Until you've read it, and considered the implications thereof.
The human eye (although it DOES work) is, even in the case of a person with better-than-"perfect" 20/10 vision - a horribly ill-made piece of gear.
For example, there is the "blind spot" (or fovea) which is where the optic nerve enters the retina...
That's right, the optic nerve begins "ON TOP" of the retina!!! (Not behind it, as any good engineer would construct it.) This leads to a "blind spot" on the retina which is not sensitive to light - in other words, the human retina is NOT 100% efficient even in the BEST of cases (unlike a squid's retina, which IS 100% efficient, with the optic nerve attaching to the back of the retina!)
In fact, one 17th-century anatomist is said to have asserted that the human eye was so poorly designed, had he bought it from a supplier he would feel justified in returning it.
Understand, this "human eye" example is just ONE such case of "lousy" biological design.
Where am I going with all this?
INTELLIGENT DESIGN, that's where.
Apparently, "God" wouldn't last long if he took a job at GM. (Would he try to make a car with square tires..? Or maybe when you turned the ignition key, the windshield wipers came on and the horn honked?)
And if there's no "intelligent design" to the universe...
Does that not bring us right back to good ol' mechanistic materialism, and the afterlife is a bunch of hooey and wishful thinking?
Why are there no REPUTABLE scientists who believe in "intelligent design"... why are they all "Dr. Dino" types with a day job selling used cars (or something like that...)
I welcome all of your thoughts on this.

B-man

There are many REPUTABLE scientists that do not believe in "good ol' mechanistic materialism".

Pim von Lommel is a medical doctor, a cardiologist. I would consider him quite reputable :-

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/vanLommel.htm

Amit Goswami is a reputable scientist :-

http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm

Michael Talbot was a reputable scientist :-

http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html

Rupert Sheldrake is a reputable scientist :-

http://www.sheldrake.org/edge/RS_2005.html

The whole universe is constantly evolving from the moment of its creation.

If you try to compare intelligent design to some man with a beard making humans out of rock then your statement holds merit.

If you think of the Universe as an evolving organism then I cannot see what merits your statement has.

You also make the massive assumption that God is needed for an afterlife to exist.

Good point, as always chum.

Perfect design, - nothing perfect about it, the possiblity of life existing on other planets is becoming more and more plausable.

The earth being in the right spot, is another bogus argument, theoretically we could move millions of miles away from the sun, and still survive.

We are far from perfect, intelligence and co-operation keeps us alive.

Perfect, is contained by our own brain - whats perfect for us, is'nt perfect for someone else.

In reality, everything is random - wether this randomness was set into motion by something else is still debatable.

The trouble with scientists in my opinion they think they know everything about everything but they dont ,they are not always right in their assumptions of the truth and they don,t like being proved wrong so i dont take a lot of notice of them i make up my own mind about things .DEANNA

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 9:48am:

Good point, as always chum. Perfect design, - nothing perfect about it, the possiblity of life existing on other planets is becoming more and more plausable. The earth being in the right spot, is another bogus argument, theoretically we could move millions of miles away from the sun, and still survive. We are far from perfect, intelligence and co-operation keeps us alive. Perfect, is contained by our own brain - whats perfect for us, is'nt perfect for someone else. In reality, everything is random - wether this randomness was set into motion by something else is still debatable.

Sorry, which one are we discussing here, perfect or intelligent design?

What does the position of the earth have to do with anything?

Many experiements have been set up to show that pure randomness can be affected (P.E.A.R).

I would like your and chum's views on the theories and observations put forward in the articles mentioned above.

Taken from the Amit Goswami article :-


Quote:

WIE: So there are people corroborating your ideas? AG: There are people who are now coming out and recognizing the same thing, that this view is the correct way to go to explain quantum physics and also to develop science in the future. In other words, the present science has shown not only quantum paradoxes but also has shown real incompetence in explaining paradoxical and anomalous phenomena, such as parapsychology, the paranormal—even creativity. And even traditional subjects, like perception or biological evolution, have much to explain that these materialist theories don't explain. To give you one example, in biology there is what is called the theory of punctuated equilibrium. What that means is that evolution is not only slow, as Darwin perceived, but there are also rapid epochs of evolution, which are called "punctuation marks." But traditional biology has no explanation for this. However, if we do science on the basis of consciousness, on the primacy of consciousness, then we can see in this phenomenon creativity, real creativity of consciousness. In other words, we can truly see that consciousness is operating creatively even in biology, even in the evolution of species. And so we can now fill up these gaps that conventional biology cannot explain with ideas which are essentially spiritual ideas, such as consciousness as the creator of the world.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 9:58am:

Sorry, which one are we discussing here, perfect or intelligent design? What does the position of the earth have to do with anything? Many experiements have been set up to show that pure randomness can be affected (P.E.A.R). I would like your and chum's views on the theories and observations put forward in the articles mentioned above.

The basis for the "intelligent design" is that it's to perfect to be random. Key arguments for "perfectness" is the position of the earth in relation to the sun, and that no other alien life has been found.

Intelligent design, is used to try and prove the existance of god. It's part of most philosphy course's.

I do believe chum, is trying to make a point that god cannot exist because of this, not that he does'nt believe in nde's/obe's.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 10:41am:

The basis for the "intelligent design" is that it's to perfect to be random. Key arguments for "perfectness" is the position of the earth in relation to the sun, and that no other alien life has been found. Intelligent design, is used to try and prove the existance of god. It's part of most philosphy course's. I do believe chum, is trying to make a point that god cannot exist because of this, not that he does'nt believe in nde's/obe's.

Perfection is an assumption for intelligent design not a basis.

Intelligent design can also mean creativity. By its nature, creativity it not perfection.

Our limited ideas of 'perfection' are not, perhaps, the idea of 'perfection' in the eyes of God. We can't know anything for sure, can we?

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 10:45am:

Perfection is an assumption for intelligent design not a basis. Intelligent design can also mean creativity. By its nature, creativity it not perfection.

It's not just an assumption, it's the very core, for the people who believe in it, Intelligence theory would say things are "to perfect" not ultimately perfect, It's basically saying theres to many co-incidences, for our current state -that there must be somthing intelligence behind it.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 10:57am:

It's not just an assumption, it's the very core, for the people who believe in it, Intelligence theory would say things are "to perfect" not ultimately perfect, It's basically saying theres to many co-incidences, for our current state -that there must be somthing intelligence behind it.

So you agree that chumleys assumption is wrong then. Since you agree that Intelligence design theory is not advocating ultimate perfection?

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 11:05am:

So you agree that chumleys assumption is wrong then. Since you agree that Intelligence design theory is not advocating ultimate perfection?

I agree with chum's assumption, that god had nothing to do with our existance.

I dont agree however - that it means the afterlife does not exist.

For i am a great believer in energy, it's not destructable - only changable.

Greetings Chumley,
Do you wish for the most ' practical' body that could be designed? A drawing was published several years ago of the results of a group of scientists who set out to do just that:--- the mouth and lips were over the stomach, the eye was on a stem protected by a pod over the center of the forehead, the body and limbs were shortened to half their average length, etc.
Have you seen diagrams of the shape formed by the solar winds as they wind around and away from earth?  Its on astronomy solar wind sites. It looks like a human in a cloak, beautiful.
How can you judge which is better? Perhaps we have capabilities or conditions that a squid does not, that must be taken into consideration.  Maybe when you know it all, you'll get to be in charge. Until then I enjoy your challenges.
bets

None are so blind as those who can not see.

Strictly on an evolutionary standpoint, we did not require the vision of an eagle; thus they are better equipped to see a mouse at 800 feet above the ground.  We use our vision for certain purposes; the blind spot, in general is not noticeable for 99.99% of us.  Now, its true there are other issues, such as the image being refracted upside down and then having to be inverted to be understood.

I think the flaw in thinking about intelligent design, is the idea that our bodies should somehow be perfect, or else that implies the creator is not perfect.  Rubbish.  Our bodies are vehicles, evolved to work in the real world.  They are full of imperfections, yet we function, live and love and interact with each other despite that.  The question is, do you go from a random mass of amino acids in a primordial soup to a thinking breathing human being just on random chance, or is there an overall intelligence or consciousness guiding this evolution?

The answer is unknown with certainty, and thus this discussion will not be won.  However, it is my belief that there is plenty of empirical evidence that consciousness preceeds manifestation in the real world.  Thus, I believe in intelligent design, but not in flawless human beings.  

Matthew

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 12:14pm:

I think the flaw in thinking about intelligent design, is the idea that our bodies should somehow be perfect, or else that implies the creator is not perfect.  Rubbish.  Our bodies are vehicles, evolved to work in the real world.  They are full of imperfections, yet we function, live and love and interact with each other despite that.  The question is, do you go from a random mass of amino acids in a primordial soup to a thinking breathing human being just on random chance, or is there an overall intelligence or consciousness guiding this evolution? Matthew

Nail...Head...You hit the first on the second.

Actually, to take my post one step further - it is perhaps our imperfections which define us, as we strive to understand and learn acceptance.  

Many see our experiences here on earth as a deliberate attempt to take our consciousness and experience love, loss, death, happiness, joy without absolute knowledge that we are immortal.  We can take things on faith here, in the physcial world, but if we truly are immortal, that ultimate truth is hidden until our bodies pass away.  

So, the question, Chumley's, is why create an eye that is not perfect?  For this reason: that in being human we may learn valuable lessons.  That nothing stays the same or is permanent other than love.  Why would anyone take a trip down to the earth school of hard knocks and willingly wipe one's own memories, in order to experience joy and suffering of the earth plane?  Because we are told that this intense imperfect brief existence can give us more rapid progression of our spirituality and soul than almost anything else.

It is our imperfection and vulnerability that help us learn acceptance, humility and love.

Matthew

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 7:40am:

And if there's no "intelligent design" to the universe... Does that not bring us right back to good ol' mechanistic materialism, and the afterlife is a bunch of hooey and wishful thinking?

The universe is made of energy. Rather an intelligent creator, or higher power created the universe or not, the fact remains that energy is only changeable, which is reason enough to believe in the afterlife.

What does intelligent design have to do with the afterlife in the first place? "Oh, wow, the physical eyes and human body has flaws, I guess there is no afterlife." What kind of a dumbass would think like that? In the first place, eyes are physical things. No physical thing lasts forever.

Energy is eternal, and only changeable. Intelligent design is a completely different subject then the afterlife.

And no, the physical eye having poor vision does not disprove the afterlife. I suppose a snake having no ears also disproves the afterlife, also?

With regard to this thread, I'm still struggling with a question - Just what do we mean when we say "perfection"? This goes back to the idea of multiple truths, doesn't it?

As far as "intelligent design" is concerned, look at your own lifetimes - that's an example of "intelligent design". Or are you merely a ghost riding in a machine that is totally out of control? Howsabout the Spanish Inquisition? Definitely "intelligent design" of the same high quality as we find in modern warfare.

It seems to me that "intelligence" is in the creative impulse that begins with twists of probability space, ties them into knots, weaves the knots into a web, and then spins forth a universe, complete with critics whose function is to assist making it better (perhaps).

The essential processes of life involve quasi-crystallization of an extremely complex colloidial gel in which there are numerous highly specific catalysts. About 95% of this process is the same for us mobile critters with our diverse capabilities, as for formation of a calcite crystal hanging from a cave roof. It's only in the final few details that the iron in our bodies happens to be in the form of liquid blood as compared to ferric phosphates and sulfates tied to complex minerals.

Stromatalites (sp?) are non-aerobic lifeforms found from about the first 500 million years forward, and also found today. As I recall their life processes involve tradeoffs of  non-oxygen oxidizers through multi-valent transitions of iron  (Doc - this is your area more than mine - you might want to correct me here) leading to a stably repeatable growth. The same chemicals are found in the Martian "blueberries" that seem to be spread over that planet, and they might be identical in function, suggesting that we've found the Martians. If so, are they imperfect? How do we even evaluate?

dave

Dave,

I think its more basic a question.  Chumley is asking if an imperfect eye blueprint is a proof against intelligent design by a creator (man created in the image of God, etc.).  By his reasoning disease, illness, genetic flaws all would be signs of lack of intelligence.  He then says, ipso facto - no God designing it.

My take is that we have to make up excuses for not believing in intelligent design.  We look around us at our societies, creations and achievements.  Pure sceintists would say it is all a fluke of evolution without being a sign of consciousness external to the physical world.  I believe that it is crystal clear that conscious intelligence exists everywhere and is at the heart of evolution.  Evolution of soul and spirit, evolution of mind, evolution of body.  Its not just that the giraffes succeeded because they ate leaves at the tops of the trees.  Its not just random, though there is a degree of randomness.  

How does a salamander grow a new tail (or whatever the lizard is that does)?  Recent experiments almost show a type of blue print in the universal field for salamanders, for everything.  Clearly, the salamander's pea sized brain does not voluntarily direct the complex processes of growing the new tail.  You cut yourself shaving, and the clotting cascade begins and ends.  I can go into a three page discussion about the components of the clotting cascade, but who tells it to start and stop so precisely.  If it continued, you'd have massive clots instead of a healing one.  If you did not clot, you'd bleed massively.  

No, there is evidence of consciousness and intelligence everywhere we look.  Some designs are flawed, but we live in a flawed but beautiful universe.  

Matthew

Hi scienetists do think they know it all i would like them to explain why ive seen my dads spirit on many occasions and when i saw my dads spirit as he lay in his coffin . I was not unconcious i beleive in the afterlife dads given me proof of this  because he told me if he diedf he would show me signs of the afterlife and he never said anything he did not mean .Scienetists are a bit like the old skeptics think they know it all but they dont  god bless juditha

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 2:08pm:

With regard to this thread, I'm still struggling with a question - Just what do we mean when we say "perfection"? This goes back to the idea of multiple truths, doesn't it?

 Possibly.   I use Cayce Sources' idea of perfection as relates to humans--being like Yeshua, only acting, thinking, feeling, and doing for the highest good of the Collective/oneself.  In other words Love personified and incarnate.

 This reverts physical energy back to its true state, pure energy--hence the resurrection.  To me the physical is just a distorted reflection of what is real.

 How many have lived reality to that degree while in physical, so how many would know as well as he?   And Yeshua was given as the director of Cayce's Source....the manager, organizer, or facilitator if you will.

Quote:

So, the question, Chumley's, is why create an eye that is not perfect?  For this reason: that in being human we may learn valuable lessons.  That nothing stays the same or is permanent other than love.  Why would anyone take a trip down to the earth school of hard knocks and willingly wipe one's own memories, in order to experience joy and suffering of the earth plane?  Because we are told that this intense imperfect brief existence can give us more rapid progression of our spirituality and soul than almost anything else. There is evidence of consciousness and intelligence everywhere we look. Some designs are flawed, but we live in a flawed but beautiful universe. Matthew

Absolutely. Very well put. More on this in a while.



Quote:

Chumley is asking if an imperfect eye blueprint is a proof against intelligent design by a creator (man created in the image of God, etc.).  By his reasoning disease, illness, genetic flaws all would be signs of lack of intelligence.  He then says, ipso facto - no God designing it.

This so-called reasoning is based on the mis-assumption (which Chumley himself is moving away from, in fact, his anger is clearly projected upon fundamentalists who proclaim this belief) that 'God' is some external, supreme being, and therefore, all his actions and Creations must be perfect.

Thus, I'll point out that Dave is musing on the nature of 'perfection' (indeed, there can be no objective 'perfection', if you say such-and-such is 'imperfect', you're only speaking for yourself, such-and-such can be argued to be 'perfect', insofar as it is what it is, not what someone thinks it's 'supposed' to be).

While Matthew is pointing out the pedagogical or didactic modality by which physical incarnation imposes deliberate limitations, which is part and parcel of the existential value of man, of living as a human being on Earth (we're not human beings in a spiritual body, but spiritual beings in a human body). This is necessary to faciliate learning, evolution and meaningful assistantialty.

Indeed, from such an understanding, the 'imperfect' eye, body or situation, then becomes perfect (for its purpose), does it not? It's always a matter of willingness to see things from a useful, helpful perspective. There is no value to objectivity or subjectivity (of 'perfection', etc) per se, hence, no true meaning on it's own, only meaningful in the context of evolution, assistantiality, both of which are twin-expressions of Love.

And Matthew also points out that there is an incredible level and presence of consciousness and intelligence everywhere in the Universe, which is not always obvious or understood by many. And most truly, intelligence is at the heart of Evolution, not randomness.

While Chumley, is really expressing dissatisfaction for the religious dogmatic simplistic idea of an external, flawless God who is Creator and master of everything. The whole purpose of this thread is his saying, "Such an idea of God is BS!"


At this point, I'll just mention that Evolution as it really is on Earth and elsewhere on other planets, is always is mix of both 'Intelligent Design' (by specialized guides & helpers working on the energetics of morphological fields and directly on species DNA, as well as extraterrestrial assistance or interference, depending on intention or agenda, in the form of genetic manipulation and engineering), as well as the more 'natural' (but of course, intelligent design is also part of a greater scheme of Nature) or mundane modalities of evolution as understood by science (at least 'science' as understood by man on planet Earth at the current time, as compared to say the sciences of other planets), that is to say, due to the inherent genotypic and phenotypic variation within any given species population (due to spontaneous genetic mutation and genetic recombination by meiotic sexual reproduction), competition results in the differential rates of survival and of subsequent reproduction by those organisms best fitted to the environment (ie. natural selection), which over many generations results in the formation of new species (ie. evolution).

Of course this is happening, but hand-in-hand and together with intelligent design by guides & helpers and extraterestrial agencies. Why? Simply to speed up and to facilitate the apporpriate opportunities for incarnation and for evolution. It is a tricky matter for a group race to incarnate into available biological bodies suitable for the lessons the group race has to learn. Thus is the role of Intelligent Design.


In addition, with regards to the 'imperfections' or 'flaws' of the human body; because humanity in particular has gained the interest of so many different groups or races of beings of different natures and agendas, the human genome has been subjected to 'intelligent' or genetic manipulation multiple times throughout the history of man.

Regarding the adverse effects of consuming cooked foods, particularly cooked fats :

"Now, the understanding of the blending of these races and the importance of raw fats is then understood once the full shift through the Atlantean phase into current physical incarnation is understood. It had to do with becoming more physical, with acknowledging and working with the animal essence. This would be hidden from most of humanity by important Keys, and you are correct in a certain sense in that the ingestion of fat would moderate the nervous system, bringing it into a more aggressive, more fearful, more ego-oriented capacity when the fats were poorly absorbed, as a natural allergic response in the human nervous system. But this must not be understood from the context of anthropology but rather gene splicing and the deliberate attempt to manipulate human consciousness. The reason for this is obvious. The spiritual development, intellectual development, and potential for true awareness was perceived in the Atlantean; this was present to some extent on the Lemurian but not fully physicalized. The physicalization was on route during the Atlantean phase and it was necessary to make these changes if enslavement of humanity was to be a true potential for the future. At the same time the various races that engaged in the enterprise have some contributions to make because the blending of the shadow and the light, the ability for humans to overcome fear, to perceive true deep truth, and to learn the lessons of ego would be a major contribution to all beings (of the Universe) should humanity successfully survive this period."

As described in the passage above, there was genetic manipulation to deliberately exacerbate certain critical 'flaws' in man (genetic-biochemical-psychological-spiritual, all are closely inter-related and inter-causative for the temporary duration of the incarnation or joining of soul to physical body, naturally), in this case, to increase tendency towards fear and ego, when cooked (unnatural) fats are consumed. This was done by races or beings (note : nested or complex intrusion) that had less than benevolent intentions for humanity; but this was allowed by the guardians or higher guides & helpers of humanity, for the grander purpose of overcoming the fear & ego (should humanity succeed as a race in this, this is still up to every human being to decide on the outcome), and consequently a greater contribution to the Cosmos.

For the full article from which the above passage was excerpted from :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/HilarionDiet.html


The genetics and biological body of the first Homo sapiens sapiens Adam, ensouled by the being who would later incarnate as Moses, and later again as Jesus Christ (of course, the name 'Jesus' wasn't his actual name at the time), was in actuality a genetic hybrid of the extraterrestrial Nephilim with primitive man, or the more primitive Homo sapiens subspecies.

Click here to read about reincarnation of Adam as Moses and later as Jesus Christ :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/Hilarion_On_JesusChrist.htm

Click here to read about the Nephilim and Creation of Man (mouse cursor over bottom right of pic to expand it to original size) :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/Hilarion_on_Nephilim.gif


And where is the next step of Man's evolution? By all indications and evidence, it is towards what has been called the Serene ones (ie. once a human soul has evolved beyond the need for physical incarnation, or what some have called 'ascended masters', one charactersitic trait of such evolved human consciousnesses, is serenity), or as scientific name, the Homo sapiens serenissimus :

http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/Hilarion_Angels_Serenissimus.htm

Spit wrote:
*****************
I do believe chum, is trying to make a point that god cannot exist because of this, not that he does'nt believe in nde's/obe's.
*****************
Bloody damn right! (As you Brits would say.)
Why didn't anyone else pick up on that (except for Kyo.)
That IS what I'd prefer to believe - that the reality of "para-normal phenomena" IS a possibility... but that SCIENCE is the
way to go, toward investigating them...
AND that there is no vindictive, judgemental - THING watching my every move and thought like some inescapable, ethereal KGB agent.

B-man

Hello, Betson.
*****************
Greetings Chumley,
Do you wish for the most ' practical' body that could be designed? A drawing was published several years ago of the results of a group of scientists who set out to do just that:--- the mouth and lips were over the stomach, the eye was on a stem protected by a pod over the center of the forehead, the body and limbs were shortened to half their average length, etc.
Have you seen diagrams of the shape formed by the solar winds as they wind around and away from earth?  Its on astronomy solar wind sites. It looks like a human in a cloak, beautiful.
How can you judge which is better? Perhaps we have capabilities or conditions that a squid does not, that must be taken into consideration.  Maybe when you know it all, you'll get to be in charge. Until then I enjoy your challenges.
bets
*****************
#1.) That "ideally designed creature" is horribly flawed in its own way, bets. (I've read about it too, BTW.) I wasn't impressed by it.
How long would it last, in physical combat with a healthy "standard human"? Not long, I'd wager. Or what about if it was attacked by a large animal in our ancestral enviroment? This "idealized creature" might well prosper in our modern, secure, petrochemical civilization, and might even live longer than we normally do.
But what about after the H-bombs fall? (Assuming they do...) I don't think that body design would lend itself to long survival in a "Mad Max" environment, bets.
This creature would be slower than we are, and probably physically weaker (those short limbs just wouldn't allow for much muscle mass!) So much for "perfect design".
Not to mention, it is BUTT-UGLY. (Although not much uglier, than a lot of modern people..!) Who'd go to bed with it, how would it pass on its "idealized genes" - even in our current secure environment?
What I'm speaking of, is OBVIOUS design flaws. (Like the structure of our eyes... or what about our hemorrhoidal veins, which are suited for a FOUR-LEGGED creature - not an upright one, the extra strain from gravity makes these veins the scourge of the human race! "God" could have done BETTER than that, bets. Doncha think?)
2.) Hmmm - "a human in a cloak?"
I take it you like to watch cloud formations, bets.
What's your stand on the "Face on Mars" while we're at it?
There's a nebula (remains of a sunlike star which expanded, burned out, and died in the distant past, just as OUR sun will in the distant future) called the "Eskimo Nebula" - because it DOES look vaguely reminiscent of and Eskimo in a fur-trimmed parka hood. So I presume the true name of "God" is... Nanook? (Or maybe it's an Eskimo angel.)
"Coincidence." It's in Webster's, bets - check it out.
'til next time,

B-man

Well Paranoid,
I assume that if you saw some horribly deformed
person - that is, his alimentary canal was reversed,
and his mouth was on his rear end, and he defecated/flatulated through his face (i.e. his bunghole was where his mouth was supposed to be, and his cheeks were shaped like buttocks to boot...)
I'd say you'd call the guy ugly. BUTT-ugly, in fact. ;)
Would you french-kiss him? Even if he gave you a dozen red roses (and then turned around with his behind facing you, so he could read you the card..?)
'NUFF of that!!! It was just an expression after all, it's not like I invented it... :-X

B-man

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2006 at 1:56am:

Spit wrote: ***************** I do believe chum, is trying to make a point that god cannot exist because of this, not that he does'nt believe in nde's/obe's. ***************** Bloody damn right! (As you Brits would say.) Why didn't anyone else pick up on that (except for Kyo.) B-man

Maybe people did not pick that up because your original post is different to what Spitfire is saying?  

Poor human eyes design => No intelligent design => mechanistic materialism => No afterlife


Quote:

"And if there's no "intelligent design" to the universe... Does that not bring us right back to good ol' mechanistic materialism, and the afterlife is a bunch of hooey and wishful thinking? "

If you expect people to understand your view point, maybe you should not make an original post which comes to a different conclusion. Did you intend to change your viewpoint mid thread or was your original post just badly written?

You should also mention that many scientists do not believe in the pure materialistic paradigm when you say scientists do not believe in intelligent design.  ::)

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2006 at 1:56am:

Spit wrote: ***************** I do believe chum, is trying to make a point that god cannot exist because of this, not that he does'nt believe in nde's/obe's. ***************** Bloody damn right! (As you Brits would say.) Why didn't anyone else pick up on that (except for Kyo.) That IS what I'd prefer to believe - that the reality of "para-normal phenomena" IS a possibility... but that SCIENCE is the way to go, toward investigating them... AND that there is no vindictive, judgemental - THING watching my every move and thought like some inescapable, ethereal KGB agent. B-man

Jolly good show old chap!

KGB agent. haha, most unique view of god ive heard in quite some time, thanks chum.

Anyone in for fish and chips?

Mattb, you wrote:
*****************
Maybe people did not pick that up because your original post is different to what Spitfire is saying?  

Poor human eyes design => No intelligent design => mechanistic materialism => No afterlife


If you expect people to understand your view point, maybe you should not make an original post which comes to a different conclusion. Did you intend to change your viewpoint mid thread or was your original post just badly written?
*****************
-O.K., I goofed. I'm a big enough guy to admit that. My car's in the shop for $500.00 worth of repairs, and we've got arctic cold right now where I'm living - so I'm not in the best of moods. So I hammered it out without a good proof-read first? What the hell.

You should also mention that many scientists do not believe in the pure materialistic paradigm when you say scientists do not believe in intelligent design.
*****************
-At what point in the rejection of the "pure" materialistic paradigm, do we find the cut-off
point where scientists start believing in the
afterlife? I think there's quite a gray area there, Mattb. (And how much FURTHER on is the cut-off
point where they start believing in "God"?)
I don't think Bohm was a churchgoer...

B-man

Quote:

-At what point in the rejection of the "pure" materialistic paradigm, do we find the cut-off point where scientists start believing in the afterlife?

Good question.

The main focus for me is that the pure materialistic paradigm is slowly but surely loosing the gold medal for best theory.

The unfortunate thing is that the modern world seems reluctant to let is go, especially professional institutions that revolve around this current paradigm.

The barrier between science and religion is seen by many to be a clear dividing line, yet the only reason this is made into such a black/white competition is because many scientific areas are trying to barricade and root down science and thus making the modern scientific institutions ,whether by intention or not, into a religion.

True science by its nature, it the most chaotic object we can experience. It has to adapt to new data, change theories, accommodate new theories. It cannot be etched into stone.

So I wish only that frontier science such as theories that question the materialistic paradigm be given the open space and acceptance it struggles to find.

Although these new theories cannot define afterlife as a certainty they at the very least show that the universe holds many mysteries and secrets that materialist advocators should show respect for. For example aspects of consciousness, such as memory and the sensation of experiencing the outside reality, are increasingly becoming harder for medical and scientific people to place in a physical location.

Regards,
             Matt.
;D


Quote:

Anyone in for fish and chips?

Can I have a pea fritter with mine?  :)

I think this picture below sums up my view of someone trying to develope frontier science with the help of modern scientific institutes and publishers.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5943/sign75bc.th.jpg

The very real dangers of dogma :
http://www.petergodly.com/episodes.html

Of course, then there's my personal favourite king of parody of all conspiracy theories and all things dogmatic - The Learning Triangle - "This Is The Ultimate Secret! Do Not Be Fooled!!!" :

http://www.somethingawful.com/learning_triangle/index.htm


Enjoy! :)