Creation using Evolution

[brujaq]

5 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

We know form Einstein that time is not objective.

Therefore, I am not sure what it means to say that something not objective will come to an end.

 sieglinde

 

The physical is bound by time, while God is outside time existing from the everlasting to the everlasting 

[siegi91]

Just now, brujaq said:

The physical is bound by time, while God is outside time existing from the everlasting to the everlasting 

Sure, anything you say

 siegi

 

[RockyMidnight]

1 minute ago, siegi91 said:

Could I have?

I am not sure.

 siegi

 

If you didn't make the choice, then who made it for you? Or do you think it is possible that every element in existence from the quantum level to the macro level and all the structures they combine to make, as well as their interaction with matter and energy and each other is all orchestrated and predestined? How about another perspective; do you know anyone well enough to know the choices they will make about a particular topic? Knowing in advance what someone will choose doesn't take away their free will. Their choices may still come as a surprise to those who do not know them as well as you. Yes? No?

Cheers!!! 

[RockyMidnight]

8 minutes ago, brujaq said:

The physical is bound by time, while God is outside time existing from the everlasting to the everlasting 

Hi Brujaq. I know that seems not only logical, but obvious, yet the ONLY time you ever have is "right now".  This is all you experience. Everything else is either memory or imagination. Try to do anything a millisecond ago. You can only do it right now. Think about it.

Cheers!!! 

Edited July 30, 2018 by RockyMidnight

[brujaq]

2 minutes ago, RockyMidnight said:

Hi Brujaq. I know that seems not only logical, but obvious, yet the ONLY time you ever have is "right now".  This is all you experience. Everything else is either memory or imagination. Try to do anything a millisecond ago. You can only do it right now. Think about ity.

Cheers!!! 

Well there is revelation of the past and prophesy of the future but I agree I'm now, for the time being 

[RockyMidnight]

OK, I'm in the middle of some intense lightening and thunder here, and having already lost a TV and PC to the "bolts", I'm shutting down. Later perhaps?

Cheers!!! 

[siegi91]

23 minutes ago, RockyMidnight said:

If you didn't make the choice, then who made it for you? Or do you think it is possible that every element in existence from the quantum level to the macro level and all the structures they combine to make, as well as their interaction with matter and energy and each other is all orchestrated and predestined? How about another perspective; do you know anyone well enough to know the choices they will make about a particular topic? Knowing in advance what someone will choose doesn't take away their free will. Their choices may still come as a surprise to those who do not know them as well as you. Yes? No?

Cheers!!! 

You know? I am a determinist, mainly for scientific reasons. And I am a determinist even under the premise of QM. All viable laws of physics are deterministic and reversible. They might differ on the configuration space on which things happen, but they are all like that.  This is so important, that new laws are first checked so that they pass the deterministic test.

So, nobody made that choice. My volition does not pop up out of nothing. It is determined by the physical state of my brain and the state of the inputs my brain receives. I mean, think about it. Do you think that any of your decisions begin to exist without a cause? Kalam might have a problem with that

Physical information is constant. So, if I decide to kick a ball, my decision was pre-determined, since the final state of that ball was not subject to indetermination. That final state was set billions of years before my birth.

Having said that, I think we can still make sense of free will.

Don't we use probability theory to study things like roulette and dice? Roulette and dice are not random. They look random because we ignore all the fine details that lead them to a result.So, if probability is effective for fundamentally not-random processes, then freedom of will and moral accountability might be a valid approximation for something that is not free at all.

 siegi

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by siegi91

[brujaq]

1 minute ago, siegi91 said:

You know? I am a determinist, mainly for scientific reasons. And I am a determinist even under the premise of QM. All viable laws of physics are deterministic and reversible. They might differ on the configuration space on which things happen, but they are all like that.  This is so important, that new laws are first checked so that they pass the test.

Physical information is constant. So, if I decide to kick a ball, my decision was pre-determined, since the final state of that ball was not subject to indetermination. That final state was set billions of years before my birth.

Having said that, I think we can still make sense of free will.

Don't we use probability theory to study things like roulette and dice? Roulette and dice are not random. They look random because we ignore all the fine details that lead them to a result.So, if probability is effective for fundamentally not-random processes, then freedom of will and moral accountability might be a valid approximation for something that is not free at all.

 siegi

 

Physical law is consistent and reliable , but God can and does intervene to overide physical law at our request or according to his will

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, siegi91 said:

Can you?

In all fairness, my comment that I can respect an approach based on faith and my emoji were far-separated. I can respect arguments based on faith, because I have faith in a God I can't see, feel, or touch. I just believe that God provided enough evidence to indicate that the creation sequence in Genesis 1 and 2 should not be read in a completely literal fashion. If others choose to reinterpret the available evidence because they believe a literal reading is the best reading, I am still a brother to that person in my Christian faith. Our unity in our faith should be much greater than disagreements about how long God took to create.

[siegi91]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

In all fairness, my comment that I can respect an approach based on faith and my emoji were far-separated. I can respect arguments based on faith, because I have faith in a God I can't see, feel, or touch. I just believe that God provided enough evidence to indicate that the creation sequence in Genesis 1 and 2 should not be read in a completely literal fashion. If others choose to reinterpret the available evidence because they believe a literal reading is the best reading, I am still a brother to that person in my Christian faith. Our unity in our faith should be much greater than disagreements about how long God took to create.

I understand. And I am sorry if I was too obnoxious.

It is for me very difficult to be in the shoes of someone who has faith, because I never experienced that. It is for me (or my brain states) unconceivable to submit evidence to an arbiter (call it faith or any a-priori prejudice)  that does not have any solid independent evidence to start with.

So, I hope you forgive me.

 siegi