1 edit
-Removed-The code that directs life, the directions that life follows from its smallest pieces to
the most functionally complex systems are simply part of life's existence.
Now, could the thing that drives lives and processes the informational bits be
something that would occur under a rock somewhere when we cannot do it in our
most advanced labs? Does it make sense that without help, without intervention
something so advanced as those instructional directions occur in abiogenesis and
later on start evolving getting more functionally complex as life divides into
different sexes and species while continuing to evolve?
Nature's laws in play would take anything and have it move toward decay, the
greater the entropy the more moving toward equilibrium would occur. Life takes
energy and constrains it through biological processes, setup by instructions, if
those instructions were not there, the energy would not do useful work, the
instructions must be read and executed as needed or again it would all fall apart
and these instructions are information that directs the matter in life, life's matter
follow that, it isn't that matter started doing all of this, and then the information
was written, there would be no mechanism for that to occur unless it was setup
that way.
Even Bill Gates is quoted as saying,
“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
— Bill Gates
@kellyjay saidYou mean "directs" and "directions " like how a human being "directs" and gives "directions". This entity, if it exists, for you, it must be human-like and that's the only way you can envisage it?
The code that directs life, the directions that life follows from its smallest pieces to
the most functionally complex systems are simply part of life's existence.
@kellyjay saidAs I've said before, you're preaching to the converted as regards natures' processes and mechanisms, and at least you now admit that your belief in a god is 'just a statement of faith'. I don't think anyone here is claiming that evolution or natural selection 'did' anything; these are not conscious entities like your imagined god, they are consequences of natural processes. A penguin is not 'designed' (let's be honest, who would design a penguin?) , it's a consequence of natural processes, just like you and me.
I'm talking about the processes mechanisms, my saying "God did it" and your saying
"Evolution did it" are just statements of faith. You seem to think you have evidence
that shows evolution did it, and I don't even have an issue with that, because what
drives the processes are found within life, the instructions that direct the chemical
reactions, information is the prima ...[text shortened]... something that is primary to the
biological material it is directing and that is the genetic code.
I've sat through 'lectures' by so - called scientists who tell us that nature is far too complex to be possible, and that there just isn't enough time for evolution to have happened, and yet there it is, and here we are. All that they and you are doing is to try to add some kind of credence to your beliefs in a mythological, supernatural entity, and a world where snakes can talk, which is about as far from science as you can get.
@indonesia-phil saidFaith in something is simply trusting and believing it isn't just a word used in
As I've said before, you're preaching to the converted as regards natures' processes and mechanisms, and at least you now admit that your belief in a god is 'just a statement of faith'. I don't think anyone here is claiming that evolution or natural selection 'did' anything; these are not conscious entities like your imagined god, they are consequences of natural proce ...[text shortened]... atural entity, and a world where snakes can talk, which is about as far from science as you can get.
religion for the sake of religion's notions. You can have faith in your friends, the
bank you put your money in, or an insurance company you give money to in case
something bad happens. If you believe the universe is intelligently discernable you
can have faith that science can tell you about it as we study it, if you don't believe
that universe is intelligently discernable, you will no faith in the universe or science.
I've been talking about the mechanisms that do the work if you accept life's
complex functional systems are driven by instructions encoded in them. Evolution
takes even that to an even higher much more complex reality.
The belief that these instructions and not degrade over time but instead caused
what had to be a single sex life into biological males and females who never lost
the ability to mate and produce offspring, while they changed into other creatures
over time from evolution's common ancestor. That makes the task even higher, the
coding that could do that had to be incredibly sophisticated, and if you have faith
that evolution is true, do you honestly think all of the mechanisms required could
be the end product of mindlessness, goalless, uncaring processes that had no
concept of success or failure?
One of the more remarkable things I believe acknowledging design in life gives me
is a trust that our brains were designed to grasp the universe as it is because it
and our minds were designed to be compatible with each other. If it is accepted
that our brains are the end result of a mindless process with no goals at all in its
formation, why would you trust what it tells you?
@kellyjay saidPlaying with a dictionary definition is sophistry. "Faith" in the context of theological discussions on a Spirituality Forum refers to belief in and worship of supernatural beings as portrayed in various religious narratives/mythologies. You prattling on about "faith in your friends" and "an insurance company" is disingenuous because it is a different application of the word "faith", as you well know. Why can't you converse in good faith?*
Faith in something is simply trusting and believing it isn't just a word used in
religion for the sake of religion's notions. You can have faith in your friends, the
bank you put your money in, or an insurance company you give money to in case
something bad happens.
* "good faith" here means "honestly"; it does NOT mean good feelings about "an insurance company" nor is it about adherence to theological doctrines nor is it about belief in unprovable notions about supernatural beings.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidDo you mean "caring" like a human being "caring"? When you talk about aspirational things like notions of "success or failure", do you mean something along the lines of human beings' aspirations?
do you honestly think all of the mechanisms required could
be the end product of mindlessness, goalless, uncaring processes that had no
concept of success or failure?
What is the "success or failure" analysis of the Onchocerca volvulus worm that eats children's eyes? Is that an anthropomorphized "God" figure's "success" or is it his "failure"? What is the "caring" factor?
@kellyjay saidThank you for your definition of 'faith', but if you really can't see the difference between having faith in an insurance company and a supernatural entity, then this looks like one of your 'A talking snake is the same as an airplane' moments.
Faith in something is simply trusting and believing it isn't just a word used in
religion for the sake of religion's notions. You can have faith in your friends, the
bank you put your money in, or an insurance company you give money to in case
something bad happens. If you believe the universe is intelligently discernable you
can have faith that science can tell you abou ...[text shortened]... of a mindless process with no goals at all in its
formation, why would you trust what it tells you?
I don't know what you mean by the universe being 'intelligently discernable' , I think that anyone can 'discern' that the universe exists, unless we now drift into some kind of existential discussion, and I don't know how one is supposed to have 'faith' in the universe, any more than one has 'faith' that penguins exist. I don't know what you're on about.
So nature is complex, and sophisticated; this is not a ground - breaking statement, we have been studying natures' complexities for centuries, and it's still work in progress, because nature is, you know, complex. And yes, and for the last time, since it isn't the first, I honestly think all of the mechanisms blah, blah, blah....
As for 'grasping the universe as it is' , whatever that means, I see no reason to trust a brain which thinks that snakes can talk; best look to your own brain before you start implying that other brains are untrustworthy. An evolved brain is no more or less reliable than any other brain, and by the way, you can't acknowledge something which you can't know, you can only believe in it, which is all you do.
1 edit
@indonesia-phil saidIt is not my definition of faith you can look at the words origin, it’s about fidelity and trust. Only of late has a redefinition of the word has it changed into something religious only.
Thank you for your definition of 'faith', but if you really can't see the difference between having faith in an insurance company and a supernatural entity, then this looks like one of your 'A talking snake is the same as an airplane' moments.
I don't know what you mean by the universe being 'intelligently discernable' , I think that anyone can 'discern' that the u ...[text shortened]... u can't acknowledge something which you can't know, you can only believe in it, which is all you do.
Why do you trust your own opinions if unguided mindlessness is the root cause of of them? If its all determined by chemical reactions without any reason why would one mind be more trustworthy than another?
You believe it is all mindlessness and unguided processes that built life, and you reject the possibility that it is not that way because of an old story that you reject. If the story is false why would that make unguided mindlessness true?