Evidence for Design?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby plwk » Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:01 am

Mr. G wrote:


:rolling:
plwk
 
Posts: 2456
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby wisdom » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:11 am

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.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:42 pm

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:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Beatzen » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:24 am

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
User avatar
Beatzen
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Astus » Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:38 am

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)

“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; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby AdmiralJim » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:28 am

[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
User avatar
AdmiralJim
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby David N. Snyder » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:32 am

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
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby AdmiralJim » Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:36 am

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
User avatar
AdmiralJim
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Malcolm » Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:47 am

AdmiralJim wrote:
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.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby AdmiralJim » Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:54 am

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
User avatar
AdmiralJim
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Malcolm » Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:14 am

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.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby AdmiralJim » Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:12 am

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
User avatar
AdmiralJim
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Indrajala » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:09 am

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)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:07 am

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:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Malcolm » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:43 pm

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.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Mr. G » Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:19 pm

    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Adumbra » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:50 am

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
Adumbra
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA U.S.A.

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby catmoon » Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:56 am

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.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Sherab » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:42 am

"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
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Evidence for Design?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:22 am

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:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alfredo, JDBollinger, MSNbot Media, rory, smcj, Thaijeppe, xabir and 9 guests

>