Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What was God’s plan behind Creation and why does he need one?
3DSOC
Junior Member (Idle past 5165 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 01-24-2010


Message 121 of 174 (545069)
01-31-2010 3:12 PM


Great Post
J.U.C., hooah212002, DrJones and all.
I'm new here and think this is great - "Understanding through Discussion" - exactly what we need more of IMO.
Thanks for the question, posts and replies!
~3DSOC

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 122 of 174 (545070)
01-31-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by 3DSOC
01-31-2010 2:31 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Hi 3DSOC! Welcome to EvC: your diversity will be added to the collective.
God isn't doing this,
Yes he is. What act of will by a human causes a baby to be born with phenylketonuria?
What about people being killed in storms and tsunamis? You point that it is all down to people making bad choices will eventually lead you back to Adam and if you have read this thread you will see that his has already been dealt with.
Likewise, if I decide to become a heroine addict and use all my financial resources to feed my addiction instead of feeding my family, it isn't God who is condemning my children, it is I.
So Yahweh sits and watches one of his children's free will removed by their parent without lifting a finger?
Good old, loving Yahweh.
But it's all part of the plan; people can only learn through the heavenly gift of suffering. Even when Yahweh was trying to do humanity a good turn he could only do it using suffering.
Does he have no other mechanism to exert his will other than suffering?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by 3DSOC, posted 01-31-2010 2:31 PM 3DSOC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 5:19 PM Larni has replied
 Message 163 by 3DSOC, posted 02-03-2010 11:23 PM Larni has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 123 of 174 (545074)
01-31-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by 3DSOC
01-31-2010 3:07 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
"natural selection" (curious term that implies something is making a decision) occurs.
Not really. There is no decision making, just life or death.
Wouldn't "natural selection" then always favor Species A?
Why? is strength/speed/size always superior to better vision? Increase in these factors would most likely require an increase in amount of foood that organism A needs to eat per day, potentially limiting it's numbers compared to organism B. Better vision could allow organism B to operate nocturnally when there is less threat or competition from organism A. There are many factors to consider before proclaiming one organism is objectivly "better" than another.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by 3DSOC, posted 01-31-2010 3:07 PM 3DSOC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 4:42 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 124 of 174 (545078)
01-31-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by 3DSOC
01-31-2010 3:07 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Hey 3DSOC.
Species A and B mutate randomly and "natural selection" (curious term that implies something is making a decision) occurs.
Species A's mutations allow it to become stronger/faster/bigger/healther (pick one)
Species B's mutations start to develop optic nerves, corneas, lens, etc.
Wouldn't "natural selection" then always favor Species A? It can out muscle B for food, or it can get to the food faster, or it can survive more variables as to climate.
Again, we're accepting that it would take Species B millions of years to evolve/develop these specialized organs. During those same millions of years, it is competing against Species A for food/shelter/territory.
This is called an argument from incredulity. It's also a striking example of what we call a "strawman" and you'd be better served to argue based on facts and reality instead of flimsy hypothetical situations.
In a hypothetical time in your imaginary evolution of what you are assuming early forms may have taken, an assumed blind brute (it follows from your argument that only Species B enjoys the ability to see, yes?) *poof!* evolves from an earlier form at the same time as a hypothetical *poof!* primitive-eye weakling-pansy organism. Am I setting up your strawman with the correct amount of lean, height, etc. here?
In your scenario, this blind-brute fish-like organism (you're surely not assuming the hypothetical blind-brute and primitive-eye weakling-pansy were hominids, correct?) maintains a selective brutish advantage over a more frail squid-like occupant of the same area, even though (stop me if I'm running amok with this) the weakling-pansy would most likely have the ability to see the blind-brute coming, and turn tail. Now, say a mobile food source is prolific in this area, and that food source's mobility allowed it to outmaneuver the (previously all blind) ancestors of our current organisms. Well, now the primitive-eye weakling-pansy comes along *poof!* with her proto-eyes and absolutely GORGES, soon becoming many primitive-eye pansies, which all run from the blind brutes, which starve and are therefore "selected out".
My point here, 3DSOC, is that anyone can come up with an infinite number of unlikely scenarios under all sorts of strawman assumptions, which in one's mind could be seen as refuting natural selection and evolution in some way. As you can see, with just a little thought I provided a scenario (also using some of these self-same types of assumptions) which nicely invalidates your hypothetical situation. Trouble is, because I used all the same silly assumptions, another may assume differently and my silly story is invalidated as well. e.g. "For the sake of argument, now let's assume the blind-brute had IR or echo-location..." And so on, and so on, and so on ad infinitum.
You can have your opinions; hell, be as incredulous as you want. These, however, affect the TOE (and reality) not at all.
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by 3DSOC, posted 01-31-2010 3:07 PM 3DSOC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 5:08 PM Apothecus has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 125 of 174 (545083)
01-31-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by 3DSOC
01-31-2010 2:41 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
I'm going to put s different spin on this and hope give you some sort of concept of the power the sun holds over life on planet earth. I watched a documentary called Home some time ago. It detailed the symbiotic nature of life and how we all affect one another. You should check it out. (I am at work and cannot link to it.)
One of the most interesting aspects shown in this is how vegetation fights gravity to get to the suns energy, which it feeds off of. I can only imagine that animals (of all sorts) will go to any lengths to attain this source of energy as well, to include eyesight.
this is all off topic, of course, and does nothing to further the discussion for why some god might have created us.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by 3DSOC, posted 01-31-2010 2:41 PM 3DSOC has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 126 of 174 (545105)
02-01-2010 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by 3DSOC
01-31-2010 2:53 PM


Re: Hi!
Hi 3DSOC
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
To consider how strange this is, imagine if we humans created a completely new species and demanded of this new species that it should follow certain rules. Yet, at the same time, we gave it free-will and an inquisitive mind of it’s own and consequently it refused to follow our rules or failed to understand them. Would it not be highly peculiar if our reaction were to blame the species that we were entirely responsible for creating, rather than blame our own motives and designs?
We do this very thing all the time - we have children! From a parenting POV, I try to raise my children with certain rules, but it is their choice to obey them or not and face the consequences of their decisions. More importantly though, it isn't the rules, but the meaning behind the rules that I stress to my kids. Try looking at the 10 Commandments again, and ask what is the purpose behind "Thou shalt not kill"? Why would killing be bad? We have a 'No hurting rule' here and one reason I stress to my kids is that chances are, if you're striking out at your sibling, you're acting out of anger and anger can easily escalate out of control. I tell them that them need to control their anger and come to me and we will deal with the problem.
Humans don't have the ability to manufacture ready made new humans. We have to teach our children certain things. Why couldn't God, if God is an all-powerful perfect being, have created humans with a complete understanding of everything?
And you haven't explained why he created us in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by 3DSOC, posted 01-31-2010 2:53 PM 3DSOC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 4:49 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 127 of 174 (545106)
02-01-2010 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Calypso
01-30-2010 8:18 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
So the purpose of the tests is that we'll be perfectly developed to improve our chances of what? Living in a world exactly like this one? What will be the purpose of living in that world? Will it be to test and improve us so we are perfectly developed to live in another world exactly the same again?
That would be akin to saying babies live in the womb for 9 months to be better equipped to live out the rest of their lives in other wombs exactly like that one.
Yes, it would! But you're on the right track. There is no ultimate purpose to evolution and reproduction. That's my position. Religionists always say that there must be a purpose - that God has a purpose. I'm just asking what that purpose is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Calypso, posted 01-30-2010 8:18 PM Calypso has not replied

  
3DSOC
Junior Member (Idle past 5165 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 01-24-2010


Message 128 of 174 (545139)
02-01-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by DrJones*
01-31-2010 5:02 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
DrJones writes:
Why? is strength/speed/size always superior to better vision? Increase in these factors would most likely require an increase in amount of foood that organism A needs to eat per day, potentially limiting it's numbers compared to organism B. Better vision could allow organism B to operate nocturnally when there is less threat or competition from organism A. There are many factors to consider before proclaiming one organism is objectivly "better" than another.
Whether vision is superior to strength, speed and/or size isn't the point. According to evolution, it would have taken hundreds of generations for a species to develop sight while their competitors are using the same time to get bigger/stronger/faster.
So I'm not comparing species that have sight with species that are bigger/stronger/faster, I'm comparing a species that is attempting to develop vision with other species that are developing into bigger/stronger/faster creatures.
Wouldn't a bigger/stronger/faster species be favored over a species that is developing sight - but doesn't have sight?
Edited by 3DSOC, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by DrJones*, posted 01-31-2010 5:02 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by DrJones*, posted 02-01-2010 4:55 PM 3DSOC has not replied

  
3DSOC
Junior Member (Idle past 5165 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 01-24-2010


Message 129 of 174 (545140)
02-01-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-01-2010 6:50 AM


Re: Hi!
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Humans don't have the ability to manufacture ready made new humans. We have to teach our children certain things. Why couldn't God, if God is an all-powerful perfect being, have created humans with a complete understanding of everything?
And you haven't explained why he created us in the first place.
I hope this isn't to overly simplistic of an answer but there is a saying that goes something like "It isn't the destination, its the journey."
Life is a journey. Life is a series of experiences. Sure, God could have created man with knowledge of everything, but I believe He wanted us to experience life for ourselves.
As to "why did God create us in the first place?", I don't have an answer for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-01-2010 6:50 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 130 of 174 (545141)
02-01-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by 3DSOC
02-01-2010 4:42 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Wouldn't a bigger/stronger/faster species be favored over a species that is developing sight - but doesn't have sight?
does the bigger/stronger/faster species already have sight? if so, then I think it would probably do better than a smalller/weaker and sightless species. But its not an absolute.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 4:42 PM 3DSOC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Apothecus, posted 02-01-2010 5:44 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
3DSOC
Junior Member (Idle past 5165 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 01-24-2010


Message 131 of 174 (545143)
02-01-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Apothecus
01-31-2010 5:35 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Apothecus writes:
This is called an argument from incredulity. It's also a striking example of what we call a "strawman" and you'd be better served to argue based on facts and reality instead of flimsy hypothetical situations.
In a hypothetical time in your imaginary evolution of what you are assuming early forms may have taken, an assumed blind brute (it follows from your argument that only Species B enjoys the ability to see, yes?) *poof!* evolves from an earlier form at the same time as a hypothetical *poof!* primitive-eye weakling-pansy organism. Am I setting up your strawman with the correct amount of lean, height, etc. here?
Hi Apothecus!
I'm still relatively new to this board and apologize if I've made a 'newbie' mistake. I was under the impression that this particular forum was more opinion based, how could anybody but God answer the question that launched this thread?
Allow me to clarify my original post and forgive me if this is still a 'strawman' arguement.
Species A & B are two fish-like organisms (I was actually thinking more like single celled organisms)
Neither A or B has sight.
In 100 generations, species A will have sight.
In 100 generation, species B will be twice as strong.
At generation 50, species A will not have sight while species B in 50% stronger.
If species A and B are vying for the same food/shelter/territory, wouldn't 'natural selection' favor species B at generation 50?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Apothecus, posted 01-31-2010 5:35 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Apothecus, posted 02-01-2010 6:03 PM 3DSOC has replied
 Message 135 by Drosophilla, posted 02-01-2010 6:12 PM 3DSOC has replied
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2010 1:26 AM 3DSOC has not replied

  
3DSOC
Junior Member (Idle past 5165 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 01-24-2010


Message 132 of 174 (545144)
02-01-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Larni
01-31-2010 3:26 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Larni writes:
your diversity will be added to the collective.
LOL - love the Borg reference!!
Completely WAY off topic (sorry) - What did you think of the new StarTrek?
~3DSOC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Larni, posted 01-31-2010 3:26 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Larni, posted 02-02-2010 5:19 AM 3DSOC has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 133 of 174 (545146)
02-01-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by DrJones*
02-01-2010 4:55 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Hey Dr. J.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. You can change the rules of this hypothetical exercise however you want in order to make the outcome conform to your own worldview. Of course a weak organism would be selected out in lieu of a stronger specimen, all other things equal (including sight/blindness). The thing is, 3DSOC's example assumed that things were not equal. It seems likely to me that an organism with even rudimentary sight would enjoy a selective advantage over any sightless organism.
3DSOC presents an unfair scenario, IMO.
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by DrJones*, posted 02-01-2010 4:55 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 134 of 174 (545148)
02-01-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by 3DSOC
02-01-2010 5:08 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Hi 3DSOC.
Indeed, in this scenario I can accept the outcome you propose. And you are correct that this particular forum employs a bit more leeway with regard to evidence, etc. Didn't mean to jump all over you there.
However, I still think you're pigeonholing things. Like I said in my last post (while you were posting your latest reply), any number of variables can be introduced to change the proposed outcome. As such, the argument becomes a thought experiment in which any result is possible, if you just tweak the conditions.
Your hypothetical scenario is quite possible, when you set it up as you do. The thing is, my (or anyone else's) hypothetical scenario is just as plausible. That doesn't mean they're not hypothetical.
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 5:08 PM 3DSOC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 7:32 PM Apothecus has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 135 of 174 (545149)
02-01-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by 3DSOC
02-01-2010 5:08 PM


Re: God's purpose & why the rules
Hi 3DSOC
In 100 generations, species A will have sight.
In 100 generation, species B will be twice as strong.
At generation 50, species A will not have sight while species B in 50% stronger.
If species A and B are vying for the same food/shelter/territory, wouldn't 'natural selection' favor species B at generation 50?
You are employing the GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) principle here. You have just plucked random figures out of the air and assume you can make them sing and dance for you (sorry science doesn't work that way!).
For example why will it take 100 generations to be twice as strong? Have you followed the gene sequences relating to muscular protein accumulation? Can you say it will take 100 generations? Have you followed optical evolution? Any fool can pluck numbers out of the air like that.
In reality the environment shapes the progress of random mutations, and the environment is also subject to change. It is simply not possible to come up with silly numbers like this and expect a sensible outcome.
"If Jane and John sit beside this freeway leading out of LA and count the cars (John counts red ones, Jane counts blue ones) won't John count twice as many as Jane cos I heard red is a cool colour in LA?
See what happens if you employ GIGO?
Welcome to EVC by the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 5:08 PM 3DSOC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by 3DSOC, posted 02-01-2010 7:02 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024