Mind's Eye Re: The evolution of god

Nah!

On Aug 18, 2:58 pm, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The following is an essay I would like to start a discussion on. It is
> based on a YouTube video in my series of simplifying various topics. You
> can see the video athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9YdYiqggsA
>
> A summary of the idea is as follows:
>
>    - Energy and matter spontaneously formed without cause according to the
>    presently held quantum theory.
>    - Matter evolved to form stable atoms while Energy evolved to form
>    stable patterns.
>    - The stable patterns of energy evolved to form thoughts of all
>    possibilities.
>    - Thoughts evolved to intelligence.
>    - Intelligence evolved to manipulate atoms to form basic life.
>    - Basic life evolved to form complex life.
>    - Complex life evolved to form thinking life.
>
> The text of the video is below.
>
> God evolved to create life and allowed life to evolve into man.
>
> Science and religion are like mass and energy or like life and death. They
> are opposite sides of the same coin. While science proposes that life
> evolved by random chance, religion claims that it was created by
> intelligent design. Both points of view are driven by faith, a desire to
> believe in either scientific theories or religious dogmas as currently
> accepted and taught by recognized experts in their own narrow fields of
> expertise.
>
> Truth of knowledge, like beauty and like good and evil is in the eyes of
> the beholder. While science focuses on how things work, religion wonders
> about why things work the way they do. Just like you can not have good
> without evil or death without life, both sides, science and religion,
> complement each other giving theories and dogmas meaning that otherwise
> remain meaningless.
>
> Science considers things that can be detected and sensed by our senses and
> analyzed by our brains. Religion on the other hand considers things that
> can be felt with the heart.  Atoms left to themselves and given enough time
> can and will eventually form replicating molecules that like letters can be
> used to code life. But having the letters fall into appropriate meaningful
> patterns by random chance requires more time than is available in the 15
> billion years since the beginning of the universe, even when the attempt to
> make life is in carefully designed laboratories.  Expecting life to form
> from by random combinations of chemicals can be compared to expecting
> monkeys who blindly type to write Shakespearean sonnets with deep meanings.
> This is only conceivable and theoretically possible when given an infinite
> amount of time. But reality has its bounds and infinity like perfection are
> just theoretical boundaries that have places only in mathematics and
> imaginations.
>
> Science with its quantum theories shows that there is a hidden reality
> allowing for energy and matter to spontaneously appear and disappear
> without any cause. While matter, like a drop of water, is bounded and has
> form, energy, like water vapor has no bounds or form. Matter moves with a
> speed that can be measured and slowed down while energy like a thought is
> not constrained by speed, time or space. While life can be rationally
> conceived as evolving by chance and selectively fine tuned to its
> complexity as shown in man, man`s soul and his intuitive powers remain
> irrational to scientists.
>
> Everything has a bit of truth to it. Scientists who refute the possibility
> of a creator show just as much arrogance and ignorance as religious leaders
> who refute gods of other religions. One of the main arguments against
> evolution is the amount of time it needs. One of the main arguments against
> creation by intelligent design is the circular question of who created the
> creator.
>
> Our choice to believe if life was a result of evolution or of intelligent
> design does not exclude one opinion over the other but can be a mixture of
> both. We can entertain the possibility that the intelligent designer was
> either not intelligent enough or sufficiently intelligent to only seed
> atoms and molecules with basic information to enable them to evolve further
> on their own.
>
> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be circumnavigated
> by the possibility that the original creator was not matter, but energy.
> Just like thinking of anything is much faster and much easier than building
> it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns could have evolved in a
> random chance way and finely tuned by selective processes to reach
> intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that patterns of atoms
> and molecules evolved to form intelligent life.
>
> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they manipulated atoms
> to desired patterns and forms to code the information required for life and
> to allow them to evolve on their own to complex intelligent beings able to
> wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where they came from, where
> they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and purpose could then be
> given to our fleeting moment of existence.
>
> We all have freedoms and desires that allow us to have faith and to believe
> in whatever we want to believe in. Only by believing in an intelligent
> designer are we able to acknowledge and be humbly grateful for our lives
> and appreciate its full meaning and purpose. By refusing to believe in a
> creator and refuting an intelligent designer we remain arrogant and
> ignorant ingrates who are left without any personal deep meaning and far
> reaching purpose.

--