[Profpat]

Hi Greg;

Why doesn't everything evolve into man, which is the final stage of evolution, the image and likeness of God?

Both the theory of evolution and the Bible has steps or stages towards man. And if the stages are 1 celled life to more complex structures or entities, why do we have the diversity of things and life that we observe.

Both the Bible and evolutionary science has vegatation, reptiles, mammals, and finally man, in that order but why?

HMMMM!!

Still thinking.

Pat

[dipayankar]

Plato and Aristotle were in an age where God was the dominating factor. As time passed and human beings started deciphering the Universe more and more, the need for the concept called God is diminishing....

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; That unknown process would still have to be eternal or created. Here are some thoughts of Plato and Aristotle on the subject from Wikipedia: Plato and Aristotle, depicted here in The School of Athens, both developed arguments from a first cause. Plato and Aristotle both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats. Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BCE) posited a basic cosmological argument in The Laws (Book X). He argued that motion in the world and in the cosmos was "imparted motion" that would have required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain the motion.[1] Plato also posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. For Plato, the demiurge lacked the supernatural ability to create ex nihilo or out of nothing. The demiurge was only able to organize the "anake". The anake was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato's cosmogony. Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) also put forth the idea of a first cause, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" or "Unmoved Mover" (the πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον or primus motor) in his work Metaphysics. For Aristotle too, as for Plato, the underlying "stuff" of the universe always was in existence and always would be (which in turn follows Parmenides' famous statement that "nothing can come from nothing"). Aristotle posited an underlying ousia (an essence or substance) of which the universe is composed, and it is the ousia that the Prime Mover organized and set into motion. The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but is instead a Being who constantly thinks about thinking itself, and who organized the cosmos by making matter the object of "aspiration or desire".[2] The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking", an eternal process of pure thought. Best to you, Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Plato and Aristotle were in an age where God was the dominating factor. As time passed and human beings started deciphering the Universe more and more, the need for the concept called God is diminishing....

Hi Dipayankar;

You might want to rethink your above statement:


Though atheists are in the minority in most countries, they are relatively common in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, in former and present Communist states, and, to a lesser extent, in the United States. A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world`s population, and atheists around 3.8% . A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Fact book estimates about 12.5% of the world`s population to be non-religious, and about 2.4% as atheists . Non-religious people should not be equated with atheists as the definition of non-religious persons includes the people who are professing no religion, non-believers, agnostics, freethinkers, dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religions.

It is a surprise that even after six centuries of the exponential growth of the knowledge of science, more than 95% of the people do not deny the existence of God while almost 85% of the world population actually believes in God. It is also a fact that scientific knowledge has hardly made a dent on the popularity of the religions and faith. Even Isaac Newton, the greatest scientists of all times, believed

"As a blind man has no idea of colours, so we have no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things.” Even the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein agreed that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Also you didn't answer is your unknown force created or eternal or something else?


Best

Pat

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Greg; Why doesn't everything evolve into man, which is the final stage of evolution, the image and likeness of God? Both the theory of evolution and the Bible has steps or stages towards man. And if the stages are 1 celled life to more complex structures or entities, why do we have the diversity of things and life that we observe. Both the Bible and evolutionary science has vegatation, reptiles, mammals, and finally man, in that order but why? HMMMM!! Still thinking. Pat

Man has transcended the seven kingdoms and is the penacle of creation.

Each of the lower kingdoms supports the next higher.

Sperm and ovum are by products of all these kingdoms collectively oraganized in bringing forth a human entity into this world.

The breath of awareness is what gives the entity it's vivifying creative force known as life.

The soul enters the entity at the moment of consception.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; You might want to rethink your above statement: Though atheists are in the minority in most countries, they are relatively common in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, in former and present Communist states, and, to a lesser extent, in the United States. A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world`s population, and atheists around 3.8% . A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Fact book estimates about 12.5% of the world`s population to be non-religious, and about 2.4% as atheists . Non-religious people should not be equated with atheists as the definition of non-religious persons includes the people who are professing no religion, non-believers, agnostics, freethinkers, dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religions. It is a surprise that even after six centuries of the exponential growth of the knowledge of science, more than 95% of the people do not deny the existence of God while almost 85% of the world population actually believes in God. It is also a fact that scientific knowledge has hardly made a dent on the popularity of the religions and faith. Even Isaac Newton, the greatest scientists of all times, believed "As a blind man has no idea of colours, so we have no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things.” Even the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein agreed that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Also you didn't answer is your unknown force created or eternal or something else? Best Pat

Sir James Jeans, who made important contributions to the dynamical theory of gases, the mathematical theory of electromagnetism, the evolution of gaseous stars, the nebulae and so on writes:
Today there is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality: the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and govenor of the realm of mater---not, of course, our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown exist as thoughts.

Sir Arthur Eddington, who made impoartant contributions to the theoretical physics of stellar systems and was a leading exponent of realtivity:
The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.

I asset that the nature of all reality is spiritual, not material nor a dualism of matter and spirit. The hypothesis that its nature can be, to any degree, material does not enter into my reconing, because as we now understand matter, the putting together of the sdjective 'material' and the noun 'nature' does not make sense.

[Drifter]

The Nobel Prize winner Erwin Schrodinger, whose work became the heart of modern quantum mechanics, claims:

The overall number of minds is just one. I venture to call it indistructible since it has a peculiar timetable, namely mind is always now.

We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it, we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture.

Sir Arthur Eddington:

If those who hold that there must be a physical basis for everything hold that these mystical views are nonsense, we may ask: What, then, is the physical basis of nonsense?

[Profpat]

" In the Beginning was the Word,.....and the Word was God,....and the word became flesh."John 1.

" And God said 'Let there be light'....Then God said 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'" Genesis 1

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Profpat " In the Beginning was the Word,.....and the Word was God,....and the word became flesh."John 1. " And God said 'Let there be light'....Then God said 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'" Genesis 1

Therapy for a Western Soul

Fundamentalism manifests in many different forms, but it can be summed up in one very simple idea. Sacred scripture is the infallible Word of God. The name 'Fundamentalism' was coined after the publication of a book called The Fundamentals, by a group of conservative American priests in the early twentieth century. The book's central axiom is that everything that the Bible says is true, historical and has literally happened as described. It is not possible to believe anything less and still be a Christian. Viewed in this way Fundamentalism is clearly not new, for this could hardly be described as a novel way of viewing the Bible.

Christian Literalists have taught for centuries that the Bible is literally true. For nearly two millennia the Church controlled every aspect of an individual's life, right down to what they were allowed to think, and justified this with the reference to 'sacred scripture'. As every other way of looking at life had been violently suppressed, there was no alternative to the Christian worldview. There was no way out of the circular thinking that states: 'Everything in this book is true. How do I know? Because it say’s so in the book'.

Prior to the invention of books, in oral cultures traditions underwent subtle subtle changes as they were transmitted, just as in the game of Chinese Whispers. Change was inevitable if only because of the imperfection of human memory. Outdated, inappropriate or irrelevant ideas could be discreetly dropped and new ones incorporated. But with the invention of writing this flexibility was lost. When traditions came to be 'written in stone', they became immutable.

No sooner had humans begun writing than God Himself started publishing. Literalism's big idea was born. God writes books. He might occasionally use a secretary, such as Moses or Muhammad, but nonetheless he likes to communicate with his subjects via the written word. A new genre called 'sacred scriptures' was created. Sacred scriptures are special and off-limits to the kind of criticism that might be applied to any other piece of literature.

Human beings had long known that words were power, but when they invented writing they learnt that the written word can wield power for eternity. Literalist religion is fixated by the written word. Moses came down the mountain with written laws. The Jews are known as the People of the Book. Christianity famously declares, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God'. Muhammad was illiterate, but Allah brought him a written message, and taught him to read and write.

It soon became compulsory for every religion to have its sacred text and they quickly multiplied. As long as people lived inside a hermetically sealed culture, with only one religion and one sacred text, everything was fine. But whenever cultures collided it soon became apparent that there were many different sacred scriptures inspired by many different gods saying a variety of contradictory things. By definition only one of these religions can be the one true religion. But which one?

It is to prevent people from asking questions that the Fundamentalist want to enforce the reading of only their special book. This is an old ploy that has been used by Literalists for millennia. The Roman Church made huge bonfires of pagan libraries and destroyed works of 'heretics' who had the audacity to challenge them. It continued to use Latin for centuries after it ceased to be the language of the people to ensure that no one spotted the inconsistencies with which the Bible is riddled. To guarantee that the Church's interpretation of the Bible would not be questioned it was made illegal for anyone but clergy to read it. Any layperson caught in possession of a Bible was executed.

It was only after the Protestant Reformation that the Bible was translated into the common tongue, due to the heroic struggle of brave individuals who faced torture and execution for their efforts. The foundation stone of the Reformation was the right of all men and women to read the Bible in their own language. The outcome was exactly what the Church had feared. When people began to study the texts for themselves the idea that the Bile was the infallible Word of God became increasingly questioned, Now, after three centuries of careful scholarship, it has become obvious that the Bible is actually just another eclectic, contradictory and quirky piece od archaic literature.

It is time to break the spell of the written word. Sacred texts re meant to be just the media, but with Literalism the media has become the message. These so called 'sacred scriptures are dangerous documents that have held us under their thrall for too long. Devotion to a book is simply another form of idolatry. These books are not the Word of God, they are words of men, and often men with a patently political agenda. It is time we woke up from the nightmare of Literalism, and even some within the Christian Church are beginning to admit as much. The Reverend John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark, writes:

I look at the authority of the scriptures as one who has been both nurtured by and then disillusioned with the literal Bible. My devotion to the Bible was so intense that it lead me into a study that finally obliterated any possibility that the Bible could be related to on a literal basis.
. . . A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship.

[Profpat]

While I may use the word I too much, you my friend are far to windy.

Everything above could have been stated by you as " You shouldn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible"

Which most of us would agree with.

It's like quoting from the Tao or Gita. That doesn't mean you are a fundamentalist about Taoism or Hinduism.

So lighten up on the preaching and you'll be far more effective.

Best,

Pat

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Well Pat .... at least you said 'idea'. What about all the other species, flora, fauna and arkea ... whose likeness did he create them in ? Are they original masterpieces and we are just copies ??? Pale shadows of the originals ?? cool banans .. greg

Right on Greg,

The universe is the painter, and all thing are original paintings of the universe.

=
MJA