A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). This is exactly what evolution is and a it's pretty good and stable theory as well. Leading scientists also happen to refer to it as "Evolution Theory" or the "Theory of Evolution." The existence of what we refer to as fossils is fact. The interpretation of what this means is theory. Quite simply, I am not full of shit and you are wrong.
Mr. Bits, Actually, leading scientists refer to it in fullness as the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". No leading scientist will ever tell you that evolution is a theory. Did creatures evolve? Yes, this is a fact. How did they evolve? We have a theory called "Natural Selection". Quite simply, you are wrong and are once again, full of shit.
Ok... so "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". Emphasis on Theory... Geez. When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact. We cannot have observed the evolution of life on this earth, though much evidence points to such an occurence. As we do not have a complete irrefutable record of the evolution of life on this planet, Evolution is still, currently, Theory.
So your saying that evolution is JUST a theory ? Do you have a clue that is the meaning of ''theory'' ?
Apparently, me and superluminal have had a rift in terminology (most likely my fault) that I only just discovered. In any case that's besides the point that I was trying to keep this thread on topic (and have failed utterly)
My limited scientific knowledge has led me to refer to Evolutionary theory as "Evolution" and my annoyance at superluminal has led me to misread his remarks and make typical argumentative errors Now can we talk about the topic of "Does God Think?"
Therefore an omniscient God does not think, right? Ok. But what does a God do then? I mean, it seems and all knowing omnipotent being will have nothing to do then.
To get back to what Varda was trying to say, hypothetically… “If the thought is a process for manipulating information with the objective of making decisions, solving problems, forming concepts etc; and god is omniscient, so he doesn't need to think. Does that make sense?” * Without conscious thought there is nothing. As humans we are bound to this reality. Apart from dreamless sleep, we are continuously more or less aware. If god does not need to think, what is the point of god? I suppose an omniscient being could be thinking all possible thoughts simultaneously. A sort of super awareness, or quantum awareness. I think this type of awareness would be outside our comprehension. Perhaps the closest we can get to this state, is zen meditation where zazen (no mind) is achieved. But this is still a conscious process of reducing awareness. Damn this human box!
So, rather than thinking, God innately understands and is aware of all things in their entiroety (including the known universe) and rather than this being a sort of stasis, it's actually an active phenomenon. Taking a step further: is the entire universe a daydream in god's consciousness?
Isn't that just basically slapping the label of 'god' onto the laws that govern the universe? It just is, it doesn't think. It reacts.
yeah, the whole limiting factor of the very question is thepremise of te patriarchal mythic notion of a transcendental 'God' who is 'logical' and tus -for the patriarchs-MALE! ask question from such a loaded position and its just a game u areplayin with our own self-imposed, culturally-indonctrinated concepts rather see that , for example, the body. how it forms. this isn't linear poit to point 'hinking' as we have been led it to mean. how we operate 'logically' in science etc.....or take a tree, or rock, or any 'thing'. it isn't 'logically made' like from some blueprint. its process is not onlyits own phemena but is totally interelated wth the whole environment including universe whatr man's 'logic' as tried to do isproject it limited idea of logic onto his idea of a super-version of himself. and from there assumed this super being must 'think' like he does but 'he' doesn't even KNOW te ddeper part of himsef--the unconscious. and/or how he is subjective so asking this from sch a superficial perspective can only give limited answers, witin the loop/boundary of the limited asing really, relity is beyond the grasp of any definite 'rational'- SOLE perspective....its much more slippery than that
I can take it another step: Is this universe a 'cell' in God's body? A nucleus? A proton? Is God as faulty as we are? If we're made in it's image it must be.
I had a conversation with God just the other day... I asked if there was a burrito microwaved so hot, that even He Himself could not eat it. He definetly thought about that one for a while, and then called me an idiot and banished me.
