Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Viveka
I am more of a Hindu like you than a Buddhist. I like Buddhism for its psychology and philosophy and I pair that with a belief in God. Even the Buddha said that one can go to an afterlife as the God Brahma. It really depends on people's Views and Samadhi. I fear that Nirvana wouldn't be a state of happiness but simply a release from the round of birth and death, which I find repugnant if it is not a union with God. I don't agree with the universe being cyclic simply because i believe it to be infinite in space and time and matter. If a kalpa is the beginning and ending of a universe, I would think God likes to laugh and dance because it wouldn't make sense that a serious God would create just to destroy and create again and put people through reincarnation only to meet with her again. Then again, the Archetype of a God that Laughs and Dances invites absurdity and purposelessness, although I guess God can laugh because she is blissful and empty. I find it very difficult to believe in a God that laughs, but I'm trying the idea out.

I’d like to clarify a few things so as not to give the wrong impression. I do not believe in a personal god and am not a Hindu. I could be considered a budding esoteric Christian or a Christian Platonist. I lean towards Plotinus’ description of God as ONE beyond the limitations of time and space. Creation limited by time and space is within the pure consciousness of the ONE so is considered the body of god. The ONE IS while creation carries out the process of existence. Isness and process are not the same

It is reasonable to ask what I AM means. If I is pure consciousness why is AM necessary? It is a difficult question to do justice to. I accept it in a simplified way by saying that pure consciousness or ONE must manifest potentials or they will be lost. "I AM" as it concerns the Source is the unity of no-thing (conscious potential) and every-thing or the continual actualization of potentials. The universal process is a lawful means for doing so.

These ideas are very old and really little known in modern secular society. I will post a simple link not to be read but so as to prove I’m not making this all up. It raises the question if Man has the potential for conscious evolution. Can the essence of man continue to evolve beyond the mechanical evolution that produced the human organism into a greater quality of being?

https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-ch ... h-fathers/

The world is against the transition from mechanical evolution into conscious evolution. Take the question of sex and all the misunderstanding that are rampant about it for example. Even modern psychology is aware that rape isn’t a sex crime but rather a crime of violence. What is not understood is that sex energy in modern society is directed to intensify cravings created by negative emotions. Sex isn’t the problem but rather the socially promoted misuse of sex energy creating a lust for imagination which completely negates conscious awareness. The only people aware of these things are involved with the esoteric paths of the great traditions and these are a small minority.

The universe as I understand it is a necessary creation. The question isn’t how it serves me but how I can better serve universal purpose by opening to conscious awareness.

I have to share and experience which shows my lack of conscious awareness. As usual Simone Weil punctures my ego. She wrote in Literature and Morality:
“Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvellous, intoxicating. Therefore "imaginative literature" is either boring or immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art— and only genius can do that.”
So what do I experience of objective good and evil and how much am I attached to imaginary concepts? So much for conscious awareness.

I think collectively we underestimate our ignorance and the importance of the Socratic axiom of what it means to “know thyself.” That is why this artificial division between science and religion, facts and objective values, has intensified over a time. Can our species survive this absurdity?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

Arguments against Irreducible Complexity in Intelligent Design and their failures

This is how the arguments go: Behe finds out that something is Irreducibly Complex(heretofore called IC). Then evolutionists say 'no way! it's this and this that COULD have happened and this and this being POSSIBLE means that IC is wrong.' Of course, they don't demonstrate intermediates in fossils or produce solid evidence, but just say 'well this and this means this, therefore Evolution COULD have done so.' In fact, they all create varying scenarios for a single demonstration of IC! Who's to say which scenario is correct without solid experimental or empirical evidence?
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:01 pm
From your first link:

"Can we know for sure that this is how blood clotting (or any other biochemical system) evolved? The strict answer, of course, is we cannot. The best we can hope from our vertebrate ancestors are fossils that preserve bits and pieces of their form and structure, and it might seem that their biochemistry would be lost forever. But that's not quite true. Today's organisms are the descendents of that biological (and biochemical) past, and they provide a perfect opportunity to test these ideas."

Like I said, they make up hypothetical scenarios based upon evolutionary past schemes and then claim that IC is wrong. A true intermediate would be in the process of making blood clotting from the entire cascade.


For your second link:


"It has been proposed that the flagellum originated from a protein export system. Over time, this system might have been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament. An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor. Rotating any asymmetrical filament would propel a cell and give it a huge advantage over non-motile bacteria even before more spiral filaments evolved."

"Without a time machine it may never be possible to prove that this is how the flagellum evolved."

In other words, they do NOT have a intermediate of the flagellum as in the middle of the process of 'building' a flagellum or else we would have proven IC wrong completely. Instead they offer speculation based upon 'past' non-intermediate mechanisms and the variety of flagellums.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by uwot »

Viveka wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:54 pmI find it very difficult to believe in a God that laughs, but I'm trying the idea out.
Yeah but...
Viveka wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:36 pmIn other words, they do NOT have a intermediate of the flagellum as in the middle of the process of 'building' a flagellum or else we would have proven IC wrong completely. Instead they offer speculation based upon 'past' non-intermediate mechanisms and the variety of flagellums.
...if you can take the idea that god would announce her existence, by putting an outboard motor on a bacterium seriously, you have to admit she has a sense of humour.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

uwot wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:16 pm
Viveka wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:54 pmI find it very difficult to believe in a God that laughs, but I'm trying the idea out.
Yeah but...
Viveka wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:36 pmIn other words, they do NOT have a intermediate of the flagellum as in the middle of the process of 'building' a flagellum or else we would have proven IC wrong completely. Instead they offer speculation based upon 'past' non-intermediate mechanisms and the variety of flagellums.
...if you can take the idea that god would announce her existence, by putting an outboard motor on a bacterium seriously, you have to admit she has a sense of humour.
I have sussed out the details of laughter and why it occurs and why a Praeternatural being would laugh if it were to create the universe. :) It is definitely something I believe in now.
Post Reply