h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Bod. What do you think is the more probable: something's coming into existence from nothing, or something's having always existed?

Actually, instead of 'always', I would prefer to say 'eternally' in the sense of being independent of time. Would something like that not be required to bring about time and, indeed, space?

See A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION in 'Mind, Memory, and Archetype Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious' by Rupert Sheldrake @

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Morphic/morphic1_paper.html

better still, read all of it.

The Old Testament is not too strong on rape;

Deuteronomy 21:11
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Deuteronomy 21:12
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Deuteronomy 21:13
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

Deuteronomy 21:14
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

So it's all right to rape her but if you do then you can't sell her as a slave.

Thou salt not kill does not mean thou shalt not kill;

Deuteronomy 21:18
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Deuteronomy 21:19
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

Deuteronomy 21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard.

Deuteronomy 21:21
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Rev. Alji, Wizard of the Red Dragon (Swynwr y Ddraig Goch) SHC/ULC

> To be honest, that's what I believe. It doesn't make any sense to
> me, from beginning to the end.
> ...
> Biology isn't my stock and trade.

Perhaps it would be simpler to withold opinion and the expression of belief about a subject until you are familiar enough with the subject to hold an informed opinion or belief. It's pretty pointless arguing with someone who is holding an opinion based on ignorance and/or misunderstanding (even if the opinion has some validity).

I believe it was Wittgenstein who said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

You're right Higgs. Just, there doesn't seem to be anyone on here that supports the Christian perspective through science. I would like bow out, but I blundered in, and leaving would more or less admit defeat in that area, which I would not want to concede.
Anyways, I will forfeit from the biological sciences, in the fact that I really never studied, or even wanted to study in that area.

As it was said, "Better to hold one's tounge and be thought a fool, than to use it and remove all doubt."

I still, however, believe it more probable that life was created by God, and He created us with a purpose in mind, rather that the only reason for our existance is to die, just another random, meaningless part of the great gamble that the universe seems to be.

<(((><

>> "On what grounds is the judgement made? (not guesswork,
>> obviously)."
>
> Or is it?

Indeed - my 'guesswork' quip was rhetorical sarcasm. It isn't science (or scientists) who have decided the divide between 'life' and 'not life' in this respect, but lawyers, judges, and politicians, based on a minimal appreciation of the science presented. For practical purposes, they felt they had to draw a line somewhere.

Scientists are as divided about the general dividing line between 'life' and 'not life'(prions and viruses are at the boundary, but on which side?), because there is no absolute cut & dried definition of life.

Likewise, the legislators simply pick an arbitrary compromise timeline for the legal definition of life, and when abortion may and may not be permitted.

A similar dilemma and confusion exists concerning the definition of death. The legal and medical criteria are not necessarily the same, and there are many different medical opinions as to when the moment of death occurs, and how it can be determined.

These problems arise because the words themselves are artefacts which only vaguely correspond to the world they attempt to describe. In the real world, there are very few clear separations. There is a continuum between 'live' and 'not alive', and the progression from life to death is also a continuum, a process. Even the apparent distinction between physical objects is typically continuous, with the exchange of atoms and molecules between an object and its environment blurring the edges of its existence.

We like to categorise and pigeonhole the real world for convenience, but is seems all too easy to begin believing that these crude divisions *are* the real world. When black and white religious certainties interact with the real world, these categorisation errors are often thrown into sharp relief, and an examination of the rationale claimed to underlie these certainties about the world generally shows them to be based on such crude categorisation errors. It's mistaking the map for the terrain.

"The only reason I'm Christian now is a long strand of coincidences, from beginning to end, starting about a year and a half ago. And they keep on comings, things that happen so perfectly with what is going on with my life that it is uncanny."

Sorry Myst, it's more common than you think. The Bhagavad Gita, written more than two thousand five hundred years ago says;

'Whosoever desires to worship whatever deity (using whatever name, form, and method) with faith, I make their faith steady in that very deity. Endowed with steady faith they worship that deity, and fulfill their wishes through that deity. Those wishes are, indeed, granted only by Me.'



Rev. Alji, Wizard of the Red Dragon (Swynwr y Ddraig Goch) SHC/ULC

Bod
"(i) flawed imperfect humans coming into existence through a process of evolution

and

(ii) perfect omnipotent etc God coming into existence spontaneously or always existing"

(i)Problem.. Evolution, good theory works as the end result of causal cascade BUT ..... where did evolution begin and where did it's start up components arrive from originally

(ii) 'Spontaneously' and 'always existed' are still measurements of time line. They therefore cannot nor need not be used when describing an event outside of the causal (change and effect) nature of the Universe.

Respect to you for an honest and humble assessment of your contribution - it's a rare gift.

> I still, however, believe it more probable that life was created by
> God

It's hard to judge probabilities on limited evidence. To me that assertion seems tantamount to denying the 'laws' of probability. When you're dealing with Deep Time and events on a molecular scale in a low entropy environment the size of a planet (or thousands of planets if the panspermians are taken seriously), the probability of any chain of possible circumstances ocurring approaches certainty (with the caveat that the result of some chains, e.g. life, may preclude others by significantly modifying the environment).

It's extremely unlikely for an individual to be struck by lightning or win the lottery, but every year it happens to many people (it would not surprise me if somewhere there's a lottery winner who's been struck by lightning). In modern times, most people would not attribute it to a supernatural intervention, but to the 'law of averages' - simple probability in action. This is presumably because we (via the media) regularly hear of these things happening, and we know the mechanisms by which they come about. ITSM when you understand the mechanisms by which something can happen, you are less likely to attribute an occurrence to supernatural intervention.

Matholwch - Very well said!

Hi Blickybadger,

Why thank you kind being .

Please use my words if you think they will be of use .

Hi Toxx,

No. I interpreted the terms to match those being used on this thread so as to maintain some consistency and enhance comprehension. For my next trick......


Blessings both,
Matholwch /|\.

And thank you too Higgs (just lurve that name!).

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Myst. It's my main role on this thread to support the broadly theist perspective through science. You must have myst some of my posts.

Higgs is generally correct, but I see no incompatibility between theism and science. In fact, Higgs is pretty cool (Hi Higgs!) as is anyone who can quote Wittgenstein fairly accurately.

Why can't you accept that time, space, the universe (in its embryonic form) and the laws of nature were created by God and then this resulted in the processes which gave rise to what we now observe? That is perfectly compatible with an intelligent understanding of Christianity and you and Higgs will have no argument!

Toxx, that is the basic Hindu creation myth; Brahma's Cosmic Egg.

See http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/brahma.htm

Alji

Excellent idea!

More like antidote than toxxin, ha ha!

> Why can't you accept that time, space, the universe (in its
> embryonic form) and the laws of nature were created by God and then
> this resulted in the processes which gave rise to what we now
> observe?

I would find this perfectly acceptable, as long as said deity remains 'outside' the boundaries of our physical universe, i.e. that realm that passeth understanding, and takes no further part.

In fact, I would suggest that this is the only sensible modus operandi for any self-respecting creational deity. Set it all up, and leave it to see what happens... no fiddling or you'll spoil it.

However, quite where this leaves the Bible, it's hard to say...

Higgs -

Therein lies the difference between the rockingchair God (The one that doesn't do anything,) and the Puppetmaster God (The one that controls everything.

But I though of it once, like this:

God knows everything, right? Omnipotent. Ok.

So, if God knows everything that's ever going to happen, what if He reverse-engineered everything that He would have to intercede on? Like, the the last HHGTTG book, with the bird thing? Well, what if God had it so that when He made the world, everthing was already in place? All He'd have to do is flip the switch and watch it run, and whenever things got to a point where He'd have to do something, things were already in motion to work... an idle though, in a boring class...

I'd like your opinions on this. Made sence at the time, and still sortof does.

I did...

Avebury???

We must meet. I shall definitely be there.

Tell you what, I'll send you my mobile number, you can decide whether you want to see me or not LOL

Jez - witch and heathen, with druid mates...

Oh, to keep this on topic - why have we got on to abortion/termination? It's back to religion-comparison instead of God/gods/no god existence...

Can one of you theists tell me why you think God bothered to create the universe at all?

Nope! Not a clue!

*Shrugs.*

Rawls argument seems eminently reasonable to me... but as you point out, the guts of it is the question:>>the main difficulty for me is deciding who or what gets to go behind the 'veil of ingnorance' and decide policy. Even future generations can be included in the debate.<<
Thanks for the info!

>>So if we had no proof that the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids would we be correct in assuming they were the work of the Big G? <<
Or aliens, I am not fussed!
No seriously, I have read (laboriously, it's not grippingly interesting) lots of books by people like Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, not to mention von Daniken, who has a nice turn of phrase!