FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

All things in the universe are interrelated with one another

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


palavra
http://en.fgulen.com/content/view/650/4/

Quote:
The universe resembles a tree, which has grown from a seed containing the program of the future full form of the tree. So, all things in the universe are closely interrelated with one another. Each particle in the body, for example, a particle in the pupil of the eye, has relations with the eye itself, as well as with the head, and the powers of reproduction, attraction and repulsion, with the veins and arteries, and with other veins, and motor and sensory nerves, which serve the circulation of blood and the working of the body, and with the rest of the body, and it has also duties in relation to each. This evidently shows one who is not blind that the whole of the body, including every particle, is a work of an Eternal, All-Powerful One and operates under His command.

A molecule of air may visit any flower and any fruit. It may also enter into it and work within it. If it were not subjugated to, and working under, the command of an Absolutely All-Powerful One, that wandering molecule of air would have to know all the systems and structures of all flowers and fruits and how they are formed down to their peripheric lines. So that molecule does, therefore, show the rays of a light of Divine Unity like a sun. You may compare light, earth, and water with air.



do you think interrelation among the all things in the universe evidence of God?
Tumbleweed
I think the universe is holistic to, but I think its that way so God (any of them) does not have to sit and "watch/control" every atom in the universe .... create enough chaos and order creates itself.... I think God likes surprises Very Happy
palavra
For a single effect to come into existence an infinite number of causes must come together and collaborate in a way so coordinated and reliable that we call their collective operation ‘natural laws’.


For example, a single apple requires for its existence the co-operation of air, earth, sunlight, water, the 23 degree inclination of the earth’s axis, and the complex rules of germination and growth of seeds and plants.


So many deaf, blind, ignorant, unconscious causes and laws cannot come together by themselves into the subtle and complex arrangement we recognise as a living organism, still less into a living organism such as man who is not only living and conscious but also intelligent and responsible—able to answer questions about his intentions and actions.
missdixy
This reminds me a bit of the movie "I Heart Huckabees." It's a very interesting thing to think about, but I don't really believe it.
Bikerman
palavra wrote:
For a single effect to come into existence an infinite number of causes must come together and collaborate in a way so coordinated and reliable that we call their collective operation ‘natural laws’.
Not at all. Plenty of phenomena are brought about by just the opposite - conflicting and mutually disruptive elements combining and producing a result from the tension. Thesis plus antithesis = synthesis.
Whilst you describe a collaborative and co-ordinated world, we know from simple observation that the natural world is nasty, brutish, violent, extremely competative and, for most animals, short.
Examples abound - most creatures are engaged in a constant fight for survival and will die long before they reach 'old age'. This is natural selection at work.

Quote:
For example, a single apple requires for its existence the co-operation of air, earth, sunlight, water, the 23 degree inclination of the earth’s axis, and the complex rules of germination and growth of seeds and plants.

If these factors had not come together then there would be no apple to talk about. The very fact that the apple exists means that you an talk about collaboration of causes. If the conditions had not been the same then the apple would not be there and you would be instead talking about a Flintepot, a Zurody or perhaps a Ulitopod (or some other 'thing' which those different conditions had 'co-operated' to produce). Whatever you take as the example is, by definition, a product of the conditions as they exist. Different conditions would have produced a different product. This tells us nothing about the conditions themselves and certainly does not tell us that 'balance, 'harmony', 'co-operation' etc are at play - a competative, violent and selfish set of conditions will also produce output - in fact that is closer to a description of the animal world we observe than any romantic notions of cooperation, harmony and the like. This whole basic line of argument is completely information free and, thus, meaningless.
Quote:

So many deaf, blind, ignorant, unconscious causes and laws cannot come together by themselves into the subtle and complex arrangement we recognise as a living organism, still less into a living organism such as man who is not only living and conscious but also intelligent and responsible—able to answer questions about his intentions and actions.

Say's who ? We already know that Mankind developed from less complex and less 'intelligent' creatures, so the second part of this argument is redundant, since the intelligence and consciousness of Homo-sapiens developed during the course of evolution and. therefore, are undoubtedly the product of these 'blind ignorant unconscious causes' you speak of.
The origin of life itself (abiogenesis) is a different matter and there is no current scientific consensus on how life itself began. Evolution gives us the mechanism for speciation and thus diversity but it does not address the issue of how life started. There are three current 'main' theories.
1) Organic soup developing into an 'RNA world'.
The famous "prebiotic soup" experiment (Miller 1953) shows that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, arise spontaneously in the lab by sparking a mixture of methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water. One theory is that this organic soup produced molecule(s) of RNA by chance.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#RNAworld
2) Autotropic origin.
Low-molecular organic compounds being a process of surface metabolism driven by the oxidative conversion of CO to CO2. This leads to self-lipophilization, cellurisation and. ultimately DNA, through an entirely chemical path.
http://www.astrosafor.net/Huygens/2003/45/Entrevista.htm
3) Clay theory.
Clay theory postulates that complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform of silicate crystals in solution.
http://originoflife.net/crystals/index.html
4) Panspermia.
Theorises that the seeds of life are in the Universe and have been delivered to Earth where life then flourished via evolution. It posits that these seeds may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.
http://www.panspermia.org/
5) Primitive extraterrestrial life
Related to panspermia this posits that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially. It is known that comets are encrusted by layers of a tar-like substance made up of complex organic material. It is theorised that a rain of material from comets could have brought significant quantities of such complex organic molecules to Earth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/looking/mars.shtml
6) Autocatalysis
Richard Dawkins wrote about autocatalysis as a potential explanation for abiogenesis in his 2004 book The Ancestor's Tale.
Quote:
chemical reactions can be said to be "collectively autocatalytic" if a number of those reactions produce, as reaction products, catalysts for enough of the other reactions that the entire set of chemical reactions is self sustaining given an input of energy and food molecules

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

Regards
Chris
Indi
palavra wrote:
For a single effect to come into existence an infinite number of causes must come together and collaborate in a way so coordinated and reliable that we call their collective operation ‘natural laws’.


For example, a single apple requires for its existence the co-operation of air, earth, sunlight, water, the 23 degree inclination of the earth’s axis, and the complex rules of germination and growth of seeds and plants.


So many deaf, blind, ignorant, unconscious causes and laws cannot come together by themselves into the subtle and complex arrangement we recognise as a living organism, still less into a living organism such as man who is not only living and conscious but also intelligent and responsible—able to answer questions about his intentions and actions.

Why not? Because you can't figure out a way for this to be so? Because it doesn't fit the way you think the universe should be?

Those are pretty silly reasons for coming to that conclusion. Complexity can't exist without a god? Come on.

Take a look at this image - warning, it's rather large. [smaller version]

Beautiful, isn't it? Complex and subtle, with an arrangement and logic that just barely defies your ability to reason it out. Consistent and self-contained, yet chaotic and organic. The kind of thing you describe the universe as.

Now, would you believe that the functional entirety of the code used to plot that data is just a couple of lines of basic, trivial math that is all taught before highschool (minus the stuff used to set up the material, camera and background)?

Complexity can arise from simplicity. This is a known fact studied in several branches of science and math.
palavra
Indi wrote:
Complexity can arise from simplicity. This is a known fact studied in several branches of science and math.


a tiny seed develops a tree.

a sperm and an ovum produce an animal or a person.

but by the helping of god.


p.s.:yes it is a beautiful image.
Bikerman
palavra wrote:
Indi wrote:
Complexity can arise from simplicity. This is a known fact studied in several branches of science and math.


a tiny seed develops a tree.

a sperm and an ovum produce an animal or a person.

but by the helping of god.


p.s.:yes it is a beautiful image.


God would seem to be entirely superfluous in both of those examples. They are entirely natural processes requiring no intervention. There is no requirement for anyone to do anything other than let them get on with it...which is hardly 'helping'.

Chris
The Conspirator
palavra wrote:
Indi wrote:
Complexity can arise from simplicity. This is a known fact studied in several branches of science and math.


a tiny seed develops a tree.

a sperm and an ovum produce an animal or a person.

but by the helping of god.


p.s.:yes it is a beautiful image.

No God has no part of it.
Cells are like chemical little machines, they do what there programed. They are programed to divide, change function, divide more and even die.
Theres no need for a god in that, it functions on its own.
palavra
Materialists take the conjunction of events for causality. That is, if two events coexist, they imagine that one causes the other. In their determination to deny the Creator they make claims like: water causes plants to grow. They never ask how water knows what to do, how it does it and what qualities it has that enable plants to grow?

Does water possess the knowledge and power to grow plants? Does it know the laws or properties of the formation of plants. Or, if we attribute the growth of a plant to the laws themselves or nature itself, do the laws or nature know the properties of the formation of plants? While some sort or amount of knowledge, will and power are absolutely necessary to make the least thing, for example, to build a cottage, to write an article, should it not be necessary an all-encompassing knowledge, and an absolute will and power to make this universe, so complex, amazing and miraculous that in the ‘age of information’ our knowledge about it is very scanty.

Consider a flower. How does its beauty come about and who has designed the relationship between it and man’s senses of smell and seeing and faculty of appreciation? Can the unconscious, ignorant and deaf seed, or soil or sunlight have done this? Do they have the knowledge, the power or the will even to make a flower, let alone make it beautiful? Can man, the only conscious and knowledgeable being on the earth, make a single flower? A flower can only exist with the whole universe in place first: to produce one single flower, therefore, one must be able to produce the whole universe in which it exists, that is, have absolute power, knowledge and will, which are the attributes of God alone.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.