Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:41 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 2776
Mr. G wrote:


:rolling:

_________________
TWTB BIES OCB DDM BWF


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am
Posts: 473
Quote:
1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?


1. Imponderable
2. All living beings want to be free from suffering
3. Progress is an illusion
4. Dualistic thinking gives rise to systems of information
5. The odds are not so overwhelming, the universe is abundant with life and slowly science is coming to grips with this as a mathematically probable statement. This doesn't disprove design, it actually would be an argument for it. Making life so feeble and rare would be inefficient, a poorly written program.
6. On this planet. The complexity of the phenomena is the mind.
7. Some people are rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings, a great majority are not all or any of these things. The capacity for unselfish love is greatly eclipsed by our capacity for ignorance, delusion and selfishness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:42 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
mint wrote:
Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?
Two "answers" come to mind:
1. In the darkness you see a coil of rope and call it a snake.
2 Shoot the designer, quickly!
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 206
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Your body "knows" how to grow its bones, but can this really be called intelligence? Here is where the beauty of Tao comes into view. The universe may indeed have it's source in a greater intelligence, but is that intelligence self-conscious is an entirely different question.

_________________
"Cause is not before and Effect is not after"
- Eihei Dogen Zenji


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:38 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: Budapest
An unconscious intelligence? That is a bit absurd.
Taoist or any other mono-causal system is refuted by dependent origination.

_________________
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
[quote]Design means to draw or create deliberately according to some plan -- but instead the universe arose because the blind force of the collective actions of ignorant sentient beings [from a previous universe[/quote
where did these previous beings come from? It just seems to conflate the problem unless their is a finite amount of beings with their own unique karma and how could beings arisen in the first place because there would be no 'initial' karma

_________________
I don't know where we are going but it will be nice when we get there


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Posts: 2107
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
AdmiralJim wrote:
where did these previous beings come from? It just seems to conflate the problem unless their is a finite amount of beings with their own unique karma and how could beings arisen in the first place because there would be no 'initial' karma


1/0 (one divided by zero) is an error. You can't get something from nothing, be it a first-beginning or a god.

"no first beginning is discernible" Buddha

_________________
Image
www.TheDhamma.com/
Dhamma Wiki encyclopedia
Dhamma Wheel forum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
My point is that the universe could not have arisen because of beings as previously stated as I think it more likely life originated later. the problem is not one of the universe orgins but the origins of life because as the number of sentient beings increases where does their karma come from, as you state it can't come from nothing, as surely inorganic atoms cannot have 'karma'.

_________________
I don't know where we are going but it will be nice when we get there


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
AdmiralJim wrote:
Quote:
Design means to draw or create deliberately according to some plan -- but instead the universe arose because the blind force of the collective actions of ignorant sentient beings [from a previous universe[/quote
where did these previous beings come from?


The previous universe.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
where did these previous beings from the previous universe come from? it just goes around in circles and would only work if there were a finite amount of beings

_________________
I don't know where we are going but it will be nice when we get there


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
AdmiralJim wrote:
where did these previous beings from the previous universe come from? it just goes around in circles and would only work if there were a finite amount of beings


From the universe prior to that ad infinitum. The logic of dependent origination does not permit of any sort of beginnings whatsoever. No first causes, no first moment, no first universe, etc. There are an infinite number of sentient beings who also have no beginning.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Ok I understand now, but it raises the question what are we seeking liberation from and how does a Bodhisattva save all sentinet beings

_________________
I don't know where we are going but it will be nice when we get there


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
AdmiralJim wrote:
Ok I understand now, but it raises the question what are we seeking liberation from and how does a Bodhisattva save all sentinet beings


We seek liberation from suffering.

A bodhisattva does not conceive of sentient beings to liberate and thus liberates them all.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:07 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
David N. Snyder wrote:
1/0 (one divided by zero) is an error. You can't get something from nothing, be it a first-beginning or a god.
1 divided by zero (mathematically) gives infinity actually! :smile:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
AdmiralJim wrote:
Ok I understand now, but it raises the question what are we seeking liberation from and how does a Bodhisattva save all sentinet beings


We are seeking liberation from beginningless samsara; and bodhisattvas do not save all sentient beings, they merely wish to do so.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Split Topic: Understanding the Basis

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:56 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Port Townsend, WA U.S.A.
Quote:
AdmiralJim wrote: where did these previous beings come from? It just seems to conflate the problem unless their is a finite amount of beings with their own unique karma and how could beings arisen in the first place because there would be no 'initial' karma


There can be no causation without time. If space/time did have a beginning (as many astrophysicists now speculate) then the question of what initially caused it is meaningless. In essence, the myth of the big bang has replaced God as the causless cause, the unmoved mover. Though I have always favored the perpetual state model myself, the evidence for the big bang theory has been mounting for quite a while. If it is true, then scientists can no longer criticize theism with the but-who-made-God argument without opening themselves up to the same question. Now it's really just a matter of believing in an intelligent first cause, versus an unintelligent one; and even with all the obvious flaws in our biology, I'm personally placing my bet on intelligence. There is really no strong refutation of theism once you trade in the idea of a good and perfect creator for one who is, at best, amoral and capable of error such as the demiurgos of Plato's conception. Of course, whether or not such a being is worthy of our worship is another question.

_________________
"The first thing you have to understand is that I don't believe in ANYTHING."
-Arahata Osho


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:56 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
The only reason that the Big Bang theory points back to a mathematical singularity is that there are shortcomings in the mathematics. The math simply does not apply in the first tiny fraction of a second of the universe. Presumably, no mathematical singularity actually existed, as quantum uncertainty would smear things out. If the "origin" point had finite size, then I see no reason not to assume that time can be traced back farther.

Basically I'm saying that the singularity is not a point, but a time when the universe was at minimum size.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
"Scientists propose that clocks measure the numerical order of material change in space, where space is a fundamental entity; time itself is not a fundamental physical entity."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-sci ... oposethat/

"In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia have found an effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that allows them to "see through" the Big Bang into what came before."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-sci ... e-big.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evidence for Design?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:22 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Adumbra wrote:
There is really no strong refutation of theism once you trade in the idea of a good and perfect creator for one who is, at best, amoral and capable of error such as the demiurgos of Plato's conception.
Of course there is, Dependent Origination, yah know???

Sherab wrote:
"In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia have found an effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that allows them to "see through" the Big Bang into what came before."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-sci ... e-big.html
Great so now the theologists... errrrmmmm... scientists that is, have discovered what existed before the creation of existence! The creator of the creator of creation!

That's just stupid!
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: conebeckham, heart, LastLegend and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group