absolute word of God. Because of this they are truly determental to society as a whole.

I'm totally against any religion that causes people to run around trying to 'save' others from an imaginary boogieman, and denouncing the validity of their spiritualty (or atheistic views) if they refuse to be 'saved'.

Those kinds of religions are truly hateful. They are hateful in the sense that they don't allow the beliefs of others to be lovingly embraced.

If they could believe in thier religions and keep them to themselves in terms of urgency and judgments of other's relationship with any higher power, then they'd be just fine.

But clearly they don't do that. They are the cause of much world tension and political unrest. They even have people within a given society at each other's throats on everyday issues such as what type of relationship are 'godly' and what parts of science are 'godly' etc.

But for non-jugemental religions, like Buddhism say, I see no reason why they can't peacefully coexist with atheists or other peace-oriented religions.

Well, the first part of this is very fundamental, I like that but applying it directly to the next part is where I would have to point out some issues with that.

First part: "if nothing can make itself to exist as something other than what it already is"

Correct me if I am wrong: Here you are asking a question, referring to "nothing". Perhaps a void of something? The statement that follows is making the deduction that this means god must exit, or perhaps . . . with a trailing pause . . .

Particles are created from energy (E=MC^2), energy doesn't have to be supernatural, doesn't have to come from god at all, even so energy is a pretty mysterious stuff.

Sure we understand the movements of electrons across a wire, and the concept of moving current = magnetism and thus can "do work" is a bold leap into the modern age, but . . . . do we really understand what an electron is? Do we really understand how particles that "orbit" a nucleus do so without velocity? If they had velocity they would emit electromagnetic radiation and loose there energy/mass and would fade away . . . but alas they do not hmmmm . . . . . .

Do we really understand even what kinetic energy is? Oh we like to think so, because we think we "can" stand still or can "move" at will. We can fall down, and experience the energy of gravity meeting the energy of motion meeting the electromagnetic repulsive energy of the floors atoms . . . .

We can write down the fundamental nature of particles do calculations and explain nearly everything within seconds of the expansion of the universe, but we do not understand "what" energy really is, nor if or what it might be made of . . .. The very question may be irrelevant.

We certainly do not understand nature, but nature is enough without god to explain our modest origins.


This I could not agree with more. We are all star dust formed from nuclear fusion, formed from hydrogen, formed from particles smashed up billions of years ago.
What principles?
precisely, if we never deviate from the tested path we never discover new ones. We never find better ways to work smarter, we may never learn the skills we need to save our race from extinction.
YES! But in context of the bible many updates have been to justify men, not gods, in context of science this is all there is . .. updates! I love ye wonder updates to meh reality! Thank ye Science!
Yes and genes being expressed randomly through sexual reproduction in relation to a selection effect produce a system of variation leading to survival gains, AND new information! No god needed.
I agree, you must allow for the possibility of anything. It is wise however to assign things as important to pursue and trivial to pursue. If one cannot detect (sense) or make predictions (reason out causal effects) based off of the hypothesis of the existence of a thing, then we need not attempt to justify it with logic or reason.
You make some excellent points, yes I agree many contradictions, false dichotomy and many a skewed perspective ye have pointed out good sir, good credit to you for seeing so clearly.
Oh yes, we can do nothing but speak lies till we hath reasoned out the why's

Sometimes I really do hope this is true! AT leat from the perspective that all things are connected at some level that makes us one, but then again there really is. The higgs field, gravity, the electromagnetic field. There is quite a bit connecting all of us and everything within this universe perhaps not what you meant tho ; - )
How true, how could god be so inept as to write a book so many could misinterpret.
people are too tribal still to accept any kind of unified truth. If they did that they would stop having to hate each other over petty things.

HAHAHA I love it! David great thought!

I understand your context. everyone wants to believe that god is on there side, that they are good people . . . . its inhuman to think otherwise. I agree if there was a god creator then I doubt highly he would judge us good or evil, or even have a concept of such benign things.
If someone could unite the religions that would be something indeed. I don't think that's possible, just look at politics . . . I think humanity as a whole is still very vulgar and if given a chance Jerry Springer or some reality tV show would be mainstream in heaven as well.

Great word! If I was creator and made RULZ and STUFF I would definitely not be so LAME as to break my own RULZ and STUFF!

Indeed OOckham's razor shows me the wisdom of such . . . thus why believe at all?