[unreality]

something itachi said...

Well, I'm not very religious, but you are accepting alternatives it seems, so here are my thoughts. I'm not an atheist per say; I basically have developed my own theory (which is similar to some other people of course). I put all my faith in logic and reason which does not exclude the possibility of God. My theory is that life itself is God and God is within and among us throughout the universe where ever there is life and that we all contribute our experiences and thoughts to this collective energy that can be called the ubiquitous God.

Just for the record, Itachi-san's idea about life is very similar to a sort-of-belief I've held... sort of like... collective intelligence... well I'll word it this way:

Take a hive of bees or colony of ants... no single organism knows the big picture, each is incredibly stupid- there are no leaders or managers, they all do their tiny, individual parts. Yet as a whole, a single hive or colony is extremely intelligent, continuously living compared the lifetime of a single organism in the colony or hive, and it's like an animal by itself.

Another example of something very similar... think of all the cells in our body. All the cells of all purposes, making up our bodies. Does each individual cell know the big picture? Does that skin cell there know my name? No, of course not. Even brain cells... they just do their jobs, their functions, and live very short lifetimes. Yet take my body as a whole! I know my name! I live much longer compared to my individual cells... I am conscious. I am no different than that colony of ants (but considerably smarter and better fitting together, I think).

You can go as small as you want... each cell has functions, carried out by its individual parts, which are just doing their jobs, etc...

Now go bigger.

Think of each of us as a whole. We are just humans- individual organisms, like an ant or bee. Not conscious of the big picture. And add the rest of life, too- humans are no different than apes or lizards or fish or bacteria. Think of all the life on the planet... what if we are the "brain cells" and other cells of an even greater living organism, THE PLANET, which has consciousness (albeit different than ours, ie, a bee hive has a different sort of consciousness than us) and has a lifespan much longer than any single organism... the Earth will live much longer than anything that runs or gallops or swims on its surface.

See the pattern? What if we make up something bigger than us? Our movements and our own choices as a whole make up the subconscious- and even the consciousness (it depends how you define it)- of the whole. Of Earth. Of the Universe. Of everything?

a similar theory to Itachi-san's. And if he's right, if I'm right, if we're both right... maybe the sum of ALL life is this god- maybe it, being the highest form of the consciousness, knows the true meaning of life. Or maybe there is no meaning. We don't know... though I agree with Itachi when he says that life is goal-oriented... it, as a whole, evolves to survive, its observable purpose is to reproduce itself

Edited May 1, 2008 by unreality

[Guest]

Take a hive of bees or colony of ants... no single organism knows the big picture, each is incredibly stupid- there are no leaders or managers, they all do their tiny, individual parts. Yet as a whole, a single hive or colony is extremely intelligent, continuously living compared the lifetime of a single organism in the colony or hive, and it's like an animal by itself.

You reminded me of a remarkable video I saw a while ago: Ants! It starts kinda slow, but just wait until they start excavating around 4 mins in. Pretty wild.

However, you view the collective intelligence as a sort of super-organism which arises naturally, without guidance. For example, it's obvious that no individual ant could be responsible for the ventilation system described in that video, so you would attribute the design to the intelligence of the colony as a whole, even though there clearly isn't a single brain. I on the other hand, see such a feat as clear evidence of an intelligent designer who programmed the individual ants to perform functions which benefit the colony. Likewise, I see the cooperation of trillions of cells, each of which is unaware of the larger being, as being a stupendous engineering marvel. After all, most components in a complicated system are unaware of their function. Does a pixel in your monitor comprehend the larger role it plays? I guess my point is that your notion of humans being components of a larger collective intelligence presumes the natural origination of the examples you describe, but since I don't believe that's possible, I likewise don't see your theory as being a likely possibility, albeit a rather interesting one.

[unreality]

thanks the video- that was awesome ;D

and to me, it truly is amazing, a feat of the power of nature. To you, you explain away with the typical-of-a-theist "God did it", with no curiosity as to how it really happened... here I was thinking that you had convinced us you were above that kind of thing

and yeah, to an atheist, my theory is pretty interesting, at least I think so- just something to think about. What if we are individual, unknowing parts of a greater "super-organism" (as that video about ants says about the colony)

unless "albeit" means "although" (I really never really learned what "albiet" meant, lol) then I'm glad you agree that the theory is interesting... what if we are part of God?

But still... why do you just say "god did it"- aren't you even a tad bit interested about how the ant colony works? I've read articles on Swarm Theory, it really is amazing how intelligent a colony is in relation to the mindless ants that make it up- and the article (it was in National Geographic) also explained how it happened- which normal, expected interactions made up this "decision" of the colony as a whole. It really is amazing stuff- except to someone who just says "God did it"

[Guest]

and to me, it truly is amazing, a feat of the power of nature. To you, you explain away with the typical-of-a-theist "God did it", with no curiosity as to how it really happened... here I was thinking that you had convinced us you were above that kind of thing

...

But still... why do you just say "god did it"- aren't you even a tad bit interested about how the ant colony works? I've read articles on Swarm Theory, it really is amazing how intelligent a colony is in relation to the mindless ants that make it up- and the article (it was in National Geographic) also explained how it happened- which normal, expected interactions made up this "decision" of the colony as a whole. It really is amazing stuff- except to someone who just says "God did it"

ARRRGGGH!! <_<

At first I thought you were just baiting me for the fun of it, but it really seems you are sincere, which means you really don't get it. Please, I beg you, tell me why thinking that the colony behavior is the product of an intelligent designer makes me less curious than you about how it works? Do you think that I don't wonder how an individual ant knows where to dig, or wonder how they communicate, or wonder how the instructions for building such a system are passed through the DNA that is in each individual ant, as they must be?

Granted, perhaps you have greater reason for wonderment, since in addition to the marvel of the behavior as we observe it, you would have to explain how such a system developed in the first place via blind evolution. Since proposed scientific explanations for its origin require incredible imagination to accept as plausible, I guess you would be left more perplexed than I, or, if you are so inclined, you can simply sit back and gasp at how incredible it is that something like that could arise without an intelligent designer. Funny, but that's the very sort of thing (when it happens over and over again with almost everything I look at in nature) that leads me to conclude that there must be a designer. Regardless, I don't see how that has anything to do with my level of curiosity. Please enlighten me.

[unreality]

It was something very specific you said which ticked me off:

on the other hand, see such a feat as clear evidence of an intelligent designer who programmed the individual ants to perform functions which benefit the colony. Likewise, I see the cooperation of trillions of cells, each of which is unaware of the larger being, as being a stupendous engineering marvel.

in other words: "God did it. It's a stupendous engineering marvel."

So maybe I read your attitude wrong (hard to, online) but I got the impression that you were implying "it's too complex to happen naturally, therefore God did it", which is what ticked me off

obviously, if it is a stupendous engineering marvel, you'd still be curious about it. Stonehenge is an example. So don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to say that you weren't curious

But what I meant that was ticking me off was your casting away of any plausible explanation other than "a marvel of Divine Engineering"

[itachi-san]

So maybe I read your attitude wrong (hard to, online) but I got the impression that you were implying "it's too complex to happen naturally, therefore God did it", which is what ticked me off

But what I meant that was ticking me off was your casting away of any plausible explanation other than "a marvel of Divine Engineering"

Firstly, I think this theory is very interesting and frankly I'm still mulling it over. Secondly, I did get that impression from Duh Puck's first response as well. Sorry to team up on you, I just think that the answer (although very difficult to solve) lies in evolution. There are many instances where parts make up a whole and they are mostly all very complicated and to label them as a marvel of the divine just seems to be a cop out to me. Even if I were to agree that God made it, then there would still be a logical reason as to why it works that we can solve through study on Earth. Therefore, giving this hive/colony theory a divine attribute seems to me to be unnecessary.

I loved the ants video btw.

[Guest]

So maybe I read your attitude wrong (hard to, online) but I got the impression that you were implying "it's too complex to happen naturally, therefore God did it", which is what ticked me off

obviously, if it is a stupendous engineering marvel, you'd still be curious about it. Stonehenge is an example. So don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to say that you weren't curious

But what I meant that was ticking me off was your casting away of any plausible explanation other than "a marvel of Divine Engineering"

Fair enough. Ultimately, if there is a God who designed the universe, any explanation for the emergence of swarm behavior eventually leads back to "God did it." Right? Even if there is a natural explanation for how such a hive-mind could evolve, (not that I believe there is) it would only be a credit to the designer for weaving such a capability into the fabric of creation. If there is not an intelligent designer, then you are fully in the right to be in awe that random events, under the auspice of totally blind natural mechanisms, would be capable of producing complex swarm behavior wherein the collective intelligence is far greater than any member's.

But to be fair to me, you must realize I'm not casting away other explanations. I'm saying that regardless of what the explanation is, if there's a God, then it's a marvel of divine engineering. Incidentally, from what I've read so far, the naturalistic explanations for the development of such behavior, just like the theories for the development of the eye, are exercises in imagination, with very little basis in observed evidence. It boils down to the question: "Are we clever enough to think of a way in which this might have happened?" And yes, there's always some explanation for how stuff might have happened. I suppose that due to my theistic bias, however, I am naturally skeptical, and generally find such theories to seem hollow. I know atheists cringe when the expression is turned around, but it's quite true: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." As far as I'm concerned, the claim that blind natural processes are responsible for the harvester ants developing a collective intelligence which can achieve colossal architectural feats is entirely extraordinary.

Sorry to team up on you, I just think that the answer (although very difficult to solve) lies in evolution.

If you've read much of the last half of the religious debate thread you'd know I'm pretty used to getting teamed up on. No worries.

And of course you would think the answer lies in evolution. If it's not the work of a designer, it has to be caused by natural causes, so I absolutely understand that you'd be biased toward that, just I am biased toward intelligent design.

There are many instances where parts make up a whole and they are mostly all very complicated and to label them as a marvel of the divine just seems to be a cop out to me. Even if I were to agree that God made it, then there would still be a logical reason as to why it works that we can solve through study on Earth. Therefore, giving this hive/colony theory a divine attribute seems to me to be unnecessary.

Labeling swarm behavior as divine engineering could only be viewed as a cop out with respect to identifying origin. As I've already pointed out, the creationist is in no way less concerned with how things work, but it's true that he might be less concerned with how things originated. There's so much that is not understood about swarm behavior that understanding the details should keep scientists busy for quite a while, but due to the burden that evolutionary science carries of explaining how everything originated, they feel the necessity to frame everything in evolutionary terms and propose fanciful schemes for how such behavior could have evolved.

Incidentally, I think we all agree that complicated systems composed of interacting parts which appear to demonstrate a purpose or intelligence greater than would be expected from the sum of the parts is ... marvelous. You scoff at me for calling it a "divine" marvel. What kind of marvel would you call it? You seem to be quite ready to attribute fantastic credit to "nature," "life," or "evolution." Life must have some purpose, you say. There must be some greater intelligence comprised of the collective components of life, you say. Yet you insist this was all just an accident with no guiding intelligence. Huh.

[Guest]

Everything begins with nothing and nothing contains everything.

We are all in a progressive state.. moving between states of now and now.. the state of nothing, where time stands still and everything is in its particular place within "time".. tho it seems its moving forward, its actually just collapsing ontop of itself continuously.. collapsed moments in time reflect movement by a brief hickup in time when a small frame was distorted passing over itself and created everything from the beginning.

This "beginning" is time itself when nothing once existed.. a gas was created through this frame and built upon itself as frames continuosly passed over each other creating the explosion that we now know as the "big bang". There are multiple frames in time.. known as deminsions.. the time we live in exists because of the gas created within it which creates everything around us.. our touch, feel, smell, feelings, emotions, taste..etc. Everything that isn't, exists in between everything we cannot see. You are right on the "SCALE" of everything, working together to make something bigger than what we can see within our scope or have the knowledge to understand within this limited scope.

Human ideaology and subjected to individual life by idea.. not focusing on "bigger pictures" is something that we do, because there is so much interference to drift off course and focus on what is "NOW". Bills, wars blah blah blah.. Everyone tries to define life by what is important to them and meet those goals when the variables in life keeps us on our toes and focused on what is.. and not what is everything.

When it all comes down to it.... all of us will die and the world will end, where we go or what exactly happens is all hear-say. The main thing you should remember is, life will be like that before birth, you won't even remember that you ever lived. So... what is the point right? A meaningless existence created by a small hick up in time. We can only hope that BILLIONS of years from now a more advanced species that is formed from this place that we know as "Life" will hopefully be kind enough to find a single cell remaining of humans and be able to reconstruct our existence (Unless of course that has already happened and we are just re-living these lives but being watched)..lol

Anyways.. good luck and if their is a physical being intelligent life out there, they need to steer my life so that I win the damn lottery.

[Guest]

10,000 years ago two men sat in a cave grunting at each other. Lets give credit where credit is due, humans have evolved by idea, hope and inspiration. That which drives our hopes and dreams is subject to the individual and opinions there in. View religion for what it truly is.. above opinion and logically thinking. Many need the reassurance and hope that they will join those who have passed before. This builds a closer relationship than a "to each their own" mentality plus keeps people and the "laws" which are governed by humanity, stable. In GOD we trust! Right? For it is our fellow man which we must truly trust. We must trust that he does not understand the only thing separating whats mine from his is a piece of paper and other peoples decision. We must trust that money will not come between anyone and that our government feels the same, which we have already seen is not so. So who can we trust? Who can we trust and what can we trust to be true. The truth is, we are mere cavemen grunting at each other and have ABSOLUTELY no idea of what is to come.

[itachi-san]

Incidentally, I think we all agree that complicated systems composed of interacting parts which appear to demonstrate a purpose or intelligence greater than would be expected from the sum of the parts is ... marvelous. You scoff at me for calling it a "divine" marvel. What kind of marvel would you call it? You seem to be quite ready to attribute fantastic credit to "nature," "life," or "evolution." Life must have some purpose, you say. There must be some greater intelligence comprised of the collective components of life, you say. Yet you insist this was all just an accident with no guiding intelligence. Huh.

Woah. What about all my posts that stated that I believe life is God? I believe life is it's own guiding intelligence. I suppose that would make life a divine marvel in and of itself, but not really, because we can see, prove and know it, even if we can't prove why it exists or for how long and for what purpose. Divine is usually pertaining to that which has no proof and relies solely on scripture and faith. I never said anything about an accident. In fact, I said the opposite (in the Hell existing thread) that life clearly does have a guiding principle that shows it is leading toward some goal involving thought, communication and extra-planetary travel (among other attributes evolution is leading the mind). I would call it a natural marvel to answer another one of your questions.

[Guest]

Woah. What about all my posts that stated that I believe life is God? I believe life is it's own guiding intelligence. I suppose that would make life a divine marvel in and of itself, but not really, because we can see, prove and know it, even if we can't prove why it exists or for how long and for what purpose. Divine is usually pertaining to that which has no proof and relies solely on scripture and faith. I never said anything about an accident. In fact, I said the opposite (in the Hell existing thread) that life clearly does have a guiding principle that shows it is leading toward some goal involving thought, communication and extra-planetary travel (among other attributes evolution is leading the mind). I would call it a natural marvel to answer another one of your questions.

That sounds like word play. How can something guide its own creation? I suppose it's theoretically possible that once a sufficient framework (material, information, and guiding principles) was in place, that "life" could guide its own development. In the software world, the libraries for a programming language are sometimes written in that same language, so it's kinda self-referencing, but that still requires that a base-level of syntax and structure was there to begin with, and of course in the case of software there's always an external designer.

Most atheists are content to accept that, in the absence of an intelligent designer, life as a whole cannot have a purpose, since the very notion of purpose implies design. It seems to me like you're trying to have it both ways, meshing blind naturalistic processes with some loftier concept that involves goal-directed higher intelligence. How do you reconcile these?

1. Life, with all of its amazing complexity, is the result of unguided, unintelligent natural forces.

2. Life "does have a guiding principle that shows it is leading toward some goal involving thought, communication and extra-planetary travel."

[itachi-san]

Most atheists are content to accept that, in the absence of an intelligent designer, life as a whole cannot have a purpose, since the very notion of purpose implies design. It seems to me like you're trying to have it both ways, meshing blind naturalistic processes with some loftier concept that involves goal-directed higher intelligence. How do you reconcile these?

I guess I'm not making myself clear when I keep repeating that I think life isGod. I'll explain it in a different way. We know and can prove life exists, which I think you would agree with. As far as I'm concerned, all of the descriptive attributes that can be applied to God can just as easily be applied to life, so I'm basically doing away with the unnecessary addition of something that is completely hypothetical. All the theories about life, evolution, the universe, the sciences, the past and future at least are partly based on fact, whereas God is based on nothing substantial. I'm not sure why you keep saying "blind naturalistic" either. I think evolution (not just man's, but all forms of evolution in and of the universe) is goal oriented, which I've said a few times now. How do you get "blind" out of that?

1. Life, with all of its amazing complexity, is the result of unguided, unintelligent natural forces.

2. Life "does have a guiding principle that shows it is leading toward some goal involving thought, communication and extra-planetary travel."

I have no idea where the second part of #1 is coming from. This sounds more like your idea than mine. I'm not trying to have it "both ways" I only believe #2 which is the only example of the two that is actually quoted from my words.

[Guest]

As far as I'm concerned, all of the descriptive attributes that can be applied to God can just as easily be applied to life, so I'm basically doing away with the unnecessary addition of something that is completely hypothetical.

Uh, here's some attributes for ya:

1. Omniscient

2. Omnipotent

3. Without beginning

4. Designer of the universe

5. First cause

These are typically attributes associated with God, but certainly not with "life." The whole atheist/theist debate usually revolves around the existence of a being with these attributes. You're right that I'm still fuzzy about what you're saying when you equate life with God, and I'm not sure how this helps to clear it up.

All the theories about life, evolution, the universe, the sciences, the past and future at least are partly based on fact, whereas God is based on nothing substantial.

That's pretty subjective, isn't it? I would say that my belief in God arises from a consideration of the exact same "facts" that scientists use to postulate theories about the origin of life and the universe. I look at the very same facts that scientists do, such as the observed expansion of the universe, the dual wave-particle nature of photons, the indeterminate nature of radioactive decay, the intricate and complex function of DNA, swarm intelligence, etc., etc., and I see it as getting a deeper look into the mind of the creator. That, of course, doesn't factor in the even more significant aspect of studying what I believed to be God's revealed word. If you've glimpsed at my latest posts in the Hell thread, then you're aware of my detailed interest in the Bible. I've been studying it since I was a child, and just as I am fascinated by the marvels of the natural world, I am fascinated by the insights that the Bible reveals into the mind of God. You say that "God is based on nothing substantial," but I couldn't disagree more. I think the sum total of information is quite substantial.

I'm not sure why you keep saying "blind naturalistic" either. I think evolution (not just man's, but all forms of evolution in and of the universe) is goal oriented, which I've said a few times now. How do you get "blind" out of that?

Yes, I keep saying it for a reason. I would like to make it clear that nature, according to an atheistic viewpoint, is entirely blind. I didn't say random, because I am well aware that there are laws and principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy and lead toward specific outcomes. Consider how Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist scientist, described natural selection:

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

You obviously disagree with that, but have offered no explanation for how evolutionary processes could be otherwise.

I have no idea where the second part of #1 is coming from. This sounds more like your idea than mine. I'm not trying to have it "both ways" I only believe #2 which is the only example of the two that is actually quoted from my words.

Well, I guess I'm trying to pin down what you believe, because you're definitely sending contradictory signals. If you don't believe #1, then I take that to mean that you believe "Life, with all of its amazing complexity, is the result of guided, intelligent natural forces." What natural forces? We're right back to the question I asked before, but which you didn't answer: How can something guide its own creation?

Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've gathered from your posts that you reject the existence of an intelligent being possessing the attributes I described above, since otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to life as God. Many of my other statements have followed from use of the "law of the excluded middle," in that it seems evident to me that if there is not an intelligent creator, then the universe, with all of its laws and principles, has to essentially be an accident without purpose. If you do not believe that, then I guess that's part of what I would like to see clarified.

Edited May 3, 2008 by Duh Puck

[itachi-san]

Uh, here's some attributes for ya:

1. Omniscient

2. Omnipotent

3. Without beginning

4. Designer of the universe

5. First cause

These are typically attributes associated with God, but certainly not with "life." The whole atheist/theist debate usually revolves around the existence of a being with these attributes. You're right that I'm still fuzzy about what you're saying when you equate life with God, and I'm not sure how this helps to clear it up.

That's fine, I'll agree to disagree here. I don't think along the lines of all of these "attributes" (except 3.) because to me they are not possible and therefore not attributes, but fantasies.

That's pretty subjective, isn't it? I would say that my belief in God arises from a consideration of the exact same "facts" that scientists use to postulate theories about the origin of life and the universe. I look at the very same facts that scientists do, such as the observed expansion of the universe, the dual wave-particle nature of photons, the indeterminate nature of radioactive decay, the intricate and complex function of DNA, swarm intelligence, etc., etc., and I see it as getting a deeper look into the mind of the creator. That, of course, doesn't factor in the even more significant aspect of studying what I believed to be God's revealed word. If you've glimpsed at my latest posts in the Hell thread, then you're aware of my detailed interest in the Bible. I've been studying it since I was a child, and just as I am fascinated by the marvels of the natural world, I am fascinated by the insights that the Bible reveals into the mind of God. You say that "God is based on nothing substantial," but I couldn't disagree more. I think the sum total of information is quite substantial.

Aren't you saying exactly what I said? The only proof you have is in books and words, which are not facts. Any scientific facts you did or did not mention here are not logically conclusive that God exists and is greater than life.

Yes, I keep saying it for a reason. I would like to make it clear that nature, according to an atheistic viewpoint, is entirely blind. I didn't say random, because I am well aware that there are laws and principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy and lead toward specific outcomes. Consider how Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist scientist, described natural selection:

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

You obviously disagree with that, but have offered no explanation for how evolutionary processes could be otherwise.

Yeah, just because this guy said something doesn't mean I'm going to believe it and I don't. I can't help but notice you're ignoring adaptation and survival as key principles of evolution. They are certainly not blind phenomena.

Well, I guess I'm trying to pin down what you believe, because you're definitely sending contradictory signals. If you don't believe #1, then I take that to mean that you believe "Life, with all of its amazing complexity, is the result of guided, intelligent natural forces." What natural forces? We're right back to the question I asked before, but which you didn't answer: How can something guide its own creation?

Not being sarcastic - could you quote where I was contradictory? If I was then I'll apologize and clear it up. Just because I don't believe #1 doesn't mean that I believe the opposite... that's like asking: "Do you believe that a car is up?", and when I say "No", you say: "Then you must believe that a car is down". Come on. What natural forces you ask? What unnatural forces would there be? How can something guide it's own creation? I never once mentioned life's creation. I'm not sure, because nobody knows, if life is eternal or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've gathered from your posts that you reject the existence of an intelligent being possessing the attributes I described above, since otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to life as God. Many of my other statements have followed from use of the "law of the excluded middle," in that it seems evident to me that if there is not an intelligent creator, then the universe, with all of its laws and principles, has to essentially be an accident without purpose. If you do not believe that, then I guess that's part of what I would like to see clarified.

I reject all of them except the 3rd "attribute". Though I could make a case for the first two, but that really doesn't make much of a point. Why does everything have to be blind and accidental if there isn't a mysterious God watching and tweaking from some place that cannot be defined? Why can't all the universe's cause and reason lie within the universe?

Since I've said that I believe God is life which is a pretty clear statement, though you consistently say that it is not, how about you offer your belief of what God is (forgive me if you've already said it and I haven't seen it). But even if you have already explained it, can you sum up what you believe God is in a clear and concise statement? And I don't mean that you believe God is creator, omnipotent, etc... I mean what exactly do you believe God is? Do you believe God is a large man with a white beard sitting on a throne above a cloud? I'm very interested to know.

Edit: I have read most of your other posts in this forum, but a lot of them are about the Bible and I have nothing to add really. They are very interesting though.

Edited May 3, 2008 by itachi-san

[Guest]

That's fine, I'll agree to disagree here. I don't think along the lines of all of these "attributes" (except 3.) because to me they are not possible and therefore not attributes, but fantasies.

Not possible? I totally understand not being convinced of the existence of a being with those qualities, but to conclude, a priori, that they're not possible? How do you justify that?

Aren't you saying exactly what I said? The only proof you have is in books and words, which are not facts. Any scientific facts you did or did not mention here are not logically conclusive that God exists and is greater than life.

No, pretty sure I'm not. I wasn't presenting to you a list of evidence for God's existence. That's the subject of the religious debate and Atheist Belief threads (the latter title is tongue-in-cheek, btw). You said that scientific theories are based on fact, while theories about God have no such basis. My point was that the exact same evidence a scientist uses as the basis for theories of origin is viewed by a creationist as evidence of God's intelligent design. It's not about accepting or rejecting the facts, it's about how we interpret them to form a particular world-view, constructing a set of "beliefs" (sorry Unreality) about why things are the way they are, and thus have a framework from which to evaluate the evidence. An evolutionary scientist and I will look at the same discovery and draw different conclusions. It's inaccurate to say that his conclusions are based on fact and mine aren't.

My point in mentioning the Bible was to make clear that my beliefs about God are not based solely on scientific evidence. At best, the scientific evidence leads me to the conclusion there's an intelligent and powerful designer, but that's about it (well, judging from the platypus, I'd also say he's got a sense of humor ). Through my study of the Bible, I've become convinced that it was written by men, but inspired by God. In other words, the creator of the universe saw to it that what he wanted conveyed to men was conveyed. The controversy over the Bible's divine inspiration is naturally a whole 'nother thing, but it's simply not illogical or irrational for a person to form beliefs based on the Bible if they are convinced that it's from God, as I am. If I were to investigate and conclude that I've been wrong all along and that the Bible is actually just an extremely clever and well-orchestrated fraud, then I would have to toss my whole belief system and start over. However, at this point I'm pretty much sure that's not gonna happen (like, 99.999% sure).

Yeah, just because this guy said something doesn't mean I'm going to believe it and I don't.

It's kinda funny that you're so firmly in neither the theist nor atheist camp. Just about every hard core atheist is familiar with Richard Dawkins. He's a well known biologist and vocal opponent to theism. You use many of the typical atheist arguments against religious thought, but you don't accept the notion that there's no purpose, which is generally espoused by atheists. More on that in a sec ...

I can't help but notice you're ignoring adaptation and survival as key principles of evolution. They are certainly not blind phenomena.

Not sure why you'd think I was ignoring them. In any case, by the criteria that both Richard Dawkins and I are using for the term blind ("does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view"), I hardly see how adaptation and survival have 'sight'. Organisms try not to die. That seems to be about the extent of it. Natural selection can then result in the dominance of surviving and adapting creatures, thus promoting their adaptations, but at no point in this process is any action affected by knowledge of an end goal.

The notion of purposeful design is what we theists use to argue that there must be an intelligent designer (e.g., a wing is designed for the purpose of flight; an eye for the purpose of seeing). In order to counter this, a natural explanation requires that at every minute step along the way, there was some selective advantage that did not involve goal-oriented purpose, that the wing, right up until the point it was first used for flying, was useful for something else. If life one day achieves interplanetary travel, do you believe it had that goal in view when there were only amoebas to work with? If so, then you obviously believe in a higher, immaterial intelligence which can impart purpose. If not, then I just don't get what it is you're suggesting, and I assure you I've tried. I just went back and reread every post of yours on the subject, and to be honest, I'm really no clearer than when I started.

Could you quote where I was contradictory?

Ok, I realize in hindsight that many of the statements that seem contradictory are only so because of what I accept as implied conclusions. However, I'll cite some of the sources of my confusion:

DP: My question, which was possibly not worded clearly, was whether or not you believe life/God existed prior to the advent of physical life anywhere in the universe. A slightly different, but related question is: Is this life/God a non-physical, supernatural (i.e., not explainable by measurable natural phenomenon) entity, or is it explainable by science?

IS: I think you keep missing my point so I'll restate it. I don't believe in a separate God. I believe life is God. It could just as easily be called Tom or Jerry as far as I'm concerned. And also can be stated life is life or God is God. Therefore, God did not exist before life, life before God, life before life, God before God. They are one and the same to me. Life doesn't have to have a name, but if I'm naming it, I'll call it God.

You didn't answer either of my questions, telling me that I simply didn't get the point. I understand that by making Life and God interchangeable, you feel my first question doesn't make sense. But I'm trying to get at what differs between your naturalistic view and that of an atheist. When I talk about "life," I'm obviously talking about living physical things. On Earth, it's pretty easy to distinguish living from non-living (although viruses do walk the line). Scientists estimate that life first appeared on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Do you believe that the origination of life on Earth was guided by a higher intelligence? Do you believe there was a larger purpose to the organization of the various chemicals needed to result in life? If I have understood your theory so far, you would answer No to the first question, and Yes to the second. You seem to accept purpose, but not an intelligence greater than life. However, without some mechanism to guide the creation of life, I don't see how purpose fits in. Does this larger purpose come into play only after life has originated by accident, onece the mechanism for evolutionary advancement is in place? (a mechanism which I reject as insufficient, as you well know)

"Physical life is inherently not supernatural or divine. It's existence is another matter though."

"Evolution of body and mind is fact though and proves that life is goal oriented."

"I never once mentioned life's creation. I'm not sure, because nobody knows, if life is eternal or not."

Regarding that last one, I mentioned its creation, because regardless of whether or not there has always been life in the universe (unlikely since it's hard to see life continuing to evolve in the middle of a singularity; we're pretty sure the universe was infinitely dense around the time of the Big Bang), life on the Earth, which you said is not connected to life on other planets, most certainly had a beginning.

Since I've said that I believe God is life which is a pretty clear statement, though you consistently say that it is not, how about you offer your belief of what God is (forgive me if you've already said it and I haven't seen it). But even if you have already explained it, can you sum up what you believe God is in a clear and concise statement? And I don't mean that you believe God is creator, omnipotent, etc... I mean what exactly do you believe God is? Do you believe God is a large man with a white beard sitting on a throne above a cloud? I'm very interested to know.

Sure. I'm assuming you already know, of course. Prior to the creation of the universe, and probably of time itself, there was God, an immeasurably intelligent and powerful being. Because he wanted to, he made the universe, including a spirit realm which may or may not be directly connected with the physical universe, but which allows passage back and forth. It follows that he is not bounded by the environment he created, and therefore cannot be described visually, but details about his nature and personality can be ascertained by examining what he's made and the information he has chosen to reveal to us. I would assume that if he's visible to creatures in the spirit realm, he would appear however he wants to.

As it so happens, in vision to the apostle John he appeared as a man with a white beard sitting on a throne above a cloud, surrounded by a rainbow.

I have read most of your other posts in this forum, but a lot of them are about the Bible and I have nothing to add really. They are very interesting though.

Actually, that's only recently. The great majority of my Other-Forum posts have involved the logic surrounding the topic of God's existence and related issues such as evolution, faith, first cause, etc. For the most part I was debating with atheists, so there was little point in bringing the Bible into the picture. In the hell thread, however, the participants are mostly already believers; hence the Bible discussion.

[itachi-san]

Not possible? I totally understand not being convinced of the existence of a being with those qualities, but to conclude, a priori, that they're not possible? How do you justify that?

OK, I'll just go with "I'm not convinced of the existence of a being with those qualities". I suppose anything is possible, even a flying spaghetti monster.

It's kinda funny that you're so firmly in neither the theist nor atheist camp. Just about every hard core atheist is familiar with Richard Dawkins. He's a well known biologist and vocal opponent to theism. You use many of the typical atheist arguments against religious thought, but you don't accept the notion that there's no purpose, which is generally espoused by atheists. More on that in a sec ...

Well, I think it's kinda funny you're so firmly devoted to something that has garnered no proof in its entire supposed eternal existence, well 99.9999% at least. I never said I didn't know who Richard Dawkins was, I was merely making light of you providing a random quote and then immediately stating that you knew I would disagree with it. That's kind of a silly response. Just because I don't believe in a typical religious system makes me an atheist? How many times have I said that I believe in God? -plenty now. Arguing against normal religious thought means that I can't accept life has a purpose? Are you serious? Asking what is the purpose if there is no God, is equivalent to asking what is the purpose if there is a God. Both parties are still looking for a purpose.

Not sure why you'd think I was ignoring them. In any case, by the criteria that both Richard Dawkins and I are using for the term blind ("does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view"), I hardly see how adaptation and survival have 'sight'. Organisms try not to die. That seems to be about the extent of it. Natural selection can then result in the dominance of surviving and adapting creatures, thus promoting their adaptations, but at no point in this process is any action affected by knowledge of an end goal.

So humans "do not see ahead, do not plan consequences, and have no purpose in view"? We are still evolving and we do all three of these things. Of course there isn't knowledge of an end goal (at least not known to us yet); if there was we wouldn't have anything to debate.

The notion of purposeful design is what we theists use to argue that there must be an intelligent designer (e.g., a wing is designed for the purpose of flight; an eye for the purpose of seeing). In order to counter this, a natural explanation requires that at every minute step along the way, there was some selective advantage that did not involve goal-oriented purpose, that the wing, right up until the point it was first used for flying, was useful for something else. If life one day achieves interplanetary travel, do you believe it had that goal in view when there were only amoebas to work with? If so, then you obviously believe in a higher, immaterial intelligence which can impart purpose. If not, then I just don't get what it is you're suggesting, and I assure you I've tried. I just went back and reread every post of yours on the subject, and to be honest, I'm really no clearer than when I started.

I'm trying to get at what differs between your naturalistic view and that of an atheist. When I talk about "life," I'm obviously talking about living physical things. On Earth, it's pretty easy to distinguish living from non-living (although viruses do walk the line). Scientists estimate that life first appeared on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Do you believe that the origination of life on Earth was guided by a higher intelligence? Do you believe there was a larger purpose to the organization of the various chemicals needed to result in life? If I have understood your theory so far, you would answer No to the first question, and Yes to the second. You seem to accept purpose, but not an intelligence greater than life. However, without some mechanism to guide the creation of life, I don't see how purpose fits in. Does this larger purpose come into play only after life has originated by accident, onece the mechanism for evolutionary advancement is in place? (a mechanism which I reject as insufficient, as you well know)

Fair enough. Never of us can actually prove anything. These are just beliefs after all. I don't agree with the comment about wings and prior purposes, but that's hardly the point. Sure I believe that life is leading toward a universal connection, I've already stated that. I can see no reason for exploration from a theists point of view. But for life to find more life, that just makes sense to me. You mentioned the singularity somewhere in this post and that's exactly it. All of whatever life is was in one place essentially and now it's interspersed throughout the universe. I believe that the goal of life on Earth is to coalesce with other instances of life and gain from that collective entity. How did life start on Earth? I don't know, no one does. I'm honestly much more in favor of some extra terrestrial reason over a divine creator we can never possibly prove exists. I would answer "Do you believe that the origination of life on Earth was guided by a higher intelligence?" with: Yes, but it wasn't God. And I would answer "Do you believe there was a larger purpose to the organization of the various chemicals needed to result in life?" Yes, but not to result in life, rather to allow life to be. Life being eternal or not is another assumption that cannot be proved. And once again, any organized theory of life evolving has to be an accident. There's no way life can have a purpose that we can't perceive... according to you. Without the invisible God to guide it for a perfectly good reason of course. Like I said before, there is a possibility that the purpose for life gathering cannot be known to us until either: it has gathered, or we evolve more and gain a better understanding of the universe.

Sure. I'm assuming you already know, of course. Prior to the creation of the universe, and probably of time itself, there was God, an immeasurably intelligent and powerful being. Because he wanted to, he made the universe, including a spirit realm which may or may not be directly connected with the physical universe, but which allows passage back and forth. It follows that he is not bounded by the environment he created, and therefore cannot be described visually, but details about his nature and personality can be ascertained by examining what he's made and the information he has chosen to reveal to us. I would assume that if he's visible to creatures in the spirit realm, he would appear however he wants to.

This is exactly the answer I was expecting. It's so blatantly convenient that I literally find it impossible to believe that you believe it. That is really how I feel and I don't mean offense because you are clearly intelligent. You may have well have just answered "No, I can't describe it. I just believe it." You have been prodding and trying to poke holes in my belief of God, which is fine be assured, but then offer your own belief which I am incapable of poking a hole through because (to me) the entire idea is a hole. There is nothing anywhere in reality that suggests any part of your belief is true. And I could ask an infinite amount of questions that would make just as much sense if the answers were yes, like: "Why not 2 Gods? Why is God all alone on his plane of existence? If he is immeasurably intelligent then what is the point of anything in the universe? He surely must know the answers without having to test it all out. Why did he decide to make the universe?, etc..."

[Guest]

"Do you believe that the origination of life on Earth was guided by a higher intelligence?" with: Yes, but it wasn't God.

That's such a fascinating response for one who insists he is not an atheist.

This is exactly the answer I was expecting. It's so blatantly convenient that I literally find it impossible to believe that you believe it.

Is it impossible because it's convenient?

"No, I can't describe it. I just believe it." You have been prodding and trying to poke holes in my belief of God, which is fine be assured, but then offer your own belief which I am incapable of poking a hole through because (to me) the entire idea is a hole.

I understand your frustration. I'm sure that's precisely how most atheists feel when debating with religious people, and why they get a little irritable at times. However, please understand that I wasn't using my religious beliefs to prod your beliefs. I was trying to use straightforward logical questions, and felt like I could never get clear answers. You feel like your position is tenable, because there's no way you could have clear answers to support the details of your theory. After all, it's just a theory. I, on the other hand, feel like my position, wherein I appear to spew forth totally unfounded crap to you, is actually very well-founded, both in scripture and in scientific evidence. You've rejected scripture as fantasy, either on principle or after investigation, so that carries no weight with you, and anything I could present as evidence for intelligent design you would immediately accept as possible by natural means, whether or not you have evidence of it. Therefore, in your mind, my belief is based on a brimming full cup of jack squat. Given your readiness to trust your own theories rather than even consider an intelligent and supreme creator, I doubt there's much more for us to discuss on this topic. Perhaps you can contribute to the "religious debate" and "Atheist Belief" threads once we get rolling again on the topic of God's existence. You might be the only theist arguing from the other side. I still have to follow up on the matter of the bacterial flagellum and Victor Stenger's arguments against the cosmological argument. I've just found the Hell and Immortal Soul topics to be a nice diversion lately.

[itachi-san]

First of all, if you look at the Topic heading, this topic was literally designed for us

That's such a fascinating response for one who insists he is not an atheist.

My sarcasm detector is in the red! I don't see why a theist has to believe God can't exist within this universe and has to exist in some fantasy realm. My belief is that everything can be explained given time because we are all a part of it, yours is that nothing can be explained because it is not and can never be in our reach.

Is it impossible because it's convenient?

I never said it was impossible, I said anything is possible. I said it was impossible (okay 99.9999%) for me to believe that deep down anyone really believes what you are saying you believe. I'm not calling you a liar, more that you are so caught up in that belief system that you actually believe it, like how everyone was convinced the Earth was flat until they were enlightened. Every scientific discovery, which are brought about by the evolution of our minds and thought, chips away at the belief structures such as your own, because more fact is found and less fiction is believed. Eventually there will be a time of 100% fact.

I understand your frustration. I'm sure that's precisely how most atheists feel when debating with religious people, and why they get a little irritable at times. However, please understand that I wasn't using my religious beliefs to prod your beliefs. I was trying to use straightforward logical questions, and felt like I could never get clear answers. You feel like your position is tenable, because there's no way you could have clear answers to support the details of your theory. After all, it's just a theory. I, on the other hand, feel like my position, wherein I appear to spew forth totally unfounded crap to you, is actually very well-founded, both in scripture and in scientific evidence. You've rejected scripture as fantasy, either on principle or after investigation, so that carries no weight with you, and anything I could present as evidence for intelligent design you would immediately accept as possible by natural means, whether or not you have evidence of it. Therefore, in your mind, my belief is based on a brimming full cup of jack squat. Given your readiness to trust your own theories rather than even consider an intelligent and supreme creator, I doubt there's much more for us to discuss on this topic. Perhaps you can contribute to the "religious debate" and "Atheist Belief" threads once we get rolling again on the topic of God's existence. You might be the only theist arguing from the other side. I still have to follow up on the matter of the bacterial flagellum and Victor Stenger's arguments against the cosmological argument. I've just found the Hell and Immortal Soul topics to be a nice diversion lately.

Again referring to me as an atheist, that's fine if it makes you feel more comfortable when being challenged. I mean, how could someone who doesn't believe God is an unlimited powerhouse from another dimension who decided one day to create the universe be anything but an atheist. I couldn't have come up with my own theory of what God is without reading it in a work of fiction. There goes that sarcasm detector again... I have never thought you were using your religion to prod mine. I feel that my position is unquestionably more stable than yours. A theory that is not based entirely on solid fact holds more water than a theory based on no facts. Yes, I've rejected the Bible just as I've rejected Zeus and Ra, all great stories btw. I've considered a supreme creator for many years. After considering it for so long, I've decided that it doesn't make any sense and is not founded on anything substantial. And I'm noting that your backing out of the discussion the post after your belief was brought up, whereas I withstood the pounding mine took. Maybe my theory just has more support that I can lean against. Also, I'm not frustrated or irritable. Don't project your feelings onto me. I like defending what I believe and hearing other's ideas.

Edited May 3, 2008 by itachi-san

[Guest]

First of all, if you look at the Topic heading, this topic was literally designed for us

Makes me wonder what the purpose was? He likes to watch heads butt?

I don't see why a theist has to believe God can't exist within this universe and has to exist in some fantasy realm. My belief is that everything can be explained given time because we are all a part of it, yours is that nothing can be explained because it is not and can never be in our reach.

Let's pull from a bit of science fiction to help explain the need for a "fantasy realm":

1) I'm guessing you're probably familiar with the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, right? It turns out Earth is actually a colossal computer used to calculate the question for the answer to life, the universe, and everything (42). According to your view, I'm guessing that the mice responsible for the project, and even the engineer Slarty Bartfast (he loves fjords!), could be considered gods. True? Yet we would say that they're nothing more than highly developed life forms. Nothing supernatural about them. Would Arthur Dent (the book's main character) consider them gods? Of course not.

2) How about the Goa'uld in Stargate SG-1 (Ra from the first movie)? They pose as gods and are worshiped by the slave societies they dominate, but they're really just nothing more than super-advanced lifeforms. Once you've learned what they're really like (parasitic serpentine aliens), would you still call them gods? I wouldn't.

That's the point. Anything which is within the realm of natural scientific explanations no longer qualifies as a God. When the atheists and theists debate, it's generally about whether or not there's an intelligent creator, a First Cause responsible for making the universe and the life in it. If the god you believe in is nothing more than a product of unguided natural forces, then by most people's reckoning, that's not a god at all. If the god you believe in transcends the natural universe and imparts purpose, then you've got yourself a deity. After all that you've said, I still can't tell which side you're on, or what exactly the middle ground is that you're trying to walk.

I never said it was impossible, I said anything is possible. I said it was impossible (okay 99.9999%) for me to believe that deep down anyone really believes what you are saying you believe.

My bad, sorry. I read that wrong. Of course, I have no idea why you'd find it hard to believe that I believe it. You've seen that I've been ardently defending my beliefs, whether through logic or using the Bible. As I've already stated repeatedly, since I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God, I will use it as a basis for my belief where applicable, and I will cite it as the authority to those who actually respect it as an authority, which, mind you, is a good chunk of the people on the planet.

The bigger oddity, to me, is that you find the whole idea of a creator of the universe to be absurd, while you readily accept the idea that there is advanced intelligence elsewhere in the universe, despite no evidence of such. I really have a hard time understanding that. You seem perfectly ok with the idea of a grand purpose, a universal reality, an interplanetary goal toward which life strives, yet you reject out of hand the idea that there could be a mind behind the whole thing, rather than just some subset (which sort of God you seem ok with). On top of that, you find it hard to grasp that anyone else could actually believe that there's an intelligent being responsible for the very qualities you embrace, rather than all such purpose either arising from the ether, or simply being an intrinsic part of it. I apologize if I'm still not representing your views accurately, but hopefully you can at least understand why it's hard to relate to.

Every scientific discovery, which are brought about by the evolution of our minds and thought, chips away at the belief structures such as your own, because more fact is found and less fiction is believed. Eventually there will be a time of 100% fact.

Believe that if you want, but I often read Scientific American, and so far my overwhelming response has been to reinforce my belief. I'm not worried about more evidence. I welcome it, because the more we know, the less room there is for blind faith and superstition. You ought to know by now that I despise those far more than a bit of faulty reasoning.

Again referring to me as an atheist, that's fine if it makes you feel more comfortable when being challenged.

Actually, I didn't call you an atheist, and I haven't at any point in the discussion. It merely seemed to me that you expressed a measure of frustration (heck, I would in your shoes) at the apparently unassailable position of the creationist, similar to what I'm sure many atheists who debate the existence of God feel. In fact, I said specifically that you would be the only theist taking the anti-super-God position in the existence-of-God debates.

And I'm noting that your backing out of the discussion the post after your belief was brought up, whereas I withstood the pounding mine took. Maybe my theory just has more support that I can lean against. Also, I'm not frustrated or irritable. Don't project your feelings onto me. I like defending what I believe and hearing other's ideas.

I appreciate your fortitude, but I'm not backing out because I'm worried about having my beliefs pounded. Perhaps a little perspective and humility on your part would help you to realize that. I've had plenty of long debates on these forums with individuals who know more about evolution than you, and others who know more about the Bible. You bring a fresh perspective to the table and you're clearly intelligent, but I've no desire to argue when it's obvious that there's no forward progress. If you have something specific that you would like to challenge me on about my religious beliefs, by all means go ahead. Start a new thread. I'll be sure to see it, and you don't even have to put my name in the title. Based on the current tone of this discussion, however, I have no desire to continue

Edited May 3, 2008 by Duh Puck

[unreality]

whoa, I did not expect this to turn into a bitter arguement... sorry guys!

Duh Puck, I think what Itachi-San is saying is, is that there is evidence for his belief... the entire purpose of life is to reproduce itself, to keep living, to avoid possibly fatal pain, to further the species, to survive, etc. He's saying that this just doesn't happen blindly- therefore life must have a purpose. You agree, but then you say God caused this purpose. He's saying life has created its own purpose. Both of you have no real evidence to support your claims (the Bible is not evidence, as it's clearly 100% biased- it's just a book), though Itachi-san's theory is more likely to me- however it does have some holes, such as: how does life determine its own purpose? Did it have a hand in its own creation? etc. But the holes are less gaping than most religions, I would say

I believe there is no purpose to life- and you might argue "but you just said the purpose of life is the continued existence of life", and I did just say that, but I mean that the only way life could still be existing billions of years later is BECAUSE it strives to continue its own existence. I'm sure there were other forms of life long time ago that didn't develop such natural processes, so they died out. It's just natural selection- a blind process where the things that are advantaged to survive will survive. Know what I mean?

So I'm not saying that life's goal to reproduce is a coincidence, just the opposite. That form of life is the only form that could've gotten this far. That's why it's like that.

So, going back to my OP, the topic was intended for atheists, I guess, now that I see Duh Puck's reaction to it. I was just reflecting on swarm theory and, if you are an atheist, how we might be individuals in a "swarm" such as our planet, or even the universe- I was also connecting it to Itachi's theory about life being superbeings, because colonies, or "super-organisms" or "swarms" are kind of similar.

So my theory in my OP would be hard to grasp for a theist, where it may be interesting but irrelevant.

I don't have any evidence to back my OP theory up- it's just an idea. What if we are part of something bigger?

[itachi-san]

whoa, I did not expect this to turn into a bitter arguement... sorry guys!

No worries from where I'm sitting. I was having fun with it And I think I may have shaped my belief a bit to fit with your Earth theory.

So, going back to my OP, the topic was intended for atheists, I guess, now that I see Duh Puck's reaction to it. I was just reflecting on swarm theory and, if you are an atheist, how we might be individuals in a "swarm" such as our planet, or even the universe- I was also connecting it to Itachi's theory about life being superbeings, because colonies, or "super-organisms" or "swarms" are kind of similar.

So my theory in my OP would be hard to grasp for a theist, where it may be interesting but irrelevant.

I don't have any evidence to back my OP theory up- it's just an idea. What if we are part of something bigger?

I was planning on getting back the original point sooner or later OK, so take my theory that whatever life is was once at one point in the singularity before the Big Bang. Now it is scattered all across the universe, perhaps with the help of super beings (aliens) because even though Earth became inhabitable there is no proven reason yet as to why life just manifested out of elements. Our Sun is also quite young compared to others, so we are probably a fairly new part of the "colony" if you will. So perhaps the galaxies are like colonies and they function to evolve life to as supreme a state as possible. And when this state is reached we are then able to travel throughout colonies and mix with other instances of life and eventually form a massive colony out of the galaxy and then the universe. For what purpose? No way to answer that yet, but I would argue that evolution of the mind has been building towards interstellar communication and travel.

To answer Duh Puck's point about aliens, of course I wouldn't call them God. They are creatures like us, no matter how advanced they are. Life, however, is not so easily defined, and life is part of us and whatever type of alien you want to reference. Since life is so mysterious I label it God. At least, the only God I can logically deduce to exist.

Perhaps there is a being that is made of just life and set the goal evolution is leading to and that Being (located in this universe) is accumulating more life to make itself better in whatever unfathomable way. Or maybe life must be cultivated and grown in a specific manner before it is useful for whatever purpose; this is where Earth Theory would come in again. This is also a bit taken from some sf (2001 a little) but what if the beings who have a vested interest in life evolving wait for a planet to evolve to the point where it becomes habitable and then place the seed of life and hope that it grows in a similar fashion to how Earth has grown (and not like how Mars failed).

I should verify that my "belief" is really a "theory" that I am interested in, but I would also argue anyone's "belief" that requires faith and the supernatural to be a "theory" as well.

Edited May 3, 2008 by itachi-san

[unreality]

yeah, I agree- though somewhere in there, before all the "purpose", there has to be something random, something that sparked the beginnings of life... the formation of early cells, ie, rings of nano-organisms that work together, becoming "cells", which then form bodies, working together, becoming "tissue" and "organisms", becoming "communities" and "colonies", etc... that's another thing that led to my idea. The first cells came about as rings of tiny compounds, sort of unconsciously working together for survival- though there is no true definition of consciousness, so that would be the first life, the first consciousness. And it grew from there. I believe that somewhere in the universe, I doubt that it was Earth, life first arose as defined by "compounds working together" and evolving from there. I believe natural selection and evolution are simple, semi-random, blind processes- the concepts themselves are very simple, there is no guiding force needed

but that does not directly disqualify your (itachi's) theory... it does not mean that there isn't some destination for life's evolution pattern... but I believe it is a "blind" goal- but a goal nontheless. What theists call "blind" just because their God isn't guiding it does not mean that Nature is not guiding it. So while evolution is "blind" in the terms of theism and that it has no central intelligence guiding it, but happens locally and without guidance, does not mean that it is "blind"... for I believe in Nature, just like Itachi