Richard Dawkins stumped!

Originally posted by twhitehead
So are you saying that intelligence is involved in everything?
If I throw a die, the resulting number is not random, but a result of intelligence?

Yes the dice will behave according to the laws of randomism, relativity, probability, gravity etc...and these laws are governed ultimately by intelligence.

For the laws to behave like laws and not exspire, they are governed by intelligence.

Intellgence is everywhere like ether.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Yes the dice will behave according to the laws of randomism, relativity, probability, gravity etc...and these laws are governed ultimately by intelligence.

For the laws to behave like laws and not exspire, they are governed by intelligence.

Intellgence is everywhere like ether.

vishva

So when you say intelligence is involved in evolution, you really mean that the laws of physics and chemistry are governed by intelligence? Or is it different?

Why do you reject evolution, yet accept Chemistry and Physics?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Yes the dice will behave according to the laws of randomism, relativity, probability, gravity etc...and these laws are governed ultimately by intelligence.

For the laws to behave like laws and not exspire, they are governed by intelligence.

Intellgence is everywhere like ether.

vishva

Meaning there is no free will? You cannot be responsible to your actions - because another intelligence is in controll? Is that it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Meaning there is no free will? You cannot be responsible to your actions - because another intelligence is in controll? Is that it?

Each living thing has their own intelligence, therefore they use it to determine how they choose to live their lives.

vishva

Originally posted by twhitehead
So when you say intelligence is involved in evolution, you really mean that the laws of physics and chemistry are governed by intelligence? Or is it different?

Why do you reject evolution, yet accept Chemistry and Physics?

Yes the laws of physics and chemistry are govered by intelligence, but that does not mean automatically that man and the species came by the process of evolution.

Richard Dawkins himself, says the fact that we are even here (because its improbable without god) is that we are very very lucky.....and then he goes on to say Quote "it must be the unseen hand of natural selection"

So if (natural selection is allowed to be unseen) why have you got a problem with the unseen intelligence/god.

Luck has nothing to do with it....

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Yes the laws of physics and chemistry are govered by intelligence, but that does not mean automatically that man and the species came by the process of evolution.

You misunderstood the question.
You reject evolution, because you claim that its proponents do not acknowledge the intelligence at work.
You do not reject physics and chemistry even though their proponents do not acknowledge the intelligence at work.
I am asking why you treat them differently.

Richard Dawkins himself, says the fact that we are even here (because its improbable without god) is that we are very very lucky.....and then he goes on to say Quote "it must be the unseen hand of natural selection"

So if (natural selection is allowed to be unseen) why have you got a problem with the unseen intelligence/god.
Because natural selection can be seen if you look hard enough. That is what the Theory of Evolution is all about. Your intelligence/god hypothesis does not have supporting evidence ie it remains unseen.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You misunderstood the question.
You reject evolution, because you claim that its proponents do not acknowledge the intelligence at work.
You do not reject physics and chemistry even though their proponents do not acknowledge the intelligence at work.
I am asking why you treat them differently.

[b]Richard Dawkins himself, says the fact that we are ev ...[text shortened]... bout. Your intelligence/god hypothesis does not have supporting evidence ie it remains unseen.

The problem is not mine, because i know the intelligence is the guidance system for all that complex activity, on the micro-cellular level that puzzels the scientists.

Thats why in dont reject chemistry.

The problem is with them, by not accepting that intelligence,.... in other words, they are scientsts, but dont act like scientists, because they are biased towards atheism, and that biased attitude, blinds them.

I could give you the name of a book written by a scientist in scientific lingo, that supports what i am saying,....this guy is a mathematician and quantum physicist.

I have trouble reading his book, because it is too deep with scientific info, but you would appreciate it.

Richard Dawkins words are clear (the unseen hand of natural selection)

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The problem is not mine, because i know the intelligence is the guidance system for all that complex activity, on the micro-cellular level that puzzels the scientists.

Thats why in dont reject chemistry.

The problem is with them, by not accepting that intelligence,.... in other words, they are scientsts, but dont act like scientists, because they ar ...[text shortened]... reciate it.

Richard Dawkins words are clear (the unseen hand of natural selection)

vishva

Is a scientist of the 18th century not behaving like a scientist if they are biased towards explanations of the cosmos that don't invoke relativity theory???

Offer a means to test your spiritual intelligence hypothesis, a need to invoke it, and a sound case backed up with evidence that cannot be explained away in any terms other than spiritual intelligence and you'll have a point. Otherwise you're just venting out.

the 'unseen hand' is a metaphor for process...it does not imply some guiding force or intelligence

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The problem is not mine, because i know the intelligence is the guidance system for all that complex activity, on the micro-cellular level that puzzels the scientists.

Thats why in dont reject chemistry.

I still don't see how that explains your rejection of evolution but not your rejection of chemistry.

I have trouble reading his book, because it is too deep with scientific info, but you would appreciate it.
Yet you say it supports what you are saying. How can you know whether it supports what you are saying if you don't understand it?

Richard Dawkins words are clear (the unseen hand of natural selection)
Not apparently as clear as you think as you misunderstood the phrase in context. He is saying that at face value you do not see natural selection at work and so you think the results are purely a product of chance, but in reality natural selection is at work. He does not say we are incapable of seeing it at work.

Originally posted by Agerg
Is a scientist of the 18th century not behaving like a scientist if they are biased towards explanations of the cosmos that don't invoke relativity theory???

Offer a means to test your spiritual intelligence hypothesis, a need to invoke it, and a sound case backed up with evidence that cannot be explained away in any terms other than spiritual intelligence ...[text shortened]... seen hand' is a metaphor for process...it does not imply some guiding force or intelligence

Your using your inteliigence right now, stringing words together to make sentences, that say theres no intelligence. (and thats your test completed)

If natural selection doesnt imply a guiding force,then, thankyou for admitting that, becase the intelligence is the guiding force.

vishva

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't see how that explains your rejection of evolution but not your rejection of chemistry.

[b]I have trouble reading his book, because it is too deep with scientific info, but you would appreciate it.
Yet you say it supports what you are saying. How can you know whether it supports what you are saying if you don't understand it?

Ri ...[text shortened]... n reality natural selection is at work. He does not say we are incapable of seeing it at work.

Your fault finding again, the phrase (i dont understand) did not get said.

Try again to formulate your question with some honesty.

Vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Your statement is a bit unclear, what family, and what drummed into you.

If you meant that "you deserve it" drummed into you, then i,ll proceed.

God is not a punisher or a judge, this is a christian/ muslim belief, and is erroneuos.

The world we live in has laws, and the scientists will tell you that they cannot be suspended, and this is correct. ...[text shortened]...
The bottom line is, a person creates their reality, consciously, and unconsciously.

Vishva

Ok, wasn't all that clear but didn't want to get too much into details of my personal life. However, I will try and give a brief summary and a bit of background.

My father comes from a Hindu background and has met up with someone many years ago who he considers his godfather and has given him "spiritual enlightenment". From that day on he meditates every morning, believes in karma, reincarnation and psychic abilities.

He also follows teachings from the Bhagavad Gita and writings from Swami Vivekananda. He also believes that we do not die, but our soul leaves our bodies (our body being just a vessel).

He has pretty much rejected many of what is taught in Hinduism (e.g. the caste system) but focuses on the spiritual aspects. Like yourself, he has also rejected all mainstream religions, although effectively created a religion himself.

He believes that through many years of meditation it is possible for us to leave our bodies voluntarily (into the astral plane) and travel where ever you want to and come back (there is a constant connection with the astral body and the "real" body). He also claims that he has glimsed this phenomena and him almost leaving but did not succeed in achieving it. He believes that people who have advanced in this area over lifetimes can achieve phenomenal things, like levitation, powerful psychic abilities of all kinds etc. Even believing the old myth that we only use 10% (there isn't a strictly agreed figure) of our brains.

He has very poor analogies in describing karma (like you said, there are many interpretations, but it is a moot point, because none of them do not make sense to me anyway). Mentioning "if you touch a hot stove you will get burned". I personally cannot see how this proves karma, but I digress.

Interestingly enough, he has also rejected the idea of "God" in any specific manifestation in the mainstream religions, but he does believe in intelligent design (like yourself).

He also claims that he likes science, yet argues against it at the same time, due to very poor understanding of how science works.

Anyway, all these teachings I have put up with throughout my life. I do understand what he believes very well as I have heard the same things over and over again, yet he claims that I cannot see it. He also claims that later in life what he has been teaching will make sense to me, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Many years ago I did actually believe what he said but had elements of doubts which I suppressed because I *wanted* to believe what he did. After a while I realised that none of it made sense at all after thinking for myself.

I think you and my father will get on quite well.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Your using your inteliigence right now, stringing words together to make sentences, that say theres no intelligence. (and thats your test completed)

If natural selection doesnt imply a guiding force,then, thankyou for admitting that, becase the intelligence is the guiding force.

vishva

I get the impression you think I've vindicated your argument in some way but I don't see how.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Your fault finding again, the phrase (i dont understand) did not get said.

You are right. I was wrong.

But I still don't understand your explanation as to why you reject evolution but accept chemistry.

To Lausey

Wow, you put much in to that, thankyou...ok

The astral travelling, is something we all do when we go to sleep, and for some one to want to do it in there waking hours/ or during meditation, requires to much time and effort, so there is no one left on this planet doing this anymore.

Because i dont know specifically, what you did understand, or didnt understand, about your fathers teachings, then i can make no comment.

I think you were put off, from accepting your fathers way, because he was doing too many devotions towards his truth, and you being a young man, were not interested in that.

The main thing in spiritual life is to know truth, and keep it close to your heart.

Your truth does not have to translate into devotions or prayers or meditations, but if that is ones desire, then its ok.

Much of what your father speaks of, is correct, but his devotions are his personal unique way of exspessing himself.

Karma is a real law that no one escapes, and its as real as gravity.

vishva