Thats kind of funny since Einstein didnt believe in God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world. - Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. - Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
How about Einstein's famous "God doesn't play dice." . It seems Einstein was strangely inconsistent in his references to God but in any case what Einstein said or didn't say is a side issue here; I made reference to his quote not as an appeal to authority but merely as a means of presenting a concept. The subject of the thread is whether or not extinctions are consistent with the design of the Universe being intelligent. The presupposition of the question is that there is a Design; a Designer is inferred of course but the nature of the Designer isn't the principle point of discussion.
This train of thought is very reasonable. Reason is a superior kind of logic, one that can lead to truth. There is another kind of logic that is not really reasonable because it has preconceived notions about what the outcome, or what the answer must be. This forces the biased logician to use all of it's intelligence to make it's answer fit it's premise. Likewise, this world is built on a premise. It happens to be a false premise. So whatever is going to be built on it is going to be logical, but not reasonable. The premise is "new". It's never been tried before this...never existed before this...still does not exist. If anything is going to be built on this premise, it must be "learned", and the lessons must be believed. In this case, necessity is the mother of invention. The premise itself conjures up a "need"...a sense of urgency, which calls for a solution which is a kind of "salvation". The urgency of the problem calls forth ingenuity. The result is a solution that is ingenious, but false, because it is built entirely on a false premise. Along the way, there is a learning process involving mistakes. The premise itself is a mistake. All attempts to adjust to the premise are therefore mistakes. And the final product is a mistake. One can hardly blame the intelligence, or question it's perfection. It was given a mistake to work with, and gave a mistaken answer. The answer was perfect...albeit, perfectly mistaken. The intelligence "learned" to make a mistake. This implies the intelligence is imperfect and dumb. But how else would the unknown be fleshed out unless it were learned? God is perfect. And he too creates upon premises. Learning and ingenuity are not processes he involves in true creation, because he never creates upon false premises. It's not his "will" to do so. If you look at this world, you can understand why it would not be his will to build on a false premise. He is not cruel. The results of a world built on a false premise can only be described as true or false, wanted or not wanted. To say much more than that simply adds fuel to the fire, adding 'reality' to something that does not really exist...no matter how much ingenuity "proves" it so. And this is why the terms "good" or "evil" are avoided by those attempting to extricate themselves from "the tangled web we weave, when at first we do deceive". God is perfect. When he creates, he gives everything. If you happen to be one of his creations, you are given all power and the unlimited use of an unlimited mind. You would not even be his creation without your consent. Once yours, this mind will give you what you ask for. But if you ask a 'dumb' question, you'll get a 'dumb' answer. This world is the answer to a really dumb question...so dumb you could call it "insane". The question was something like, "What am I?". The question is insane because all of God's creations know what they are, and are certain about it. Therefore, to answer the question incorrectly, the questioner must conjure up a sense of doubt by playing mind games. If the game has never been played before, there is a certain amount of curiosity that initiates it, for it steps into the unknown. Once the question is answered, there is no more curiosity, and the question will never be asked again. And that is why this world will pass away, never to return. Relative to eternity, this world has already passed away. It came and went like a unidentified blip on a radar screen, like a flash in the pan, like a green flash at sunset. A single instant was all it took to make and unmake it. Therefore, everything you see and experience is in the past. It is the answer to a curious question in which the answer was briefly considered something of value. Seen for what it is, it is looked at and let go, like a sea shell you pick up, look at and decide you do not want. There is a very good reason the effects of this curiosity still linger as an experience for what you consider to be 'you'...which is not what you are. It's a sign of respect, that you have not yet satisfied your curiosity regarding the original question, "What am I?" The answer that builds this world goes something like, "I am not my Father's Son." This is the false premise that leads to an urgent sense of need. This answer is fearful. So the world is built out of fear, and remains a fearful place. It is not built to increase fear. It is an ingenious attempt to decrease fear. It is like a defense system, overbuilt to defend against a retaliatory strike that seems ominously inevitable. The experience of war illustrates how, when intelligent minds are given problems to solve with a sense of urgency, it leads to ingenious technological applications...like the internet. These are converted to peaceful, civilized means. But the cold war continues...for those who yet cherish incorrect answers. This world is built by the Son as a defense against a retaliatory strike by his Father. The premise is false. It is not reasonable. There is no "need". The premise requires that the Son deny reality to answer the question. This leads to delusion. The world is the experience of a mind driven mad by guilt. It is not guilty, so there is no need for a defense. Once the truth comes to the mind that makes this world, defense mechanisms are laid down, and the world passes away. But not before swords are turned into plowshares. Everything that was made as a weapon will be converted to the use of undoing what seems to have been done. The body, made for attack, is instead given the purpose of communication. It communicates messages like, "The war is over. We can go home now. There is only peace." This is all to say that the "logic" and the feelings that make this world still pervade it, hidden, just underneath the surface. The breaking of the mind into levels of sub, and deep sub conscious levels has served to hide the insane logic and the awful feelings that make this world. Surface awareness is actually a buffered awareness. It mitigates the sense of urgency and fear this world is built on. Thus, physicality is part of the ingenious solution the intelligent designer came up with. Physicality is a "new" level of mind that serves to sweep the original problem under the rug. The dirt is still there, it just can't be seen while the mind is distracted by surface problems. Physicality, then, maintains the false premise. In other words, it is a house built on the sand. A house built on the sand will need constant maintanance. It requires the services of Stuwards whose logic resembles the logic that builds the world in the first place. If you stop maintaining it, it will fall. If you are interested in building on bedrock, it doesn't matter if the house falls. It can't be saved anyway. Take the time to dig down to bedrock. Ask reasonable questions, and wait for the correct answers. "I don't know" is an excellent method of waiting for the truth to be revealed, that you might build on it. Jesus
Apologies if my last response seemed a little abrupt. Go to www.thinkexist.com and look up Einstein; you'll find 26 pages of Einstein quotes many of which refer affirmatively to God although I don't think he was referring to the any of the Gods worshipped in standard religions.
Considering I started this thread, I will define the terms: Most of those who conjure up an "intelligent designer" are evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who want to sneak in creationism in public schools under the guise of "intelligent design." By "intelligent designer" I am therefore referring to the God that is revealed in the Old and New Testaments, in particular, the first books of Genesis, which contain the creation story (stories). Great discussion, so far, btw.
It's your thread, SS, but you did open it with the words "If there is some intelligent designer..." .
I'm not absolutely sure whether you're being nice here. It is your thread so I think you should have some control over it.. I'll assume that you're being polite and take your post literally. Speaking generally, I think these discussions would be more productive if we posters stuck to the thread topic rather than flying off on our own tangents as we so often do ( myself included ).
Yes, good enough. Let's say it is the opposite of a universe that is shared. The maps are practical and valid only as they rest on the foundation. They are indeed practical, but for this foundation only. If the foundation of this world were seen for what it is, the maps would be temporarily upset. Let me quote from the gospel of Thomas regarding this: "Let him who seeks, not cease seeking until he finds, and when he finds, he will be troubled, and when he has been troubled, he will marvel and he will reign over all.â Regarding the world's reality, let me quote from Leo Tolstoys Letters, "Now our whole life, from birth to death, with all it's dreams, is it not in it's turn also a dream, which we take as the real life, the reality of which we do not doubt only because we do not know of the more real life?" Tech does depend on mental maps. But try to understand that before this world, there was a mental map to a false foundation. The foundation is thought to be absolutely true, no doubt about it. The belief that the world is absolutely solid and real is characteristic of that original belief. Otherwise, the mind would not have wasted itself on reacting to that foundation. The world itself is a kind of technology corresponding to belief maps. Everything takes shape as an effect of these maps. The shape is a symbol of a belief. The shapes may be different. And that points to a belief in differences. The shapes are isolated, one from another, indicating a belief in isolation and separation...etc. Beliefs map to the symbols they produce, and visa versa for the wise. For that matter, all of the events occurring also symbolize beliefs. Beliefs built on a foundation believed to be true also seem true. So they are not seen as beliefs. Instead, they are called "knowledge", or "proof", or "common sense", or "it's obvious". But the only reason anything is "obvious" is because it was first believed in. Seeing is believing. But believing comes first...in a world built on a false foundation. The result is a confusion of cause and effect. Let me quote from the Poet, Essays: Second Series, (1844)... "We are symbols, and inhabit symbols". Symbols are like parables. When I tell a parable, I am attempting to use symbols to point to truth beyond the false belief system that made them. There are many symbols, so there are many parables. A parable that points to truth uses things that don't really exist, to describe what does, for those who think they understand symbols. This is basically a reinterpretation of the world by looking at the symbols differently. This includes the Bible. This is a remapping of the mental maps, and can be upsetting at first. Jesus
An intelligent software engineer rewrites his codes. A dump software engineer also rewrites his codes. You can't observe the behavior (rewriting codes) and determine if he is intelligent. An unintelligent species can behave exactly the same as an intelligent being. A spider need food to survive. You need food to survive. Does it mean a spider has the same IQ as yours? So quoting "similar" or "exact" behavior of some unintelligent species proves nothing imo.