|
Post by donmartin on Sept 28, 2008 6:27:44 GMT
I know only a little, but I thought gnosticism was belief and knowledge without an intermediary -per Thadeus and Valentinius whereas Irenaeus was the creator of hierarchy and bishops. It may simply be Paul vs. Peter.
A question I have re: intelligent design, is whether entropy is a consideration in the theory of evolution per Darwin et al. Can anyone posit a resolution of that issue. Is increasing complexity = increasing entropy?
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 28, 2008 6:44:35 GMT
I know only a little, but I thought gnosticism was belief and knowledge without an intermediary -per Thadeus and Valentinius whereas Irenaeus was the creator of hierarchy and bishops. It may simply be Paul vs. Peter. A question I have re: intelligent design, is whether entropy is a consideration in the theory of evolution per Darwin et al. Can anyone posit a resolution of that issue. Is increasing complexity = increasing entropy? Just on the gnostic question - you are probably correct in your definition but what we talked about is AGnostic, a condition of not-knowing rather than of knowing... And I'd have thought it was more Paul vs James? Although I've seen also some information that the Gnositcs came out of Egypt, but I'm unsure of timing. But the Nicaean Council was, I thought, the ending of the church of James & the adoption of the church of Paul as the faith of the Roman Empire - Constantine was worried that internecine warfare between the two would destroy his empire & so he called the council.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 28, 2008 7:16:01 GMT
Gnosticism: The Gnostics (from the root: to know) were believers in hidden knowledge, and were not a single belief system. They can be found both inside and outside Christianity itself. Anyone claiming to have a special or hidden key, or code to understanding the Bible, (or the Universe, or anything else) is, at base, a gnostic. While the Bible has many depths, and has been often misused, it is its own key, and orthodox Christianity has always emphasized its clarity. An example is the book of Revelation, which draws heavily on the OT prophets, and was clearly describing (or foretelling) the events of AD70 (the great tribulation of Judah at the hands of the Zealots & Romans, as detailed by Josephus), not the end of the world in (#### < insert your own data and sell a book) as modern gnostic fundamentalists often assert. freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2226_47e.htmBiblical Christianity states that Christ is the only mediator between man and God, and teaches the priesthood of all believers. This hasn't stopped most Christian institutions drifting toward centralized hierarchies. Entropy: Increasing complexity involves decreasing entropy, but this isn't contrary to the law "that in any closed system. entropy tends to a maximum" - or we expect energy to end up in less useful forms. i.e. increasing entropy implies the ultimate heat death of the universe. But there are many examples of self organizing complexity- even something as simple as the formation of a crystal is reduction in entropy. (Heat is given off when crystallization happens, and that increases the entropy of other molecules.) Same in life - the various processes that provide the ordering of lifeforms, increase the entropy of CO2 and H20 molecules - the products of respiration. So while entropy (as a whole) always increases, parts of a system can have reduced entropy at the expense of other parts. Intelligence is an interesting concept though, as intellectual organization - data, theories, drawing conclusions etc, is at an entirely different level.
|
|
|
Post by ozone on Sept 28, 2008 21:48:01 GMT
"Evolution? I see God as a master programmer. I don't accept blind evolution, but believe God improved on his ideas and patterns over time. Apart from selection within existing gene pools, I don't think evolution occurs as postulated by evolutionists. Did God do massive reprogramming after extinction events?(unexplained rapid bursts of evolution per the fossil record) Probably!"
My God is going to have to be a little bigger than that, or I'm not going to have one. If His reported interactions with mankind represent His evolving understanding rather than an evolving revelation, I wonder what additional mistakes He will make. Since He has had so long to learn, maybe Algore can learn faster. I thought I saw a climate system that was wonderfully buffered and self-sustaining, self-correcting. Now, He has to increase the West wind by 2 KPH this afternoon in Tahiti in order to prevent The Day After Tomorrow? In the laboratory today, we see genetic change in fruit flies subjected to a stressed system. Did God intervene to provide relief in the laboratory, or did He build a wonderful self-compensating system that needs no maintenance, or did it just happen by accident? Of course, each of us must make up his own mind about these things; and what we decide has no bearing whatsoever on what really is! But, if there is a God, and I believe there is, He must have a wonderful sense of humor.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 29, 2008 2:35:21 GMT
God = master Programmer, unfortunately trained by Microsoft. Service Pack 1 - the Resurrection (the JC Upgrade) was delivered around 2000 years back - Service Pack 2 - the Rapture is due Real Soon Now. It's rumoured that Q4, 2012, there's a new version of Wind... um... Heaven due to be released on Earth. Currently, Sun macrosystems are being made spotless in preparation for this Stellar event. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ozone on Sept 29, 2008 14:44:38 GMT
Getting too hot for me to handle. So I will apologize for toes I have stepped on, and then withdraw from this topic to prevent further damage. See y'all on less sensitive topics.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 1, 2008 8:55:15 GMT
Ozone - and warning to anyone - I believe in the God of the Christian Scriptures as a fundamental logical starting position)
Oops, Ozone, I never meant to imply that God 'evolved' his ideas. I think he took time to create the world, as he had to set up ecosystems, processes etc. I'm convinced that God doesn't change, as he is outside time & creation itself. Though I do think that Revelation has been progressive, and God has had to wait and let mankind learn about Him, culminating in his Revelation in Jesus. I don't think stone age men could have coped with the Sermon on the Mount for example!.
You either have to accept that God created everything in a short space of time with apparent age, or that he took his time. Either is difficult for an extreme literal interpretation of the Bible. (I accept the normal interpretation of scientific data, but not unprovable theories such as evolution)
I believe that the developmental 'tree' of life-forms is simply the logical way to create the Earth's ecology. God had to create the plankton & get them established before he created fishes etc. He had to allow soils to be created by erosion before he could create plants that require rich soil etc. The fossil record shows exactly this, wave after wave of perfectly developed lifeforms.
On climate, I'm aware that there are amazing systems of feedback, and equilibrium to maintain the Earth at the required range for life.
I am also aware of (1) the possibility of Man stuffing this up through his rebellion against God, and failing to be good stewards of the creation. (2) the scriptural statement that God (outside the Universe) upholds the entire system by the power of his might, and so can intervene. The system is so chaotic, that such intervention would not be 'supernatural' but would appear to just the normal miracles!
I'm not reverting to the old God of the Gaps - where we propose God for everything that we don't understand, but that God (in fact) upholds everything - that he is (in a sense) behind the whole thing.
When you get right down to it, matter is a mysterious mixture of energy & force fields, and we've never been able to get to the bottom of it.
CERN tries to find the 'God' particle, but keeps getting broken. Is there a connection? (I'm only partly serious!)
|
|
kaz
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by kaz on Oct 2, 2008 11:59:31 GMT
Hi Kiwi, I was thinking about your comment below: "Though I do think that Revelation has been progressive, and God has had to wait and let mankind learn about Him, culminating in his Revelation in Jesus. I don't think stone age men could have coped with the Sermon on the Mount for example!." Could it be that our ancestors were actually closer to God in understanding and did not need the intervention of Jesus to save them. But that more recently (2000 yrs ago) we needed that intervention as we were lost to Him. After all, he created us as perfect and it was a downhill slide from there. Damn that apple.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 2, 2008 12:18:11 GMT
Hi Kaz,
I wasn't referring to an 'evolving' religion - rather that God's revelation was progressive, and developed over time.
Well, the people of Israel had a very complex sacrificial system prefiguring Christ. So in a very true sense, Christ's sacrifice was to save all his people of all ages. Even Adam and Eve needed Jesus to bruise the head of the serpent.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 3, 2008 16:29:42 GMT
I don't believe gods exist. Basically, life's a swine (the forum didn't like the word for female dog) and then you die. Even if the universe came into existence as a product of something else's lab experiment it's unlikely they have a detailed role to play in its evolution or the evolution of one of the planets circling one of the 100 billion stars of one of the 100 billion galaxies.
The universe is a fascinating place, but I don't believe it requires any Creator's nudging to have become so fascinating. Indeed, if I were to find that the creator did nudge things along the universe would lose most of its allure; there would no longer be a need to find things out because the possible answer would always be that God might have done it. Just the idea that this can happen would stultify our ability to come up with creative answers to questions.
If ID were true, why did it take 3 billion years for cells to develop a nucleus? Why did it take another 1 billion to create multicellular life? Were the causes of mass extinctions an Act of God? Without them there would have been no space for the evolution of intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by kaidaw on Oct 4, 2008 18:38:52 GMT
Fiver,
"If ID were true, why did it take 3 billion years for cells to develop a nucleus? Why did it take another 1 billion to create multicellular life?"
Maybe the Creator is more patient than you. You have a lot to stuff in 70 years if that is all there is, and then, poof!
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 6, 2008 22:37:30 GMT
Steve,
I know that the existence of God might disincentivize some people to search for scientific truth, but the opposite is also true for some. I am one of the "some", i.e. I am a scientist and have been for a long time before I attained a degree or two that says the same. However, my acknowledgement of God's existence has not slowed my search for scientific (and religious truth), actually the opposite is true. Understanding that God may have had a hand in this wonderful and mysterious Universe that we see all around us has not diminished my sense of wonder in it nor my desire to try to understand it. It has increased my incentive to search. It has actually been a wonderful revelation to understand that the order in the Universe (e.g. the incredibly well balanced basic physical constants of the Universe that allow atoms and stars to be stable and Galaxies to form, as well as the incredibly favored location and composition, etc. of the Earth on which we live, etc., etc.,) may be (I would say, actually is) a consequence of a loving and careful designer. Yes, I will admit that it is partly Faith that incents me to say this. HOWEVER, the "scientific" evidence for a designer of the Universe is pretty strong if you care to look. I encourage/challenge you to read "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel (Zondervand). The sheer number and quality of the evidence (much of it very recent) that the Universe has been and is being designed with people (and living things in general) in mind, is pretty overwhelming (IMO). But I will let you decide that for yourself.
Read it with an open mind, but keep your skepticism and keep asking questions. You may be very surprised what answers you receive!
Good hunting!
Ian
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 7, 2008 12:05:52 GMT
Wylie Ian,
I respect and understand your point of view (to a degree). I would find it easier to accept a creator who designed the firework, lit the touch paper, and stood back and watched. Post-big bang fiddling doesn't do it for me - it implies that the original version was flawed.
I do suspect, though, that we are capable of discovering a reason as to why the universe is so delicately balanced, assuming our civilisation can afford to do the investigation (but we might never work out why the moon and the Sun appear the same size!)
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 7, 2008 15:26:44 GMT
Steve, I am not sure I understand your reasoning that a Creator who is involved in the Universe (and us) after the Big Bang implies that the initial creation was flawed. To me, that is a big leap of logic. To make an analogy for a human creation, if I am sculpting a wonderful statue, the initial choice of stone and tools is important but the strokes and the workmanship that I perform during the sculpting after those initial conditions and choices are also important in terms of the final creation. Furthermore, if I am a sculptor who enjoys what I am doing, and who actually loves the act of creation, then being involved in the process of creating on a long term basis is no reason to suspect that I chose the wrong tools or the wrong type of stone in the first place. Perhaps the opposite of a flawed initial creation is true. Perhaps I NEED to make the right choice of starting conditions AND the correct workmanship as I go along. Both the initial conditions and the work after the beginning of the Creation are essential, with both actions working together to produce a better final Creation. Perhaps I have stretched the metaphor too far. However, there is considerable discussion of this kind of philosophy (and scientific investigation) in Lee Strobel's book: www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=%22the+case+for+the+Creator%22&x=0&y=0I also find it greatly comforting to see considerable evidence of the Designer's hand in the Universe (and in my life) on a continuous basis. Certainly I need a Savior (and a Creator). To have seen my 6 children grow up without any purpose other than making money and "fitting in" to the World would have ripped the heart out of my body. Of course the Miracle of their birth was a good reason to think of more eternal realities as well as to rejoice. Perhaps as we approach our death on this Earth, and with the infirmities of age, we look around and hope that there is Something Else to look forward to. Perhaps that opens our minds to other possibilities than simply the Here and Now. Of course, some would say (as I did in the past), that it is the pressure of this reality that makes people "create their own God" out of desperation. So the Question is, did God create us or do we create him? Both possibilities have some logical support. Other data needs to be found to support one or the other possibility. When I got to that point in my life (at age 34), a good friend challenged me to ask that question very pointedly and with determination. I believe that it is called "Pascal's Wager". Ask if there is a God and if he cares about you (with persistence). See if He answers. If He doesn't you have lost nothing, if He does answer, you have gained everything. May your search for the Truth reveal the answers that you seek, Ian P.S. The book also discusses the common atheistic objections to the "fine tuning" of the Universe (e.g. that there are an infinite number of universes with the vast majority of them being uninhabitable (or unstable) and only 1 that is "tuned" to just the right conditions to allow life to exist. Of course, that is a big number of universes and there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE for multiple universes, HOWEVER, even if there were, what is doing the creating of the infinite number of Universes? What is tuning the various universes to have a range of physical constants? Actually, it is not hard to deduce that a designer of an infinite number of universes is even MORE unimaginably creative than a designer of a single well-tuned universe. It is all there in the book, IMO it is worth a read.)
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 7, 2008 20:50:09 GMT
Wylie, if the physical and biological rules can be changed at a whim then we can no longer trust our logical and scientific abilities. It seems illogical to give us such a gift and then turn it around such that our confidence in the gift is regarded as arrogance when it is found that God can changed the rules. It's just as illogical to reject a finite existence as it is to refuse to accept the possibility of an infinite existence. Just because you and everyone else is going to die doesn't mean that you shouldn't make the best of what you've been given. Sadly, I bet the early formative years of my life on Pascal's wager and regretted doing so. The later formative years were spent discussing many-worlds theories and the weak and strong anthropogenic principles, often over a beer or two it has to be admitted. I think God wanted me to be an atheist
|
|