Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[ding]

We've come a long way technology wise but are we closer to where we need to be as a society? Are we better than we were 2,000 years ago.

That's a fair question and the answer is debatable. In some regards yes and in some no. But regardless of that we are exactly where we are (society and individuals) because of the choices we made. The universe and everything inside of it as been evolving since its inception and will continue to do so. That evolution while not always a straight line is how we move from a lower state to a higher state regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant we may find it. Cause and effect will always be at play.

 

[ding]

I'm just glad I don't share you fatalism. Must be very depressing to think things can never get better.

What was our last major upheaval? I'd hate to think I missed it.

Then you have totally missed my point if you believe that. If anyone is a fatalist it's you.

The three "winters" of the American saeculum cycle were WWII, the Civil War and the American Revolution. By all accounts we are entering the 4th "winter" now.

 

[ding]

A pragmatist would ask what steps would bring us to the desired goal.

It's a fatalist that would do nothing.

A pragmatist sees things as they are and not ideals. You have been arguing ideals ever since I met you. You are no pragmatist in my opinion.

 

[alang1216]

Incorrect. Evolution is perfectly consistent with a creator God who created existence. In fact, the creation account literally describes a creator who created existence and then everything sprang forward from that creation. As in "let there be..."

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove a Creator, it only offers a completely natural vs a supernatural mechanism for speciation.

 

[alang1216]

It's because life is messy that it gets better. It's literally how the learning or evolution process works. It's because you have such a narrow view of God and evolution that you can't understand what I am talking about.

My view of God aside, if you think evolution makes life better, you don't understand it.

 

[ding]

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove a Creator, it only offers a completely natural vs a supernatural mechanism for speciation.

It's indirect evidence for a creator. Which is the only kind of evidence there can be for a transcendent incorporeal being.

But you have a very limited view of what evolution is if you limit it to biological evolution.

 

[ding]

My view of God aside, if you think evolution makes life better, you don't understand it.

You don't believe the evolution of your consciousness makes your life better or the lives of others better too?

Again... you have a very narrow view of evolution if you limit it to biological evolution.

 

[alang1216]

Sure, we should strive to progress. No one is saying we shouldn't. And I'm not arguing for blind acceptance. I'm arguing for a balanced view of reality. The fact of the matter is that life is full of impositions which cannot be avoided. These aren't necessarily bad though because they are learning opportunities if one has the correct frame of mind.

"What doesn't kill me makes me stronger"? Never been a fan of that phrase.

 

[ding]

alang1216

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is anything which moves from a lower state to a higher state; a less advanced state to a more advanced state; a less complex state to a more complex state. There have been 5 stages of evolution of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of consciousness.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

 

[ding]

"What doesn't kill me makes me stronger"? Never been a fan of that phrase.

Neither have I. I prefer whatever doesn't kill me only makes me long for death.

That's a joke BTW.

But the phrase means exactly what I have been discussing with you. That it's failures which lead to learning. Which is an example of how good can come from bad. Again... life is messy. Progress is not necessarily a straight line. So rather than bemoaning the state of things, see them as they are in a balanced view - the good and the bad - and figure out what it was you were supposed to learn from the bad. The only thing you can't have too much of is balance.

 

[alang1216]

That's a fair question and the answer is debatable. In some regards yes and in some no. But regardless of that we are exactly where we are (society and individuals) because of the choices we made. The universe and everything inside of it as been evolving since its inception and will continue to do so. That evolution while not always a straight line is how we move from a lower state to a higher state regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant we may find it. Cause and effect will always be at play.

Are mammals a "higher" state than dinosaurs? Dinosaurs lived alongside mammals for several million years but it took a comet to wipe them out.

 

[ding]

Are mammals a "higher" state than dinosaurs? Dinosaurs lived alongside mammals for several million years but it took a comet to wipe them out.

Intelligence was never going to arise with cold blooded creatures. So yes.

In fact, if you study the following progression you should be able to figure out the key characteristics required for intelligence to arise.

I think you are being outsmarted by your own cleverness.

 

[alang1216]

You don't believe the evolution of your consciousness makes your life better or the lives of others better too?

Again... you have a very narrow view of evolution if you limit it to biological evolution.

I don't believe my consciousness evolves as there is no competitor. I don't think humans are evolving either, at least not biologically. It is human culture that evolves and, considering our history, it doesn't make life better. Just ask the millions that died in the last hundred years.

 

[alang1216]

It's indirect evidence for a creator. Which is the only kind of evidence there can be for a transcendent incorporeal being.

A being that hides from his creations. Why?

 

[alang1216]

You don't believe the evolution of your consciousness makes your life better or the lives of others better too?

Again... you have a very narrow view of evolution if you limit it to biological evolution.

You are either misusing the term or changing the conversion. Or you need to give me an example I can understand.

 

[ding]

I don't believe my consciousness evolves as there is no competitor. I don't think humans are evolving either, at least not biologically. It is human culture that evolves and, considering our history, it doesn't make life better. Just ask the millions that died in the last hundred years.

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that even though it is 100% incorrect. Your flawed logic astounds me. If you think changing your mind isn't proof that your consciousness is evolving and your logic is flawed, I'm afraid I will never be able to convince you otherwise.

 

[ding]

A being that hides from his creations. Why?

Why not? And is he hiding? Or is it your failure that you can't sense his presence inside of you.

 

[ding]

You are either misusing the term or changing the conversion. Or you need to give me an example I can understand.

I've given you examples of both.

evolution example

example of how good comes from bad

 

[alang1216]

alang1216

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is anything which moves from a lower state to a higher state; a less advanced state to a more advanced state; a less complex state to a more complex state. There have been 5 stages of evolution of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of consciousness.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

You have left the world of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. Have a safe flight.

 

[ding]

You have left the world of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. Have a safe flight.

I don't believe I have. If I had you would have been able to actually explain how instead of just issuing an unsupported blanket denial.

Please tell me what part I got wrong? Please tell me what I have posted that isn't supported by science?

You can't. You can only say I am wrong. And you are only saying that because it offends your sensibilities. You don't have a good reason to disagree with anything I have written.