Posted on 02/04/2002 2:32:02 PM PST by RobRoy
My biggest concern is firmly grasping my own (or my pastors) dogma on something that turns out to be desperately wrong, like the Catholic church believing that the bible taught that the Earth is the literal center of the universe even though it clearly does not. I'm no smarter or sincere than they were.
Much of what will happen will only be obvious after the fact. I've noticed the bible doesn't use prophesy so much to tell us what will happen, as to show us that it did in fact tell us what would happen. It is very clever in giving just enough info to verify that the prophesy was correct, but not enough info for us to interpret it before the fact.
Man, whoever came up with that book sure was smart 8^>
Sinc
Ha ha, I was wondering if someone would pluck that out of here. Well, yes, they could be, in their own way. Just like not all forms of life requre sex to reproduce. If you have one planet getting larger over eons, and then being struck by another body, to the point where it breaks apart, you would have two planets (or three, or an asteroid belt).
But I'm being kind of silly. I was really thinking along the lines of interstelar or interplanetary catastrophies, where matter is constantly regrouped, as it were, from the infinite mass of play-dough that makes up the universe. Planets and stars are made, then they die or collide, the matter ultimately ends up in another star or planet. The fact that that can happen means that in a real sense, planets and stars are self replicated by the universe itself. As I applied it in the article, the concept of nano-technology applies here
I think that hits the nail on the head. My big thing is busting paradigms. And that is what this article is intended to do. Maybe it makes someone look at it a different way. Not my way, but another way entirely. And they may ask some questions - on this thread, I hope - that I never thougt of, thereby enhancing my understanding of the subject.
I marvel at the way we humans work off each others ideas to come up with something better and more creative than the original thought.
Ok, what I meant when I said life wasn't sacred was that life is not to be preserved for the sake of the body, but rather for the sake of the spirit that dwells within the body. The body is just a vessel and, in a real sense, what we called in grade school science, a "lever." I was also trying to alter the way we "perceive" the concept of life.
Once the body is perceived as a separate thing from the spirit, and therefore only valuable because of the contents (the spirit), all other bodies (cows, whales, mosquitos) can be seen in the context of a vessel without valuable contents. And since the value is in the contents, it makes the other "living things" mere natural resources.
Make sense?
Your essay today was interesting and I appreciated your attempt to us "biological machines" to fathom what makes humans so special.
While reading your essay, the first thing that entered my mind was a rather simple question: At what point can the cells (biological machines) of the human body be removed until it is no longer "intelligent" as per your definition?
Obviously, loosing a few thousand skin cells every day does not destroy our intelligence, but eventually a point will be reached when thought is no longer a possibility. Cells in the body die and are usually replaced. On the average, every single cell of the human body is replaced in about seven years.
Now back to the quote I started off with.
Humans are unique in our ability to pass along information between generations verbally or by using the written word. Knowledge learned thousands of years ago can and has been passed along to each generation. That knowledge, even if the person is not aware of it, does influence every single action of a person's life at one level or another.
So, for the sake of argument, how well does your theory work if our abiliy to pass along information was eliminated?
To be more specific, if humans were unable to pass along the information contained in the Bible, would we still have the "freedom to choose or reject him as our Father and Creator without that ability?
If so, could you explain?
Beyond the limits of scientific enquirey (which limits itself to the perceived material universe) does not mean beyond the limits of intellectual enquirey, which would include philosophy, theology, philosophical psychology, and much more.
The supposition that because God cannot be perceived means that no intellectual inquirey or conclusions can be made about Him is a huge intellectual mistake.
Hank
Fascinating! I was thinking about this very concept as I was typing. It hit me at that time that the evolution that is happening to us right now (which I actually call de-evolution) is slowly rusting us away to nothing, as with the '56 Nash in the article. Now, without the ability to pass information on from generation to generation, we would literally get more and more stupid. But, because man can collectively learn from generation to generation, unlike all the rest of creation, we actually have the power to technologically stop and even reverse the process.
Ok, that's a little off your point, but what I think is this: If you remove the engine from the car, the transmission is worthless. That is, the bible was created for man by God to be used according to mans abilities as granted by God.
I guess what I am trying to say here goes along the idea that the early Church didn't have a "Bible" as we know it, and there are plenty of translations today that, in insignificant ways, at least, are not always identical - and many people will simply never see a bible in their lifetime. So the Bible is obviously not required for salvation. I see the Bible as something that augments what I have personally experienced. It's like having a book of wisdom that was written by youre father that you read quite often, but you also talk to him on the phone a lot. Ultimately, the bible is imperfect language (which is, by definition, sybolism), created by man. It is a good starting point to bring someone to the knowledge that there just might be something to all this stuff. And it can remind you of who He is, or inspire you, but the relationship must ultimately get past the intellect (the brain) and sink into the spirit.
More directly, If man was incapable of passing it down, I don't think God would have done it that way.
That's my point 8^>
The interesting thing about consciousness is, it is totally undemonstrable. If it were possible to create a computer that was conscious, you could never know it. Only the conscious being, himself, knows whether he is really conscious or not.
The computer illustration is important, because we might be able to make a computer that could respond so well we would believe it is conscious, even if it weren't. (Which it wouldn't be, by the way.)
In some sense, all life has some element of this "consciousness" (even if it is only very primitive sensation). That is why the self-sustained action of a living entity is different than the self-sustained action of a non-living process, like a flame, for example. In some way, a living organism functions for the sole prupose of sustaining itself, and thought most cannot be cognizant of the fact, their behavior is purposeful, and the organism is the purpose. You cannot make a computer care. You can at best only make it act as though it cares.
Hank
God. Science is just fun stuff. You know, taking apart the alarm clock to try to figure out how it works, that kind of thing. Once science starts trying to figure out the existence and mind of the clock maker, it is way outside the bounds of its strengths and usefulness.
As long as we use science to figure out, for fun, how the clock works and use the knowledge to create fun stuff and make life more interesting, I'm all for it. Heck, my clock on my cell phone is real accurate, but I don't use my cell phone to call God. When it comes to Science trying to tackle creation, we're like ants trying to figure out why we can't burrow through glass.
Oh, and by the way, since I do perceive the human body as a BM, and I do think God gave us the intellect to do a pretty good job of figuring it out, I believe that if the Lord waits, It won't be long (my lifetime probably, I'm 48) before we will be able to extend human life almost indefinitely.
I'm confused as to why people think that would be a good thing since the Apostle Paul said that for us to die is gain. I guess it's just different phylosophies in action. Heck, if I wasn't a Christian I guess I'd want to prolong my life as long as possible...
One cannot state that question without also asking "where did God come from?". Any answer applicable to one is equally applicable to the other, and no answer I can think of is particularly satisfying to either.
Eventually an outstanding teacher was able to break through, but until then, she was denied the concept of historical information.
In your essay, you implied that there is something special about humans that allows a knowledge of God. And with that knowledge, humans are better than other animal life.
My counter argument is rather simple, and Hellen Keller would be my example. If denied a historical foundation of religion, does the human animal actually have an internal knowledge of God? And if so, was Hellen Keller able to comprehend it?
The Evolution vs Creation topic often degenerates into who believes in what, based upon what subjects the person has studied.
My question is rather simple: Without any historical knowledge (scientific or biblical), what information is available today which would lead someone towards one side or the other?
Frankly sir, with those rules I implied, I do not have any idea and would enjoy your input.
Ha! I agree wholeheartedly. I used this argument against some animal rights protesters about ten years ago. I started a discussion with them expecting to get logically trounced, since they obviously lived this stuff. They could not support their position beyond, "how would you feel if {insert atrocity done to animal here} was done to you. They couldn't grasp the concept that to feel what we define as "pain" you have to be conscious. I believe we will create computers that will fool even the most sophisticated to believe they were fully conscious, except, as you say, they won't be because they have not had life "breathed" into them.
BTW, the animal rights guy said that if you kick a dog, it feels pain begause it yelps. I told him I could program a computer to yelp every time I hit the "Y" key, but it would feel no pain. He couldn't get past the human paradigm regarding animals. It was almost comical as they got more and more strident and I was always extremely polite. It was like debating a 2nd grade bully that had never had to cope with an adult intellect before, and the guy was over 50! He eventually called me a name and I politely ended it at that point.
BTW #2, did you ever see the old STar Trek episode where these "godlike" beings in lighted globes took over Spock and Kirk and Nurse Chapels bodies temporarily while they built their own permanent mechanical bodies. As you may remember, they were corrupted by these human bodies to the point that they felt lust, greed, and one eventually tried to murder the other. It is as if the human body they occupied had "poisoned" their "real being" with it's lusts, desires and wants. That, in my opinion, is a great illustration of what is talked about in the new testament regarding the lusts of the flesh et al. It is also how I see myself as trying to be separate from the flesh (BM) and its desires
Anyway, just thought I'd share...
There is no logical problem with assuming indefinite existense of either God or existense. (I have intentionally avoided using the expression "material existense" as I believe that it is a subset of existense itself, which may or may not include a "supernatural" [non-material] existense.)
Since positing either that God always exists or the universe always exists leads to no logical contradiction, and either other premise that requires a "beginning" is either self-contradictory or requires a further supposition (of whatever preceded the hyopothetical beginning), one or the other must always exist, God or existense-without-God.
If you are a thorough-going naturalist, the answer is the univers always exists (in some form). If you are not convinced of the naturalist position, you better consider God.
(There is an intentional flaw in this argument. Do you see it?)
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.