View Full Version : Why do people think that God is a man?
If god is the ultimate state of existence
in the universe, then why would god be
a man?
If God created the universe, then why
would God be a man?
Why would God even be a human at all?
-Dan
--------------------------------------
All that I'm asking is for a simple
answer to a simple question...
...actually, I know the answer. I'm just
seeing how many people are going to
reply.
:)
Actually, the Jewish tradition explicitly states that God does not have a defined form, nor can it be classified using earthly concepts. Christians broke with that tradition in declaring Christ to be the embodiment of God, and ever since they have been using the concept of the human, male Son to also depict the Father and the Holy Ghost. IMHO, portraying or even imagining their God as a man is just another form of idol worship, making Christians into first-grade hypocrites.
Me, I don't even believe in God, abstract or concrete, to begin with. Such belief gives only an illusion of resolution; in actuality it raises more questions than it answers.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
pretty much,
that's what I've been stating all along:
That God is not a man.
My posting was to find out the reasons
why people thought so.
-Dan
Dan, I told you the answer last night you idiot! God is reffered to a man only because people are reffering to the physical self of God which is jesus, not the Non Physical God. If people were reffering to the non Physical God, then they would can it, "IT" instead of "HE"
-Rob
Normally I would say people think God is male because they have no imagination. But I didn't drop out of college for nothing:
Several traditions have mythic stories regarding a transition of power from the goddess to the god. In addition to the abysmal "Adam and Eve" tale, I recall that Jomo Kenyatta, in "Facing Mount Kenya" recounted in myth how the men of African tribal societies seized power after the women, who had previously held power, became decadent and despotic.
More realistically, I read a theory in an Anthropology textbook (Anth 173, not that deep a class) that there is a correspondence between the knowledge of sexual reproduction and the rise of the male pantheon. Australian tribes cited in old journals held a tradition that the wind brought women children, and these specific tribes worshipped fertility goddesses.
There's something there, I think. Religion has always held some political significance. Ancient empires often viewed their rulers as divine entities. The Roman popes could unseat monarchs, and vice versa in Henry's Church of England. Manifest Destiny, a truly American heritage, drew its validity from Christian perspective. In its earliest form, I think the link between superstition--or religion--and authority measured value in species propagation. Men worshipped women because they held the key to life. When men realized they were a necessary part of the life equation . . . well, their significance just notched up one or two points, eh?
Once the creaton dichotomy was reconciled, the focus could become more immediate, and leaders derived authority from lack of resistance. The men ran the societies, hence the gods were born in their creators' images.
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
generalhurrss
08-15-99, 08:12 PM
And god went to say:
"Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness"
That's just plain B.S.
God is not a man, end of story.
-Dan
Matt D Skeptic
08-16-99, 12:02 PM
Oh Xeno, you are truly wise in the ways of the world. "I know the answer, but I want to see how many of you do". You must be very learned indeed. Are you God by any chance or perhaps you have met? I would certainly like you two to meet. I am asking because of the great knowledge and respect you have for all things, especially people who are obviously less old than you and more naive.
I couldn't care less what you think since I have no desire to live for your approval.
Is it surprising that throughout the Bible, Koran and other monotheist texts that when the word "HE" refers to GOD then silly little people, uninitiated in the path of Xeno and knowledge of all ways, think ooh, that must mean He and so must mean God. He - God, God - He.....mmmmmm I wonder. God in His wisdom, He created man in His own image.....mmmm indeed.
God cannot have a sex because pure energy on the 10th dimension does not allow genitals. Viz a viz, God is a cooked asexual lettuce, without sex and without form. Case closed. Ofcourse. How simple...
If the monotheist religous texts refer to He they must surely have ALL made a mistake. I am sorry, but where does it state that God is asexual and for that matter in the 10th dimension possibly to the left of the star trek videos and your acne treatment?
------------------
You know it to be so
Matt D Skeptic
08-16-99, 12:10 PM
Tiassa,
Forgive me but which hollywood film was that? I take it you were referring to Henry VII? He (an yes Xeno, He was a He) did not dethrone a pope.
However, I agree organised religion equates political power. Especially in the backwards usa.
------------------
You know it to be so
Matt,
I cannot understand how you can picture
God to be a man.
let me explain:
----------------------------------------
Dang it, the theory of everything has
come along. Now i'll have to work
even harder to convince people.
Anyway, if you want to go think that
God is a man, go ahead. I'm not going
to say anything. Those are your views.
Seeing God is a mere form of perception.
Sight and perception are things that
are within the boundaries of the
physical, thus they are 3rd dimensional.
I'm sorry Matt, but you are one among
many people that think that way.
I do not try to perceive god. I attempt
to know God and what God is; that
itself is what christians are supposed
to do.
As for the theory of everything, I
find it hard to believe. I find it hard
to believe that strings (parallels,
or whatever they are) make up dimensions
which make up the universe. it is
interesting, but just because it is
doesn't mean its true. Some of it
is true in some sense, but I find
many holes in it.
In the theory, it is stated that God
exists in the 10th dimension as a
being of pure energy. I agree in
somewhat to that statement, but have
to disagree on other terms.
God is a being of Pure essence,
not [/b]pure energy[/b].
In 4th dimension thinking, God is
something that exists in a higher
dimension that the one we are in now,
but not in the 10th dimension.
God is the State of Infinity.
Now, ask yourself this. What is the
state of infinity???
Don't know?
Let me shed some light on that.
God is another definition for the
state of infinity. Infinity is the
ultimate state of existence in the
universe. To be in infinity is to exist
in all realities, all dimensions, all
time, all space, and as everything
that is, has been, and will soon come
to be.
By saying that God is a being, you
are only classifying God as an object;
that itself is a state lower than
infinity and that is one reason why
I say the theory of everything is somewhat
flawed and self-centered around the
3rd dimension.
Actually, let me correct myself. The
theory of everything is 4th dimension
thinking, not 3rd.
-Dan
Matt D Skeptic
08-16-99, 07:11 PM
So let us recap...Dimensions 1-10 are what exactly?
Dimensions 1-4: Say, a small glass of sherry or a tipple of wine after sunday lunch?
Dimensions 5-7: 5-9 beers or 2-3 joints?
Dimension 10: Hey look, I can spell a 3 syllable word word aren't I the clever one. Let me show it off by repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over.......again hey mum, want to see?
Oh, sorry. That must 8th dimensional thinking: person, place, time, space and talking complete arse.
I do understand you really I do. Perhaps I can prescribe you something.
------------------
You know it to be so
Xeno, just a few little things:
the string theory says absolutely nothing about God. Not to mention that it is only one of a possible infinity of GUTs, and most probably is not the final one anyway. As for the "10th dimension" -- it arises only out of a supersymmetry hypothesis which might even be false (seeing how it takes its root in the Standard Model, to begin with).
And all this treating time as if it was a dimension sounds flaky. Sure, we can picture ourselves as 'moving forward' along time, but calling time a dimension sounds like much more of a mathematical convenience than a true depiction. For example, all rivers flow downstream -- but 'downstream' is not a dimension; it is merely a direction. You can't travel back and forth in 'downstream'. So what makes anyone think one can travel back and forth in time? (Or, in technospeak, travel back and forth in entropy?)
Timetravel was sort of legitimized with Einstein's relativity -- but especially from a modern viewpoint it is clear that relativity theories are incomplete. So all this talk about time being a 'dimension' sounds increasingly like hogwash to me. Which, of course, would also demolish the concept of an entity existing 'simultaneously' in all time. (Sorry!)
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
generalhurrss
08-16-99, 08:46 PM
Xeno,
You have proven one thing here - You know f**k all about the bible, the holy scriptures which is inspired by god, so therefore how can you preach what you know nothing about. I suggest you read the book and rethink your answers.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt and all I can say is that you are not the intellect I perceived you to be, you are just another freak led by your own misgivings and you have no answers worthy of any considerstion.
Matt D--
I'm seeking where in my post I cited a Hollywood film. I'm afraid I don't understand that part of your reply.
As to Henry, I'm referring to the mechanism within the Anglican Church which allows the Crown to appoint and remove the Bishop of Canterbury.
That help any?
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Boris,
Jesus, as the Son of God led the Christians, or followers of Christ.
The Jews refused to believe he was the Messiah, just a great prophet - so are to this day awaiting the arrival of their Messiah. Christians work on the Holy Trinity,..the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Christians have to believe that God is in the form of a human because "we were made in his likeness". If they didn't, it would confuse things greatly..how can you say Jesus is the Son of Man but God didn't make us in his likeness....you get the picture. As to idolizing God because he is depicted as being in the form of a Man, wasn't the second Commandment about not making an idol in the form of anything... meaning a statue of the Rain God or Sun God or God of Fertility etc. etc.?? To worship God as you may see him in your mind may therefore not be Idolitory or hypocritical. These are not facts, I'm just trying to gain a better insight about it all without upsetting anyone.
Xeno,
God isn't a man, correct!- He is God. But what does God look like? What form is this force, or being, or substance in? According to the Man, Himself, He looks alot like the people here he created.
Kind Regards,
dave.
General Hurrss,
I do no some bit of the bible, but not
as much as you probably do. The bible
has many good points and important
things that should never be overlooked.
Basically the story of genesis goes
like this:
In the beginning, God created the
earth and all living things on it.
God said let there be light, and ther
was and God said let there be life
and there was. God created the first
man, who came to be called Adam and
from him came Eve, the first women.
Together, they lived in the garden
of Eden all happy and healthy.
Time passed and they commited their
first sin by temptation of the devil
and since they were no longer pure,
they were cast out of the garden.
From there on, they lived out there
lives and created the entire human
race.
Am I right, or am I wrong.
Another thing: where does it state in
the bible that God walked among us
and talked to us. I believe that you
are referring to Jesus Christ. This
is true is it not? When people say
that God is a man, or refer to "he,"
they are refering to Jesus.
-Dan
Boris,
My perception of this superstring theory
is probably wacked here. My skepticism
towards the theory was brought on
by someone who had stated it in his
own views in a topic called
"the connection between science and
god (or religion; something like that).
Please write up the theory on here
since the impression I had was that
it had holes to some extend. Even
Tuskin who is wise sees it as something
that has holes.
About God: Why the 10th dimension?
Why must God exist in the 10th dimension?
What of the other ones between the
4th and 10th - are they there to fill
a gap. I saw no discription given at
all to describe their pure significance.
Tuskin probably has some good points
to conterdict the theory. However,
he's busy with other things so it'll
probably be a while until he gets back
on here if he ever does. Another thing
is that he went by the name of
Pisk on here. He wrote up
a skeptic post on aliens that no one
so far has disproven in any form or
any way.
I'll end my arguments on the matter of
the theory here.
As for time, I believe it to be an
illusion. In reality, time is only
a measurement, brought on by human
conscience thinking and human memory.
-Dan
Dave,
God is beyond infinity; beyond anything
we can comprehend or muster to think
of. God exists outside the universe,
so is impossible for us to understand
what God really has. If a form of
God exists within that which has
been created, then it is only an image;
a false representive of that which
is. Infinity is the ultimate state of
existence within the boundaries of
the universe. That would mean that if
God is beyond infinity, God cannot
be infinity.
------------------------------------------
So far, I this is my conclusion on the
levels of existence there are:
1) The 3rd dimension:
This may be the beginning of
our states of existence, or
a state beyond that which we
were last in.
2) The 4th dimension:
This is just a generalization,
but I like to think of this
state as not one, but many;
all states of existence that
come after the physical.
3) The 5th dimension:
This is the state of infinity;
a state that which we will
never truly reach.
4) The existence of God
Whatever lays beyond Infinity
is where God is.
I would call this the 6th
dimension, but dimensions are
things that exist within the
universe.
-Dan
Dave:
What makes it so hard to imagine that we (humans) in fact look nothing like God (if it exists)? Or are you a Bible literalist and a fanatic to boot, and would go so far as to declare every last comma of the book to be literally God's writing?
Here's a few little dilemmas for the literalists. You see, we humans vary greatly in appearance. So which particular race is it that most closely resembles God? But if you are not racist, or sexist, or ageist, you must state that all humanity roughly resembles God. However, such a claim takes away the clarity of "God's image" -- since now God must look like a raceless, ageless, genderless, average, faceless, featureless humanoid. But then if you are going to abstract this far, you might as well include the rest of the ape species into the "God's image" umbrella. Which would incidentally also include the human precursors such as Neanderthals and Australopithecines.
Now, from geological record and evolutionary science, it is clear as day that neither the earth, nor its inhabitant species, were created overnight. Rather, they emerged gradually, and this transmutation process is ongoing even now. Which makes one wonder why the particular present human form is the one that most resembles God. In a few million years, our descendants will look nothing like us (and probably will not be entirely biological) -- but they will certainly be more advanced, intellectually and 'spiritually' alike. Would they have transcended God in their image?
So, perhaps the "God's image" clause is allegorical, and has nothing to do with the outward appearance or body factor, but with the 'soul' that inhabits the body. (I don't believe in souls, by the way, but I am donning the mask of a believer for the sake of this argument.) Modern science has equated the soul to the brain, however, and has been able to analyze the 'mind' into components. Which puts a funny spin on the "God's image" dilemma: just what components of the human mind are more God-like than the analogous components of the mind of a chimpanzee? And even more audaciously, one might suppose that other intelligent life exists in the universe which evolved independently and does not share our biochemistry or body factors, and has a mind completely unlike human. The various minds that would exist could be as different as a modern jet is from a flying bird, and yet share the same fundamental function (thought, perception, consciousness -- just as the bird and the jet share the ability to fly).
So, in light of a modern, wider perspective on the universe, just what does it mean for humans to be made in "God's image"? Could such a claim stem not from a divine source, but from a human sage, who undertook a lofty goal of trying to make his fellows respect each other a little more?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Xeno,
Lay off a bit on dimensions, ok it sounds pretty cool but you can't just go about and place what ever meaning to it that you want. You are 15 you say so that makes you what, a freshman ? You should have had some Trigonomitry by now, haven't they teached you that the triagles that you studied are two dimensional figures ? With a length and a heigth ? You should have seen the Cartesian axes to coördinate the entire plane, these make use of two orthogonal vectors who are the unit vectors of the plane. If you put an other vector orthogonal on top of these, it would be orthogonal on your paper, you have an additional dimension. A fourth vector, orthogonal on the previous three adds a fourth dimension and so on. The problem is that we have a hard time imagining a vector standing orthognal to three other orthogonal vectors at the same time. Mathematically there is no problem at all to visualise it and make calculations with it : suppose A,B and C are orthogonal meaning : A.B = 0, A.C= 0 and B.C=0 then we simply define a fourth vector D which has the property : A.D=B.D=C.D=0 You will find it no problem to extend this argument to N dimensions with N being any natural number.
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
Matt D Skeptic
08-17-99, 05:38 PM
Xeno, you really are a small mindless child aren't you. Can't write, can't
spell and can't even come up with orignal ideas / theories:
Ever heard of Michio Kaku? I think you have. It is quite blatently
transparent a huge proportion of your postings have swiped his findings /
research has mysteriously appered on your postings -and then you insist
that you understand them and pass them off as your own?
Anyone interested should try some of these posts. You may recognise some
of it. I apologise for the space this post takes up and since I have only
just gone online, I also apologise for not yet knowing how to paste links.
I am but human, not a pure incandescent 10th dimensional asexual energy
spike. Sorry.
http://www.dnai.com/~zap/zeropoint/essayone.txt
<A HREF="http://www.maximus.dircon.co.uk/
" TARGET=_blank>http://www.maximus.dircon.co.uk/
</A> <A HREF="http://www.greenleafpublications.com/stdlist_hl.html
" TARGET=_blank>www.greenleafpublications.com/stdlist_hl.html
</A> <A HREF="http://www.meru.org/science.html
" TARGET=_blank>www.meru.org/science.html
</A> <A HREF="http://www.wbaifree.org/explorations/mk-artcl.html
" TARGET=_blank>www.wbaifree.org/explorations/mk-artcl.html
</A> <A HREF="http://www.dorsai.org/~mkaku/mk-artcl.html
" TARGET=_blank>www.dorsai.org/~mkaku/mk-artcl.html
</A> <A HREF="http://www.flash.net/~csmith0/hyper.htm
" TARGET=_blank>www.flash.net/~csmith0/hyper.htm
</A> <A HREF="http://www.khouse.org/articles/update/hyperspace.html
" TARGET=_blank>www.khouse.org/articles/update/hyperspace.html
</A> <A HREF="http://www.salemctr.com/newage/snac21.html
" TARGET=_blank>http://www.salemctr.com/newage/snac21.html
</A>
Alternatively, you could go to one of your facourite search engines and
type either of the follwing: Xeno's plagiarism home page /
Unable-to-think-for-oneself.com / I'm-cleaning-my-teeth.mum /
I-got-an-"A"-at-1hand.typing.com / Pass-thetissues.com
------------------
You know it to be so
Matt,
My views are my own. If you're saying
that I took someone else's views and
made them my own, you're wrong
Besides, all you do is the same thing
over and over again. You do nothing
but B.S. me; what's the point in that?
You have nothing good to say and are
making a complete idiot out of yourself.
I'm mindless? You're mindless; you
keep repeating yourself over and over
again (same basic idea only with
different words).
--------------------------------------
As for the dimensions views:
I should change them of perspectives
or levels of thinking.
As for the dimensions of existence:
I should just change their names
to states. I think it would sound
better that way.
------------------------------------
Anyay, I feel that I'm terribly
misunderstood on here. Putting thoughts
into words can be hard sometimes
if what you're trying to explain is
really, really, really complex.
-Dan
Matt D Skeptic
08-18-99, 06:41 AM
Whatever,if it makes you feel special. Kiss, kiss.
------------------
You know it to be so
bedlanam
08-19-99, 06:49 AM
"god created man in his own likeness" -
could be a description of giving birth -creation over the course of evolution -
as in the lineage of man (our roots)
generalhurrss
08-19-99, 10:17 PM
Xeno,
if you are a mere fifteen you have a lot to learn in life.
Genesis chapter 18 verse 1
Afterward Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mam're
Genesis chapter 18 verse 22
At this point the men turned from there and got on their way to Sod'om; but as for Jehovah, he was still standing before Abraham.
The evidence is there for you to see.
Do not twist the truth, do not twist the words. What is written is written.
All believers read the holy scriptures with a mind so small they fail to comprehend anything except for their narrow-mindedness.
Read the words over and over as they are not as you want them to be, then you will understand the bible and realise that god is not what he is portrayed to be by the religious cult. Religion knows nothing about any god because it lacks comprehension.
Boris,
"These are not facts, I'm just trying to gain a better insight about it all without upsetting anyone."
I'm not a literal fanatic.....sorry if you missed the above line in my post. :)
Kind regards,
dave.
Bedlanam . . . .
When I was a kid I learned a little trick you could do with a pencil, paper, and a single six-sided gaming die.
* Make an equilateral triangle, marking only the vertices. Label each one accordingly so that the die values are all included [(1,2) (3,4) (5,6), essentially). Place the pen inside the triangle. Anywhere you like.
* Roll the die, draw a line segment one-half the distance from your present point to the indicated vertex. Repeat many, many, many times.
If you use a computer, you see that after millions of applications, the process spells out a pattern of triangles inside the larger unit. The best expression of this I ever heard was that if you contain chaos, it will resemble its constraints.
We are all products of the universe. There is nothing in our composition that does not exist elsewhere in the universe. Nothing we think or believe can exceed the universe; thus, thoughts of the "end" of the universe only address the next milestone in our perception of nature. Your brain, containing a finite number of cells is, actually limited, though the limit occurs outside our comfortable reality. There is, then, a finite combination of things your brain can accomplish or think or otherwise. It seems that nothing that brain thinks can be impossible if we simply work hard enough to get through or around the obstacles.
We are all products of this universe; we are all made in its reflection. Life is not extraneous. Humans would not appear as they do, act as they do, or perceive as they do, had it not some grander purpose in the equation.
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
ISDAMan
08-23-99, 02:55 PM
People think that God is one sex or the other because of confusion. God made us in His likeness and made us male and female. He assigned some of His attributes to men and some to women. He is referred to in the masculine because those attributes as the head were given to men. Those attributes as a helper, the very same ones through which came our Savior, the Lord, Jesus Christ were given to women. Both are of God. God is Perfect. Neither aspect of attributes is less in value.
You may contact me personally at isda@gte.net
Isdaman,
Know what I think??? I think it all goes
back to the "men" writing the bible!!!
They wanted glory..so they tried to take
it away from women!! Just like Paul who
said that women should be silent in chruch!
Why is that??? Because he was threatend by
them!!!!!!!! Again, another good example.
Doesn't it say that all should go into all
the world and teach the good news??????
Ha!! I smell a fish!!!!!
ISDAMan
08-27-99, 09:24 PM
Flash,
Where are my examples? I've asked you twice now for three detailed claims of imperfection. I e-mailed you for the list of 100. There has been no response save complaints from you that I'm not doing things the way you want. I've also noticed that you have begun to single out Lori. Flash, if you are so strong in your faith that there is no faith to be had other than science or what ever it is that you place your faith in ( It's in something!!! ), try picking on me. Forget Lori. I'm calling you out! I doubt that you have ever read the Bible cover to cover even once. I doubt that you have ever even done any research on any alleged Bible contradictions. You are simply rehashing the same old lies that have been fed to you. Somehow, you seem to think that pushing around others makes you STRONG. I wonder how soft you are face to face,... you and all your talk of weakness!!!! You have no clue what true strength is. True strength is allowing yourself to be nailed to a cross to pay for someone else's sins. True strength is standing up and professing your faith in the midst of a world that mocks and scorns you. Flash, prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!
------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).
ISDAMan
08-29-99, 08:44 AM
Flash,
Have you overlooked how God has used women. Profets, teachers, comforters, leaders, the mother of our Savior and on and on and on. There are roles. It's just like hands and feet. You tell me the one it's better to have. Feel free to cut off the other.
------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).
bedlanam
08-29-99, 05:39 PM
tiassa,
do you accept evolution? before there were trees, there were microbes. do you believe in free will ?
Just for interest sake, if one looks into the Aramaic translations in their truest translation, not the Greek or English, one of the words Jesus used to describe the love God held for human kind was like that of, abba, or a father, in the Aramaic.
Jesus was not saying that God IS a man or even male-like, but rather, the love that is God, is like the love father holds for his child.
Protective, generous, compassionate.
No gender, in the Aramaic, is given to God as literal.
This again is a misperception/interpretation of the translations and an example of seeminlgy endless inaccuracies be they accidental or intentional.
Of course I hold with evolution. And I believe in Free Will insofar as humanity has expressed it, but I think the whole issue is moot in the end.
Nature does not seem particularly extraneous. I think it is fair to sing the praises of human development; two arms, two legs, five digits each ... were our form not ideally suited for our environment, we would not be such a powerfully manipulative force on the Earth. But we have a finite number of brain cells, and therefore a finite combination of conditions within the brain. Adjust as many external variables as you may, and you still come up with a finite number. Evolution is, in its grander, analogous aspect, nothing more than a computer program running a complex equation over and over again. A species rises, undergoes any number of variations according to the conditions of its environment, and either flourishes or dies. "Scenario complete, let's move on . . . " as such. If the goal of this universe were to achieve a certain condition, a version of its living stasis; and were life merely another form of stars, planets, and empty space, then humans are merely a catalogue of this balance playing out, shifting and adjusting toward the "perfect" aspect, be it a balance of matter and energy, or anything else.
All of this to say that yes, I think Free Will exists; but, yes, I think Free Will is inherently mathematically limited; but, yes, I think that limit describes a number so large that the limiting aspect is moot.
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
bedlanam
08-30-99, 03:27 PM
" I think Free Will is inherently mathematically limited; but, yes, I
think that limit describes a number so large that the limiting aspect is
moot."
do u believe that free will can work in tandem with evolution ? / possibility ...
Bedlanam--
Free Will in tandem with evolution? I have to ask for a clarification here, but the aspects of the question I'm capable of seeing point to "yes."
Let me say that part of my difficulty may lie in my perception of Free Will. I view the notion of Free Will as being a relationship between a specific individual and their surrounding, living community. Free Will affects immediate choice, which is a byproduct of increased brain mass: e.g. Where in the evolutionary past, we might have coveted one's possessions out of necessity--survival of the fittest--we now base such decisions on arbitrary ideas, such as envy.
In this sense, the immediacy of the decision exercised via Free Will has little direct impact on evolution: whether I choose to go to this grocery store or another is Free Will; whether I engage this person in sexual relations or not is an arrangement of Free Will. But the impact of these choices has little to do with evolution in the long run, though I admit that statement is a bit hasty in view of chaos theory or other mathematical wonderlands.
I should also mention that yes, immediate Free Will can affect the evolutionary overview, but it won't change evolution itself. To launch a nuclear missile or unleash a bioweapon is a Free Will choice by at least one person which could ultimately erase humanity from the evolutionary process. But this, like the extinction of the dinosaurs, is merely another facet of evolution.
Lastly, I don't think Free Will, in general, has much of an affect on the human relationship to the evolutionary process. A sum total of a given period's human decisions certainly might affect that relationship, but "evolution", like "God" and "universe", is a word that is so large as to include itself, however paradoxical that sounds. Thus, while one person cannot "will" evolution during a natural lifetime,a concerted effort to change the fundamental nature of the human structure could, over time, cause a definitive evolution.
Even if we evolve right out of the universe, it's still evolution.
I've tried to restrict myself to an aspect of Free Will that is immediate and tangible; I'm sure that at some point, I've missed the point. Let me know if I'm close to a proper, arguable answer to the question; I'd be happy to take it from a better angle.
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
bedlanam
08-31-99, 05:25 AM
tiassa,
though your approach is not the implication of what i have posted, the principals are in place. as we are part of this universe and we have achieved a 'certain' level of intelligence and as we have free will, we are 'capeable' beings. as many have posted, we have the right to our 'beliefs'. suppose (as is the case) all beliefs are not truth, yet some (perhaps many) are - and of this, action yields to reality. what i mean is that we can create a computer program and then apply it, and of course the results will fall within the 'constraints' of the initial programming. the program was based off of 'current' knowledge, of course there is more to be known. what would seem like the end of the line could very well be the beginning of the refined perspective. in matters of belief, we could liken each to a brick, as we can 'build' models of our world thru our beliefs - we then abstract in order to reason. is it a matter of will - that we may choose to build a wall, a path, or a temple from the core of our beliefs... free will to recognize truth and embrace it, or continue the illusion of our anticipations. the ideal is such a dear sentiment. acceptance is rare.
Forgive me, but I'm lost. Actually, it's not the manner of your reply; rather, I think I understand a good deal of it and can't see anything with which I would directly argue.
I'm curious about the evolutionary aspect... I read it a number of ways through the 8/31 post. Most significantly, in your computer-program assessment, and likening belief to bricks. But I can't pin down how to approach the evolutionary aspect. Are we dealing with a biological evolution? Social or spiritual or intellectual? Or are they one and the same and I just missed that part?
Or am I just frustratingly obtuse? Your question ... evolution/Free Will ... it's at the heart of a philosophical question I'm wrangling with: if humanity has the power to affect the course of its evolution--such as our intellects empower us--have we a moral obligation to attend our posterity and ensure humanity's place in the longer term of the universe? For instance, I wrote somewhere in my 8/30 post that "...if we evolve right out of the universe, it's still evolution." Do we have an obligation to guard our station in the evolutionary process? Do we have an obligation to regard our species' posterity in our acts of will?
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Tiassa:
Do we have an obligation to guard our station in the evolutionary process? Do we have an obligation to regard our species' posterity in our acts of will?
Well, from an evolutionary standpoint, we certainly do have such an obligation. One way to look at it is through 'selfish genes': it is our duty as a species to ensure that our particular genetic endowment persists and flourishes through time. Another way is through survival of the fittest: through our intellect, we are definitely one of the most versatile and 'fittest' species out there; it would be a shame if such versatility was lost from the universe. But ultimately, if one views life as accretion of information, we are at the avantguarde of that process (at least within our stellar neighbourhood). As such leaders and guardians of knowledge, it is our duty to safeguard this information -- it is our duty as living creatures. In this view, we should definitely do everything possible to ensure viability of our progeny.
There is another interesting aspect to free will/evolution. In addition to the random genetic drifts and subsequent natural selection, life on Earth has evolved, through our species, a second mode of advancement: artificial evolution. For example, we now almost have the knowledge, and the tools, to genetically engineer our own progeny. Soon, in addition to that we will have the knowledge and tools to cybernetically enhance ourselves. Then the question becomes: is it our obligation to shy away from artificial evolution and leave the process to chance, or is it in fact our obligation to utilize the new-found capability of life on Earth, and accelerate evolution artificially?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
In the coming centuries the human living conditions will dramatically improve, I'm guessing, and some form of democratic government will evolve for evry country. Ugly political situations that hold populations in bondage will slowly disappear. We will clean up our planet. And we will come to live in true harmony with our neighbors. In the coming centuries the whole worlds population will see themselves as unique beings at the very top of the all the life forms. We are not controlled by invisible beings, we are free. What we need is each other. It's only evolutionary!
I suppose that we will learn to create atmospheres on some planets, and introduce life forms there that will evolve too over the millennia. It isn't hard for me to believe that this type of intelligent prime mover played a part in our human evolution. And that this super long distance plans for the spread of life (and intelligent life) may become a pressing human concern.
ISDAMan
08-31-99, 10:33 PM
2 + 2,
I know it's hard to accept but, Star Treck was just a tv show.
Peace, Love, and Preyers
ISDAMan
------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).
[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited August 31, 1999).]
Boris: I'm actually killing time at work, so I need to be kind of brief; more later, when I have better time to consider the whole of your answer. But I did want to throw an issue up for you--"artificial" evolution.
In the end, will it matter how humanity "evolves"? If we look beyond biology, there are electrical processes taking place, an exchange and balance of energy in its various atomic forms. From that standpoint, artificial evolution is merely evolution.
That's what I meant when I wrote, somewhere in those posts, that "evolution" is a word so large as to include itself. When all is said and done, and humanity lists its attributes, the advances will be regarded as evolution (although for dumber reasons ... Americans, at least, would hate to consider that their polymer parts are any different from their flesh parts, from any perspective.)
Furthermore, we've learned from industrial research--pharmaceutical, especially--that not all progress is good. Long-term effects of various drugs eventually crushed the positive aspects of their immediate application. What if evolution, determined inasmuch as humanity can determine it, has the same effect?
If a new microbe shows up and wipes out humanity, that's progress. If we artificially manipulate ourselves for immediate concerns--strength, agility, beauty, posterity, homogony--it is entirely possible that the evolutionary course we assume will lead to human extinction.
Thus I am to turn the question back to you: What concerns do we have if we act on our obligation to utilize newfound evolutionary technology? The first pop-culture "evolutions" will be artificial limbs, organs, or otherwise for vanity sake. (Note the "pop-culture", as I assert nothing about prosthetics or other useful applications of such technology.) What if those changes are all it takes to give that next predator a foothold on human extinction?
More later, I promise. And it will have received greater attention then.
thx,
Tiassa
------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
I'm back. The person nobody wishes to
hear from has finally returned.
Well... not quite. I got school to
think about, and I've gotten kinda
bored, so I won't be on here really
that much.
----------------------------------------
So, this discussion's turned into
something no more than a silly debate
over evolution? I could have expected
this; once again religion and science
are fighting...
Evolution is fact, it exists. It has
always existed since the dawn of life,
exists in the world today, and will
continue to exist past your own lifetimes
for billions of years.
Its nothing truly much to think about.
All evolution is, is a process that
allows species to develope. Evolution
is basically the result of decisions,
and actions generated by thought.
All evolution really means is to be
born, to live, to grow, to learn,
to adapt, to reproduce, and progress.
bedlanam
09-01-99, 04:34 AM
tiassa,
what i mean by the 8/31 post - in relation to evolution - is that consciuosness precipitates possibility. we know the brain has evolved, only now we are also more aware than any other (known) period. we have considerations of our potential. our own abstract expectations have a way to manifest.
perhaps even to the extent of our own 'rules' . what is the next period of brain evolution to be... what has our accumulated knowledge got to do with any of it?... and what of ree will ?... could we consider evolution to be natures own innate intelligence implimented in the quest to survive? are we a race without challenge (regardless of what some might think)? we have become quite a horde on this planet and many have a great deal on their minds - what might be the significance of this upon our brain as it develops with every bit of new information? we are a colony with the capacity of utilizing our intelligence, perhaps new social/behavioral studies can show something. what do most believe and what do most perceive about their universe and, in relation, how do most relate to who/what they are. by recognizing the past, we gain the future.
Xeno,
although you are a selfish little brad I kind of grew some simpathy for you. You 're blind faith in science is almost cute and I should support it cause I also believe firmly in the scientific method.
There is a difference here, science works through people and they can make mistakes, it is only through the on going interaction of these people in their various fields that piece by piece the mysteries of our universe are discovered. This means that no matter how much you have accomplished as a scientist, you never can be really sure you have discovered the ultimate truth. You can only hope that your theory is the best one fitting the facts.
Also something that you will have to learn to accept is that some questions just lie beyond the scientific method, these are the existential and metaphysical questions. They are there so people have found many different answers. Since these answers are not verifiable they each have the same truth value, meaning you can't just go about telling people that they are wrong and only you have the right answers. Still I find it good for you that you have taken up the search, that is the only right thing to do!
P.S. good luck at school...
------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton
[This message has been edited by Plato (edited September 01, 1999).]
Plato,
errr, umm... I guess you're right.
I do go about telling people what they
should believe in and when they go to
say something *BOOM* - there I go
again blabbing on and on...
I guess that's what people find so
annoying about me isn't it. I'll just
be more of an observer from now on.
By the way, just because I say something
doesn't mean that its wrong or untrue.
Its all a matter of using the right
descriptions and sentencing I guess.
About religion: I continue to revise
what I believe in. I have different
views now than I did a month ago.
Its nice to believe in something and
that's what makes all of us unique.
I've noticed lately that science has
been trying to explain spirituality
and religion using the "theory of everything."
I'd like to comment that not everything
can be explained by science and there
are some things that should not try
to be explained by science. I understand
the fact that the very purpose of science
is understanding, but some things go
beyond that level.
The physical and spiritual are two
different things. Much how the moon
differs from the earth. Notice how
many people decades before the lunar
landing used earthly concepts to depict
the appearence of the moon. I find
that science has been doing much the
same for spirituality. Using such terms
as "superstrings" and "parallels,"
science has been trying to paint a
picture in people's heads that the
universe and its 10 densities are
wireframed in a 4th or 5th dimensional
perspective.
Xeno,
<justify>I had to laugh loudly at your opening remark....that was quite funny!
Could you do me a favour and stop hitting the return button while typing until you are ready to start a new paragraph??? Fear not, the post will look quite normal when you submit it.</justify>
Chat soon,
Dave.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.