Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote: All living things have souls. All souls are not the same. There are inanimate objects that have no soul, plants and vegetation that have an insentient soul, animals that have a sentient soul, and humans who have a rational soul. It is the latter in which we are made in the image of God.

Well, there are observations of dolphins pointing to their ability to reason. For example, when people drew something on their body, dolphin would spend much more time in front of the mirror. It seems to me that they can reason. Or another example is that one dolphin tried to communicate with human in very high pitch. The person did not react so dolphin realized that he must lower his pitch and did so. So to me, it seems like some animals have rational soul as well.

Reactionary wrote: As for surviving offspring, I have two objections:
1) If evolution is an ever-changing process (which it should be, as it allegedly switched from asexual to more risky and complicated sexual reproduction), then it shouldn't be a problem for it to adapt to modern-day conditions. Now that we're a society with developed social welfare, being polygamous should therefore, from an evolutionary point of view, be more beneficial.
2) By assuming that evolution is capable of doing cost-benefit analysis of various types of reproduction, we're esentially attributing intelligence to it, and one has to come up with the question how a random chemical process could perform such a feat.

For me the point 1 is not really an objection. Changes take time. As for the point 2, it is very interesting what you wrote. How can a random chemical process could perform such a feat? How can an evolution have a goal (more offspring or whatever)? It seems to me like someone programmed evolution. But can evolution be in agreement with Bible? How could I call myself then? An evolutionary theist?

Reactionary wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Reactionary wrote: No, computers don't "observe" anything. They process the inputs in a way that humans programmed them, and produce results in a predictable manner. Nothing more, nothing less.

Can you first define what you mean by 'observing'?

Some definitions of "observe", according to the Free Dictionary by Farlex:
= To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice.
= To make a systematic or scientific observation of

Well. The second definition is not really a definition. One has to then define what 'observation' is. The first definition is very good and tricky for me. Can computers be aware of something? I looked also into Farlex dictionary for the word 'aware' and it means having knowledge. I could look further for the word 'knowledge' but I will stop here because things would get circular. Well, computers can have knowledge. They can have a specific information about something.

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote: Well, it seems to me that humans and swans experience love in very similar way. How that can be? Is it better explained by evolution or not?

Why does it "seem" that way to you? In what way does evolution "explain" love?

First of all, I do not know why you put the word 'seem' in quotation marks. Why does it seem that way to me? Because of the similarities I said above. In what way does evolution explain love? See the suggestion from
wikipedia above. (I will do more reasearch on this.)

--- just thinking --- good night ---

1over137 wrote:For me the point 1 is not really an objection. Changes take time. As for the point 2, it is very interesting what you wrote. How can a random chemical process could perform such a feat? How can an evolution have a goal (more offspring or whatever)? It seems to me like someone programmed evolution. But can evolution be in agreement with Bible? How could I call myself then? An evolutionary theist?

A theistic evolutionist. Many believe that evolution could be in agreement with the Bible, I suggest reading some materials from the TE perspective. I wouldn't rule it out, but I personally still hold to old earth creationism as it makes more sense to me. Both theories teach progressive creation, it's just that according to OEC, species were created according to their own kinds, while TE teaches a guided evolution, with God intervening in key points to produce certain outcomes.

1over137 wrote:Well, computers can have knowledge. They can have a specific information about something.

They do - but it's "information" for us, while for them it's just a collection of bits and bytes. As far as I remember my lectures in IT, something like that is called "fact" or "data", and only when such is useful and has a potential for usage, then it's regarded as "information".

1over137 wrote:

Byblos wrote: All living things have souls. All souls are not the same. There are inanimate objects that have no soul, plants and vegetation that have an insentient soul, animals that have a sentient soul, and humans who have a rational soul. It is the latter in which we are made in the image of God.

Well, there are observations of dolphins pointing to their ability to reason. For example, when people drew something on their body, dolphin would spend much more time in front of the mirror. It seems to me that they can reason. Or another example is that one dolphin tried to communicate with human in very high pitch. The person did not react so dolphin realized that he must lower his pitch and did so. So to me, it seems like some animals have rational soul as well.

That's not reasoning, that's behavioral modification to elicit a response. My dog does the same thing, he'll wag his tail a little at first, then a little harder. I keep ignoring him so he'll start jumping up and down and barking. Is he reasoning? Other animals use tools, is that considered reasoning? I don't think so. A rational soul is not only capable of reasoning but a whole lot more than that. There are many but one example would be strategic planning. When a dolphin can communicate what it plans to do in a decade, next year, or even tomorrow, with plans that may run counter to its evolutionary survival, then you might have a case.

Computers, reduced to their most basic, are only electrical signals that have no real value. It is just a bunch of random firings of energy that produce different shades of light on a screen. It is human beings that produce the meaning of the signals and call it "information". We use our bodies like computers, but it is our soul that makes us different.

1over137 » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:11 pm

neo-x wrote:
I would humbly suggest that there is no concrete way, or perhaps a theory to conclude that animals, such as swans experience Love. I may be wrong but the safest line of thought for the sake of the argument would be that animals may not have the same emotions and feelings, such as love. They are more of instincts. For example a baby snake, in the first hour of its birth starts to hunt for small insects, it is instinct. How can we assume that the swans are not doing it out of instinct but out of love. I am afraid building an argument on this would be prone to disqualification if someone does not regard love in animals.


And how can we assume that humans are not doing it out of instinct but out of love? I am still deep down in question what is really the difference between animals and humans. This is what I wrote month ago to one person (still has not replied):
---
According to Bible people were created in the image of God. What does that really mean? Christians say that it means that human beings are like God, with mind, emotion, and will. But reading about dolphins and stories in which they rescued people even when they put themselves in danger, it seems to me that they have also will and emotions and mind. They also communicate with each other, have consciousness and self-awareness (can recognize themselves in a mirror), can reason, can behave in altruistic way.

If it is a free will that makes the difference between humans and animals, then I ask what is a free will. I ask that because an answer I got to that question is that a free will is something people possess. This leads to a circular reasoning.

If it is a religion, then I ask how do we know that animals do not have a religion? (Elephants even mourn their dead)

And if it is a soul, then how do we know they do not have a soul?
---

Sorry if I just do not see some things.

Because we know that humans have a higher sense of things than dolphins or swans. We can dissect a swan, observe them, may even be able to train them to certain responses. I never saw a swan do the same to a human. You see, rationality, as I once discussed with you - in animals is to certain degree but not as much as in a human. Byblos said it right. Can a dolphin plan a week ahead, 1 year ahead, 10 years ahead. Can it make tools? Its rationality is limited to our responses and it own natural will. But free will is not the same in us as in animals. For example, take habitat. lions live in jungles. they are made for that kind of turf. their paws are soft on the downside to reduce noise, they can camouflage in the Savannah. Take monkeys, they are perfect to live on trees, the dolphin is made for water, the elephant, the camel, all are designed for their natural habitats (don't get confused I am not explaining ID), Now look at man, man can live in buildings, caves, sky scrappers, cars, we are made to almost accommodate any type of terrain and we can adapt to almost any type of environment. That is the level of our intelligence and also our design. But can a dolphin adapt to live in desert. can you see my point? Don't assume that if animals have free will, they have it to our extent. Their free will goes with their rationale, which is - should I attack this deer or the one standing 3 feet away? But can it think of making a gun and shoot the deer? I do not think so. Just like we humans have a limit, so does animals. But the difference in the scales of our intelligence makes all the difference. I mean, even by the route of evolution, humans developed language, both verbal and written. Any animal species is yet to do that. I mean sharks are on this planet since the Triassic, so are crocodiles. If evolution is beneficiary to unknown cause by unknown guiding principles then the chance of any other species to achieve what human have, should be equal. Unless we conclude that we were made in a higher form, with superior intelligence, with guidance (not attacking ID, or OEC or YEC, just making my point), I do not see how evolution could not help any other animal species to the level of humans. After all, to revert to the secular version of it, its just random.

Animals and humans differ on a lot of places, sometimes on the same abilities, ours being superior.

1over137 wrote:
For me the point 1 is not really an objection. Changes take time. As for the point 2, it is very interesting what you wrote. How can a random chemical process could perform such a feat? How can an evolution have a goal (more offspring or whatever)? It seems to me like someone programmed evolution. But can evolution be in agreement with Bible? How could I call myself then? An evolutionary theist?

As Reactionary said, theistic evolution is the idea that God intervened at specific points, guiding it and then we have what we have today. I personally agree towards this position. Let me tell you though, no theory is perfect in this regard. If you try hard enough you may have a couple of objections to any theory, YEC, OEC, PC, ID, TE, whichever you take. So, my suggestion, go at these with an open mind and you will definitely find some answers.

1over137 wrote:First of all, I do not know why you put the word 'seem' in quotation marks.

Because I was quoting you. It’s quite straightforward:

1over137 wrote:Well, it seems to me that humans and swans experience love in very similar way. How that can be? Is it better explained by evolution or not?

1over137 wrote:Why does it seem that way to me? Because of the similarities I said above.

So again, why does it “seem” that way to you? What similarities? Is all mental activity reduced to purely physical processes? Is love merely synonymous with the part of the brain that is stimulated when one is brought into visual or mental contact with ‘whatever’ one happens to love, or 'feel passionate’ about?

1over137 wrote:In what way does evolution explain love? See the suggestion from
wikipedia above.

The link to ‘love’ went nowhere., but I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_basis_for_love

Is this what you would like to put forward?

This is Paul on Love:
1 Corinthians 13

1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


How can physics and chemistry explain that?

PaulSacramento wrote:This is Paul on Love:
1 Corinthians 13

1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Lovely!

PaulSacramento wrote:How can physics and chemistry explain that?

It can't.

Indeed.
If love is merely a chemical and physical reaction then yes, it can be explained as such but that is NOT the love that one CAN have, that is NOT the love of God, that is NOT the love that changes people for the better.

Reactionary wrote:

1over137 wrote: Well, computers can have knowledge. They can have a specific information about something.

They do - but it's "information" for us, while for them it's just a collection of bits and bytes. As far as I remember my lectures in IT,
something like that is called "fact" or "data", and only when such is useful and has a potential for usage, then it's regarded as "information".

For us the information comes down to electrochemistry in our brains. Computers can collect data and use them to do something else. Computers just need a lot more neurons. I found that "human brain has billions of neuron cells but the number of artificial neurons, used so far in a single network, is by no means comparable to that of human cells. The biggest neural network hardly contains at most 1000 neurons." I personaly believe that in future people will be able to program AI at the level of adult person.

Byblos wrote: When a dolphin can communicate what it plans to do in a decade, next year, or even tomorrow, with plans that may run counter to its evolutionary survival, then you might have a case.

Mmmm. I found the following interesting stories. First one is about gorilla Koko which "speaks fluent sign language and not only still laments the death of her mother 30 years later but also says she plans on teaching her children sign language." Or chimpanz Santino which "on many mornings, calmly gathers rocks into a pile, waits until the zoo opens, and then uses them to dispel the crowd of gawkers surrounding his enclosure." So these two animals can plan and think and IMO reason.

kmr wrote: Computers, reduced to their most basic, are only electrical signals that have no real value. It is just a bunch of random firings of energy that produce different shades of light on a screen. It is human beings that produce the meaning of the signals and call it "information". We use our bodies like computers, but it is our soul that makes us different.

What makes us different? Our soul. What is a soul? Something which makes us different. That's a circular reasoning.

@neo:
Thank you very much for your longer post. By the way, what is PC and ID?

DannyM wrote: So again, why does it “seem” that way to you? What similarities? Is all mental activity reduced to purely physical processes? Is love merely synonymous with the part of the brain that is stimulated when one is brought into visual or mental contact with ‘whatever’ one happens to love, or 'feel passionate’ about?

Similarities: they stay together for life, they support each other, do things together, the cob even would lay down his life for his family, then the beutoful swan dance ...
I have a question (maybe weird one). God made humans. He made our brains. He made all the biochemistry. He made the centre for love in our brain. What extra was put into our brains?

DannyM wrote: The link to ‘love’ went nowhere., but I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_basis_for_love
Is this what you would like to put forward?

That link is almost the same as my link. What are your disagreements?

@ PaulSacramento
It is nice what Paul wrote. What I am thinking about now is whether animals have faith. According to Dictionary.com the faith is 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing 2. belief that is not based on proof. Well, then animals have faith too. There is e.g. one story I found: "I saw three Deer near the road as I was driving one afternoon, I stopped to allow them to cross, the mom looked at me and I at her, she lepta across. The other two fawn, watched me and backed away. I sat and waited about 5 minutes, just watching them with tears welling up in my eyes and a small smile across my face...then they began their way across the roadway.
After they reached the other side they turned to look back...yes they had faith...maybe more than human beings with one another."

DannyM wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: How can physics and chemistry explain that?

It can't.

I am just exploring. Thanks guys for your patience with me. Gotta look on YEC, OEC, PC, ID, TE : )

I don't agree with any definition of faith that calls into question reason or evidence.
That sounds too much like "blind faith".
Faith in anything requires a REASON to have faith.

What makes us different? Our soul. What is a soul? Something which makes us different. That's a circular reasoning.

Our soul is what causes us to actually feel and see what we experience. I can actually see the computer screen I am staring at, it is not simply a mindless reaction to a chemical signal. I can't speak for you, but I am sure that you can determine for yourself whether or not you have a soul simply by asking yourself whether you are actually seeing what you see or if it is just an ordered chemical reaction. I think you can figure it out.

What makes us different? Our soul. What is a soul? Something which makes us different. That's a circular reasoning.

Our soul is what causes us to actually feel and see what we experience. I can actually see the computer screen I am staring at, it is not simply a mindless reaction to a chemical signal. I can't speak for you, but I am sure that you can determine for yourself whether or not you have a soul simply by asking yourself whether you are actually seeing what you see or if it is just an ordered chemical reaction. I think you can figure it out.

1over137 wrote:

Byblos wrote:When a dolphin can communicate what it plans to do in a decade, next year, or even tomorrow, with plans that may run counter to its evolutionary survival, then you might have a case.

Mmmm. I found the following interesting stories. First one is about gorilla Koko which "speaks fluent sign language and not only still laments the death of her mother 30 years later but also says she plans on teaching her children sign language." Or chimpanz Santino which "on many mornings, calmly gathers rocks into a pile, waits until the zoo opens, and then uses them to dispel the crowd of gawkers surrounding his enclosure." So these two animals can plan and think and IMO reason.

I don't see how any of this disagrees with what I've said.