Originally posted by DesertBerean
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI think you're taking his lighthearted joke about software development/programming essentially being an endeavor in blindly fumbling around in the dark a bit too seriously.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnHermes View PostWhy can't it be immaterial? Gravity is immaterial..I guess that doesn't exist either(According to some "logic" in here). So there's some magical unexplained scientific thing out there holding us down, but no immaterial doesn't' exist, especially the mind! That's LUDICROUS!1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
JohnHermes, as I understand it, your original focus was on the mechanics of the mind/body interaction? I don't really follow the ideas on this subject; as a Christian I believe God created us in His image and thus are distinct from the rest of creation in our makeup.
Tassman was trying to liken us to computers undergoing the natural selection process. Which makes absolutely no sense despite the fact that programs may seem to take on a life of their own! (Again, apologies to tabibito for taking his comments far too seriously) . Computers were no product of random coming together of molecules. He needs to try again.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostJohnHermes, as I understand it, your original focus was on the mechanics of the mind/body interaction? I don't really follow the ideas on this subject; as a Christian I believe God created us in His image and thus are distinct from the rest of creation in our makeup.
Tassman was trying to liken us to computers undergoing the natural selection process. Which makes absolutely no sense despite the fact that programs may seem to take on a life of their own! (Again, apologies to tabibito for taking his comments far too seriously) . Computers were no product of random coming together of molecules. He needs to try again.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-03-2019, 02:55 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNeither are humans a product of random coming together of molecules, nor is anything else in nature. The process of the evolution of life is not the random coming together of molecules. The cause of evolution is the Laws of Nature, and the natural environment of the earth.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course it is. Are you saying that we HAD to evolve as we did? Or even come into being in the first place?
The possible different outcomes in evolution are determined and limited by the Laws of Nature and the natural environment.
Saying the 'random coming together of molecules,' is a problem, because again, the Laws of Nature and the natural environment determine the possible variation in the outcome of natural events.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-03-2019, 05:22 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostOF course not according the scientific view did we have to evolve the way we did. but evolution is not random. Nonetheless randomness nor chance do not have any effect on the outcome. Randomness and chance are simply a layman's non-scientific view of the outcome of cause and effect events when the causes are unknown.
The possible different outcomes in evolution are determined and limited by the Laws of Nature and the natural environment.
Saying the 'random coming together of molecules,' is a problem, because again, the Laws of Nature and the natural environment determine the possible variation in the outcome of natural events.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat makes no sense, because if we did not have to evolve as we did, or at all, then there is randomness involved. And why is there a evolutionary process at all? Did that have to happen?
Evolution takes place by pattern according to the Laws of Nature and the natural environment, and not randomly. Evolution does follow an intelligible pattern. It is possible that our evolution was limited by the laws of nature and environment, as Einstein said, " . . the dice are loaded."
The problem here is you have a layman's religious agenda using layman;s terminology, and still looking for rabbits in the Cambrian rocks based on your assertion that the possibilities in evolution are random.
The evolution of humanity follows a predictable pattern based on the environment of the history of primates. Could there been a different outcome? We do not know.
By definition the outcome of an event may be random, but the overall out come of all cause and effect events form a pattern in evolution controlled by the Laws of Nature and the environment determine the limited range of the outcomes. In fact this pattern is recreated over the whole history of life where animals of repeatedly similar characteristics based on the environment.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-03-2019, 08:34 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
Evolution takes place by pattern according to the Laws of Nature and the natural environment, and not randomly. Evolution does follow an intelligible pattern. It is possible that our evolution was limited by the laws of nature and environment, as Einstein said, " . . the dice are loaded."Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo the fact that we have an evolutionary process in the first place, or humans, or dogs was predictable?
As I explained many times individual event outcomes may be 'random,' but the outcomes over time are constrained by the limits of the Natural Laws, and the environment.
The evolution of dogs was a man made evolution using the same predictive evolutionary processes of natural selection as naturally occur in response to changes in the environment to achieve human goals in dogs.
The history of evolution from the very beginning billions of years ago with abiogenesis represent predictable responses to the environment and changes in the environment over time. Again, being able to predict and confirm by the evidence the gaps in evolution, and the projection of the outcomes of evolution based on the objective verifiable evidence is the basis of a great deal of the basis of the success of the science of evolution.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-04-2019, 10:14 AM.
Comment
-
In other words, Tassman's example of computers was a bad one. Ok.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYes, a great deal of the success of evolution is the ability to predict and confirm the intermediates and the outcomes over time of the evolution of species in response to changing environments. There are of course variations in the outcomes of the natural evolutionary process, but they are constrained by the Laws of Nature and the natural environments. The evidence is clear in the evolution history of life that after the catastrophic events that whipped out most species the evolutionary process diversified life again and species that resulted were predictably similar to fit the the resulting environment.
As I explained many times individual event outcomes may be 'random,' but the outcomes over time are constrained by the limits of the Natural Laws, and the environment.
The evolution of dogs was a man made evolution using the same predictive evolutionary processes of natural selection as naturally occur in response to changes in the environment to achieve human goals in dogs.
The history of evolution from the very beginning billions of years ago with abiogenesis represent predictable responses to the environment and changes in the environment over time. Again, being able to predict and confirm by the evidence the gaps in evolution, and the projection of the outcomes of evolution based on the objective verifiable evidence is the basis of a great deal of the basis of the success of the science of evolution.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
606 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment