Evolution or creative design? ...Or Static Universe Theory?

I was watching the Colbert Report a few weeks ago, and he had a guest whose name I wish I could remember, but they spoke of the argument that could be made for any object, even as simple as a cardboard box, for both evolution and creative design.

It is logically sound that the cardboard box was created. Clearly, some human someday had the idea to make a box out of a cheaper, easier to produce material than lumber.

But if that human himself was just a product of evolution, did the evolution create the human that then created the box? If so, could you say that evolution created the box?

I say, the answer is neither. The cardboard box has always been. The potential knowledge of the cardboard box has always existed, along with the initial creative force that put evolution in motion and built the cardboard box. I call this force God. And so in a round about way, the meaning of life is a cardboard box.

This makes me joyous.

I say, the answer is neither. The cardboard box has always been. The potential knowledge of the cardboard box has always existed, along with the initial creative force that put evolution in motion and built the cardboard box. I call this force God. And so in a round about way, the meaning of life is a cardboard box.

This made me smile

Originally posted by SpiritofEnoch
I was watching the Colbert Report a few weeks ago, and he had a guest whose name I wish I could remember, but they spoke of the argument that could be made for any object, even as simple as a cardboard box, for both evolution and creative design.
It is logically sound that the cardboard box was created. Clearly, some human someday had the idea to make a box out of a cheaper, easier to produce material than lumber.
But if that human himself was just a product of evolution, did the evolution create the human that then created the box? If so, could you say that evolution created the box?
I say, the answer is neither. The cardboard box has always been. The potential knowledge of the cardboard box has always existed, along with the initial creative force that put evolution in motion and built the cardboard box. I call this force God. And so in a round about way, the meaning of life is a cardboard box.
This makes me joyous.

Why not think of the human as a symetrically balanced byproduct of both evolution and creative design acting together as force "potencial"? There is no one or the other. What does the cardboard box typify if it was always there; allowing something to act upon it. Pandoras Box opening would be a more accurate description of the cardboard box likely outcomes. Is the meaning life locked inside of the box or outside. What all of this reminds me of is the Coca-Cola Bottle falling out of sky and landing in New Guinea; the natives thought it was a sign from God and deifyied it as a "relic". All fun.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


For me it's more like sleeping in one.

I would have loved to have been one of the people who found the bottle! Until the fighting started. Lol

reply to post by SpiritofEnoch

I say, the answer is neither. The cardboard box has always been. The potential knowledge of the cardboard box has always existed, along with the initial creative force that put evolution in motion and built the cardboard box. I call this force God. And so in a round about way, the meaning of life is a cardboard box.

Sorry, but someone beat you to the idea. About 2,500 years ago, in fact

A form is an abstract property or quality. Take any property of an object; separate it from that object and consider it by itself, and you are contemplating a form. For example, if you separate the roundness of a basketball from its color, its weight, etc. and consider just roundness by itself, you are thinking of the from of roundness. Plato held that this property existed apart from the basketball, in a different mode of existence than the basketball. The form is not just the idea of roundness you have in your mind. It exists independently of the basketball and independently of whether someone thinks of it. All round objects, not just this basketball, participate or copy this same form of roundness.

In order to see exactly what a form is and how it differs from a material object, we need to look at the first two of the properties that characterize the forms. The forms are transcendent. This means that they do not exist in space and time. A material object, a basketball, exists at a particular place at a particular time. A form, roundness, does not exist at any place or time. The forms exist, or subsist, in a different way. This is especially important because it explains why the forms are unchanging. A form such as roundness will never change; it does not even exist in time. It is the same at all times or places in which it might be instantiated. A form does not exist in space in that it can be instantiated in many places at once and need not be instantiated anywhere in order for the form to exist. The form of roundness can be found in many particular spatial locations, and even if all round objects were destroyed, the property of roundness would still exist.

The forms are also pure. This means that they are pure properties separated from all other properties. A material object, such as a basketball, has many properties: roundness, ballness, orangeness, elasticity, etc. These are all put together to make up this individual basketball. A form is just one of these properties, existing by itself apart from space and time. Roundness is just pure roundness, without any other properties mixed in. The forms differ from material objects, then, in that they are transcendent and pure, while material objects are complex conglomerations of properties located in space and time. (Plato's Theory of Forms)

Saint Augustine speculated that, when you grasp the concept of the form, and you can clearly see a material object's form, you are looking into the mind of God.

reply to post by adjensen


That's cool. I didn't want credit for it. I just wanted to share.

reply to post by adjensen

I think that's a different philosophical argument, whereas this one was about first/last causes in evolutionary development. .

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by adjensen

 

I think that's a different philosophical argument, whereas this one was about first/last causes in evolutionary development. .

Perhaps, though the point of the forms is that they are eternal -- so there are no evolutionary causes, it's more a matter of a new material form emerging from a previously material one. It's a "non-random" implementation of evolution, in that sense.

reply to post by adjensen


Taken together any and every form is possible when all forms arise from the infinite absolute and eternal formless potential of the Godhead = art.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by adjensen

 

Taken together any and every form is possible when all forms arise from the infinite absolute and eternal formless potential of the Godhead = art.

Yep, that's pretty much the gist of it.

Really confuses the heck out of people who don't understand it, though. I got into a lengthy argument with someone a while back when I tried to explain how the form of a cat is eternal

reply to post by adjensen

If it's a form and it's here now then it's eternal since everything and every form has arisen in and from eternity whether a person believes in the big bang or no.

Rene Descartes also offers an interesting take on the idea of perception of any form, that however limited it may be according to sense perception, it (our own perception of it) first proves the existence of an absolute objective reality (something real must be there), which to exist must also be held in a perceptual domain i.e.: the mind of God.

Modern quantum physics then validates this deduction with the idea of the tangled hierarchy where "to be is to be perceived".

All roads lead to God it would appear.

It sure feels good to blast away at all the ignorance - I don't care how mad people get.. (they often get mad when confused).

Cat is a nice form, I like cats.

Best Regards,

NAM

Benoit Mandelbrot, Mitchell Feigenbaum have the equations for fatal attractors chaos theory and the memory of shape recognition and how it relates to our perception. All perception of an object depends upon your point of view (how far away are you from it, when does it loose its distinctive characteristics and why?)

Originally posted by SpiritofEnoch
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

For me it's more like sleeping in one.

I would have loved to have been one of the people who found the bottle! Until the fighting started. Lol

To encourage infighting; another day an Orange Crush bottle, then a Dr. Pepper, then a Pepsi Cola, 7UP, Grape Nehi, Royal Crown, Sobe drinks, then the energy 5s. Monster.... If enough fell like hail stones theyd return to their huts and would (sensibly) have to think about what God is trying to tell them (open a bottling plant and get out of the stone age).