The 'evidence' we are created by intelligent design

Originally posted by aaaiii
Good and evil, yin and yang, positive and negative exist for a reason. Balance in nature.

There is a Creator. Balance is His way of ensuring that no one force overcomes the whole to destroy the system and terminate what is, whether it be a game or a matrix or a dream state.

Good and evil also serve to test us to determine our worthiness to continue in our present state, spirit or flesh or both. Our presence or absence affects the system as a whole. For our presence or absence there is a separate but equal presence or absence. Think of it as matter and anti-matter.

Ever hear of a concept called Survival? It is the driving impetus behind everything that happens. The primordial existential imperative is as follows (essentially) - If something exists, it is driven to maintain its existence until it becomes impossible for it to continue to exist.

That may seem really simplistic, but in quantum physics we see it playing out as the lowly action quantum contributes its holon presence to the chain of action holon (the event trajectory), and from there, the emergence of the redundant trajectory (an orbit is a good example), and from there, the matrixing of such trajectories develops into what we've deemed to be particles, or material existence (matter). And by pitching in, each holon extends its survival in much the same way that a rich man "survives" his own mortal lifespan when he donates a wing to his college Alma Mater. It's about Identity survival - which is the primordial definition of survival (meaning that this definition transcends the limitations of corporeal existence and includes all applications of the concept of survival)

Evil doesn't actually exist. It's a concept that we, as sentient beings, have invented to quickly describe that which competes directly with us for survival. Generally, we use it to disparage whoever or whatever it is that we've determined to be an immediate threat to our own individual survival. Our Special Forces heroes are as evil as Nazi shock troops in the eyes of the people that they're trained to kill. That means that evil is not an objective reality. It's an interpretation of the relationship between competing parties that are each trying to pursue their own interpretation of what it means to achieve survival. Yes, that interpretation can be extremely distorted, and that's why some people go to such extremes to achieve it.

The system is sophisticated. One need only look at the minutiae involved in something like the food chain. The microscopic is eaten by the small fish which is eaten by the large fish which is eaten by man who brings the cycle full circle by farming plants and animals, which are nurtured with various byproducts of the chain itself.

The food chain is a really good example of the survival imperative, and how one's participation within that chain can instruct ones view of what it is that exists as evil within a specific theater of competition. If you're dinner, then the diner - to you - is clearly evil. And yet, you're likely the only one who might see it that way.

The sheer complexity of the universe argues for its inception and maintenance by an intelligent force.

Actually, it's the sheer complexity of the universe that immediately debunks the idea that an intelligent force created it. Look into contextual precedence and ramification theory, and you'll be floored by how witheringly intricate physical structure gets when left to its own progressive development. The symmetry and balance is where you realize that it is 100% causal and not at all connected to the whims of a sentient mind. Even the anomalies clear up when you pull back from your point of view far enough to take in the largest whole that exists.

Even if there was an intelligent initiator, it would be brilliant enough to know that it doesn't have to design any of it to have it progress properly. It would also be brilliant enough to know that if it meddled with any of it, it would be imprisoning itself as a janitor forever just to maintain the results of its own need to stick its fingers in and fiddle with things. I'd prefer to see a god entity as being a lot smarter than that, myself.

Animal instinct is in place for that purpose. But man is spiritually higher, possessing free-will, conscience and the ability to articulate. The entire premise of the *fall* of Adam was that he put his animalistic desire ahead of his faith in one wrong choice of free-will. It's exactly this part within our DNA that we are all here to correct and thereby ascend back into the perfect Adamic state, by reinforcing our faith in what is Said to us - and not rely on fear or survival instincts.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Ever hear of a concept called Survival? It is the driving impetus behind everything that happens. The primordial existential imperative is as follows (essentially) - If something exists, it is driven to maintain its existence until it becomes impossible for it to continue to exist.

reply to post by NorEaster

Your post describes the world from YOUR perspective. My post describes the world from MY perspective.

I was once like you ~ cold, clinical, cynical.

Then I got very sick and my vision cleared.

Yours will too, in time.

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Your post describes the world from YOUR perspective. My post describes the world from MY perspective.

I was once like you ~ cold, clinical, cynical.

Then I got very sick and my vision cleared.

Yours will too, in time.

Reality is reality. Imagination is not reality. Perspective is not reality.

Even if my "vision clears", it won't affect what's real.

And you have no idea who I am, so lay off trying to suggest that you were ever anything like me. In fact, I was once very much like you until my "vision cleared" and I put away my childish way of perceiving reality as being God's little indulgence. So, how's that?

I can actually prove my assertions. All I have to do is point to a simple strand of DNA. Ta da! The truth is inescapable. You should try reading instead of writing.

No amount of time will change the fact of how physical reality exists and progressively develops. Hell, even if I have a stroke and my brain starts forcing me to worship insect gods, reality itself won't be affected by it. I will be, but nothing else will change.

Originally posted by rootbranch2012
Animal instinct is in place for that purpose. But man is spiritually higher, possessing free-will, conscience and the ability to articulate. The entire premise of the *fall* of Adam was that he put his animalistic desire ahead of his faith in one wrong choice of free-will. It's exactly this part within our DNA that we are all here to correct and thereby ascend back into the perfect Adamic state, by reinforcing our faith in what is Said to us - and not rely on fear or survival instincts.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Ever hear of a concept called Survival? It is the driving impetus behind everything that happens. The primordial existential imperative is as follows (essentially) - If something exists, it is driven to maintain its existence until it becomes impossible for it to continue to exist.

The human mind is an ongoing blend of corporeal DNA directives (instinctive survival) and the larger survival concerns of the Intellect itself. Still, it's all about survival, when all is said and done. Just like all animals, the Homo Sapiens hominid contains survival directives within the DNA, even if a few idiot biologists declare those directives to be "junk DNA" because they don't determine height, body type, hair color and other fundamental structural attributes. We enter the world with a basic suite of survival skills (crying, laughing, suckling, swimming, swallowing, shivering, sweating, among other fundamentals) and as we develop, other DNA directives switch on to push each of us forward as members of a species (the sex drive is a pretty good example), as is the natural urge to protect one's progeny.

This isn't breakthrough knowledge. This is the most basic stuff you should know about being a human being. It floors me that there are people in the modern industrialized world who simply choose to dismiss what the human race has struggled for centuries to understand and establish as the foundations of reality. Maybe it's just that the Internet exposes just how many people there are who either don't have the capacity to know, or don't have the desire to accept what has been repeatedly proven to be true about themselves and the world they live in? I don;t know. To me, it's breathtaking.

reply to post by NorEaster

Does the word "ugly" ring a bell? It should.

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Does the word "ugly" ring a bell? It should.

Not really sure what you're trying to suggest. I didn't make reality what it is. Honestly. I had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Does the word "ugly" ring a bell? It should.

I have to agree with you on this one. Ugly certainly describes it. Ill go a bit further, arrogance.

Just my Humble opinion, mind you.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Does the word "ugly" ring a bell? It should.

I have to agree with you on this one. Ugly certainly describes it. Ill go a bit further, arrogance.

Just my Humble opinion, mind you.

Again. What did I say that can't be backed up by plenty of sources? Seriously. I didn't tell you that you'd grow out of your ignorance. Did I? That person did tell me that I would someday grow out of my ignorance. And here, you're calling me ugly and arrogant. Why? Because I have a point of view that contests yours and I chose to present it without suggesting that reality can be freely chosen by anyone who wishes to do so?

This is very weird. My view isn't dependent on upsetting anyone. It's the result of a lot of very disciplined research. It certainly isn't affected by anyone's hurt feelings. Reality is what it is.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


The case for free will is pretty weak both philosophically and scientifically at this point.

By the way both dolphins and chimpanzees have been known to kill for non-survival reasons. Chimps have even been known to invade territory controlled by other chimps and fashion crude spears (essentially tribal warfare). There are very few things that set us apart from other animals, it isn't hard to see how this could have evolved.

reply to post by NorEaster


Your view point is not in question here, your personal comment was uncalled for. I will back up your point of view, but I will not back up your carelessness when you throw personal insults. So, how is that.

We are not here for you to be amused by our humanity. You have any? Anything in there that resembles compassion? Your intelligence is quite obvious.

A video just for you.

reply to post by aaaiii


What do you find ugly about honesty?

Personally, it's the will and ability to remain ignorant I find "ugly" about you wishful folk. The way you approach life with such gross and unacknowledged naiveté is astounding. Yes, there's holes in every thought, but the way you fill it with whatever ideas fit your mindset at the time is pure self-deception.

The philosopher must try to see what is, not what he want to see. If you are relatively young as a philosopher, yet you keep growing, learning and are honest with yourself, you will eventually hit forks in the road that will lead you to cold and dangerous paths you don't want to go, but nonetheless you will keep travelling.

– LesMis

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Chimpanzes have been observed to hunt an kill smaller monkeys for food.Chimps have also been observed to murder other chimps...Very close reletives of ours......Are you saying because humans are capable of evil an murder there must be intelegent design behind our existance?If you are an you seem to be I dont follow your logic.

reply to post by Wonderer2012



The concept of right and wrong is very much a part of everyday life for the lower species. In the hierarchy of a pride of lions (or any predator species), if a lion of lower status tries to eat part of a kill before those of a higher status, he is punished, chased off. He is taught just how wrong it is to eat out of pecking order.

In any species that lives within a society (chimps for example) there are rules. And, the youngsters of these societies are not born with these rules. They must be taught what is right and wrong within their group.

However, even if nothing is found in nature along these lines, the connection you try to make between the concept of right and wrong and the possibility of a creator is invalid. One does not prove the other.

It's like saying that because we know how to build houses, this is proof of a god. No, all of the houses prove that we know how to build houses. There is no logical leap into another dimension of spirits and angels and a creator.

Because we know right from wrong only proves that the human animal is capable of complex thought.

Good And Evil = Light And Dark

How Dont You Get It Yet?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Well, since "good" and "evil" are relative terms established through abstract thought process of the human brain, and since there is no philosophical or scientific argument for Free-will, I guess the rest of this thread must be just as 'evidential', huh?

Have a good one, partner.

reply to post by Wonderer2012



the entire basis of your OP is "good vs evil". that very concept is so laden with religious dogma that it makes it almost difficult to read objectively.

Good and evil are perceptive. they are objective descriptions assigned to various things. often, what one person calls evil, another will call good.

what you describe in animals is a simple risk aversion at play. for a lion to get a meal, it has to fight another animal to the death. there is lots of risk involved. a snake wants to save its venom, a precious commodity. so it won't strike needlessly. this is a simple risk aversion at play, drivng what you want to perceive as "good" behavior (nevermind that it is actually "neutral" behavior, as good is an active state, not killing something is a passive state....neutral).

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Your view point is not in question here, your personal comment was uncalled for. I will back up your point of view, but I will not back up your carelessness when you throw personal insults. So, how is that.

Okay. Please enlighten me concerning this insult. Seriously. I have no idea what you're referring to.

We are not here for you to be amused by our humanity. You have any? Anything in there that resembles compassion? Your intelligence is quite obvious.

Believe me, you haven't amused me in the least. In fact, I'm very confused as to what your issue is with me, beyond the obvious disagreement we have over whether reality can be explained by way of natural progressive development or whether it requires a micro-manager who suffers from an extreme case of OCD for it to function.

A video just for you.

Thanks, but I don't "get" this either. How is your saying goodbye to me (I'm assuming that I've got the message of the song right) giving me a second chance? In 20 minutes I won't even remember your board name. For all I know, you've said goodbye to me dozens of times over the last 2.7 years. I think you may have me confused with someone else that you've had conflicts with. I've tried to make sure that my avatar is memorable enough to prevent that sort of confusion from happening here, but that's not a foolproof strategy either.

I took a good look at my behavior in this thread, and I'm really at a loss over how I overstepped any boundaries of conduct. I'd apologize, but I have no idea what I'd be apologizing for.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
We are not here for you to be amused by our humanity.

For what its worth, i find amusement in other people being human. I see humans as just another primate, when i am viewing them from the outside looking in. Then i have to remember: i am one of those primates, too. And that forces me to make myself start trying to act like a human again. But it generally sucks, to be honest, having to keep up all those phony airs so as to not castrate myself socially or professionally. So I smile, and pretend to be interested. Or I laugh at the unfunny. Or I show concern for the willfully morose. Then I grimace at the recollection that my primate behavior is actually amusing to me. I am on the other side of the glass.

For what its worth, NorEaster is speaking good information. I am a believer in a deity, and I still support every single thing NorEaster has posted in this thread. There wasn't anything ugly in there. He just avoided the human primate need to not be blunt and honest.

Originally posted by NorEaster


I took a good look at my behavior in this thread, and I'm really at a loss over how I overstepped any boundaries of conduct. I'd apologize, but I have no idea what I'd be apologizing for.

it looks to me like you would apologize their someone's cognitive dissonance.

Or the villagers are just simply taking up pitchforks and torches.