Nature's God

How The Post Shows A Dogmated Mind, That Just Parrots the Words Without Understanding And It is only based on: Because Everybody Says So.

Now see its Deistic Analysis with reason, rationale and evidences in the broad day light.

In the first sentence it is stated that "rules are already in place" and then in the next "random mutations work". So there are rules that are random? (Alice in the wonderland)

Then the post explains the blind believers non-philosophy that their imaginary "random mutations work together over time to improve"

Actually you will see if you analyse the implicit transformation of rule of some creator god into a rule of random natural selection the idolatory belief becomes clear. Some demigod called, random with randomness, takes over the functions of a previous primitive god. The authoritative functions, of this and an additional semigod named: the natural selection, are not delegated, but were overtaken(exactly as in any rebillion). It is rebillion in full effect because in our world, all delegations without rebillion always include retaininment of power for relinquishment, intervention with check & balance and power for appeal from the authority that delegated it to the demigod viceroys. Here it seems no space to comment on the question of how and what circumstances lead the primitive god to handover all his property for good, and unconditionally...a total loss by all measures.

The post provides no clue how the enthroned independent demigod "natural selection" works, with the other completely opposite character demigod "random". How does randomness accepts opposite functioning of "natural selection"? And what purpose does random serve if what rules in the end is the say of natural selection? Why are a trillion mistakes allowed wastefully if the exact criteria knowledge of what is required or fit for future requirements for the selection is already known? We leave the question that why despite the mind boggling abundance of failures case frequenccies accepted in random we have not seen any such thing, everything in our world fits perfectly well beautifully. The things we called negligible rare errors few years ago are now found to be beneficial in the long term...

The demigod, "Random" creates a cosmological garbage of waste and the opposite demigod "natural selection" picks up unexpectedly usable things from the garbage dump. The amazing miracle is that with complete devoid of intelligent intervention the system not only works fine but progresess towards development. A common sense question is why these demogods could not originally create too? Because the single entity original primitive system with which the prehistoric god began was shown to be very simple than each of the billion trillion complex organic living systems that later developebd by the wisdom of the demigod team.


The rest of the post:
"DNA records and implements nature's successes so subsequent generations will have the most successful blueprint for life. That, to me, is God's fingerprint. God has designed a system that can self correct. I think that is testimony to the brilliance of the Creator, but not intervention."

has many more pearls of wisdom but we can only point to a few of them here:

DNA
A functionary in the DNA is an executive authority which implements. Does it implement at random? Yes it is the rule.

Nature
Nature, another demigod which seems to be the strongest, assumes some independent functionary status as she is depicted as the overall god in command. Does she rule with random? Answer: It seems yes.


In the fourth sentence,the olden day primitive prehistoric god, unexpectedly appears again from oblivion and most unexpectedly all the developments after the effective rebillion, in this fourth sentence are attributed to him. The primitive god who had no power of intervention and by implication any credit for later developments or destruction if the authority in power would do so. In fact there is no way for anybody to know that in the olden days a primitive prehistoric god ever existed. Because if somebody was not present in the beginning before the dawn of the era of random and natural selection no one can know that a primitive god existed. Thus nonintervention from the beginning to the present time completely takes away any means for anyone to know the existance of an non-functional absent entity while one comes and goes during the complete rule of random and natural selection. We can never know anything other than random and natural selection. Now see, as the primitive prehistoric god has not taken back rule from the team of random and natural selection, what benefit he could give us? Nothing! Why assume non-functioning, non-intervening absent entity. It is absolutely futile to talk about that primitive prehistoric non-intervening god!

All above was about Allice in the Wonderland.

The world we live in is completely different. See videos below:



Nothing in this world happens at random!
Wonderfest 2008, Festival of Science. Does Anything Happen at Random? Persi Diaconis, Professor of Statistics, Stanford Daniel Fisher, Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAxEzxHkqyY
See they explain randomness is not possible - not in the tossing of coin which is a projectile torque physics problem


Random events appear following rules perfectly when analysed see a representation in fractals
Order in the Chaos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuyRCfhCZT0




Random Mutations Destroy Information - Perry Marshall http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023143/r ... _marshall/

( Just neglect his association of random with Darwin who believed in the governing God with rules and struggled to discover the rules. Had he accepted the rule of randomness he would have slept all his life comfortably because then what would be left to discover? we had this on NG )


Darwin was an Enlightened Deist
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=139&p=729&hilit=Darwin#p729

He believed that a creator had designed the universe and set up natural laws according to which all of nature was unwaveringly governed. It was the pursuit of a man of science to discover the laws by which nature operated. He discussed his religious views in his autobiography (these appear, however, only in the 1958 edition by Nora Barlow with original omissions restored.)
http://darwin-online.org.uk/darwin.html

" I remember in the early part of my school life that I often had to run very quickly to be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided."
[page] 25 THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/fra ... pageseq=87
Emma Darwin - A Century of Family Letters 1792-1896, Volume 2 By Henrietta Litchfield page 175

"I find the only relief to my own mind is to take it as from God's hand, and to try to believe that all suffering and illness is meant to help us to exalt our minds and to look forward with hope to a future state. When I see your patience, deep compassion for others, self command and above all gratitude for the smallest thing done to help you I cannot help longing that these precious feelings should be offered to Heaven for the sake of your daily happiness. But I find it difficult enough in my own case. I often think of the words "Thou shalt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee." It is feeling and not reasoning that drives one to prayer.

I feel presumptuous in writing this to you. I feel in my inmost heart your admirable qualities and feelings and all I would hope is that you would direct them upwards, as well as to one who values them above everything in the world. I shall keep this by me till I feel cheerful and comfortable again about you but it has passed through my mind often lately so I thought I would write it partly to relieve my own mind.

...

God Bless you C. D. 1861
" A Quote from a Charles Darwin's Letter

Eshan,why do you feel the need to be so rude? Calling peoples beliefs absent minded, dogmated and saying they are parroting is not cool. There is no dogma in Deism!I know of Deists who believe in intervention and/or interaction.If believing in a non intervining God is dogma, these people couldn't be Deists, but they are!Many Deists don't believe in intervention because that's what makes sense to us. We may hold many of the same reasons why we believe that, but I can guarantee you that most of us have spent much time on these reasons, and others, meditating and finding out why or if they made sense to us.You should try to be more objective when debating issues,as everyone has valid reasons why they believe the way they do.You don't have the truth any more than the rest of us. Please refrain from using negative attacks on those that don't believe as you.No one posting here used any such language as you.

I have removed the word "absent" from the phrase "absent minded" and I apologise if it looked rude. It was not my intention. My only intention is that people go deeper than surface and use their own mind before accepting anything they hear lot of people say.

Unfortunately most of the people who claim to be inheritors of Deistic traditions are as dogmated and blind believers as has ever existed. My intention is to highlight this contrast to induce in them a habit of mind opening brainstorm.

My observation is that now a lot of people are being introduced to Deism and we see them claiming to be associating themselves with global human open minded forums. They are mostly non practicing Deists they don't do what they say. However, they are the best audiances available and my hopes are attached with the event when they start to act on what they say! A New Global Reformation

Thank-you Eshan! I appreciate what you are trying to do.While speaking for myself I never believe as people tell me. What drew me into Deism was the non intervining aspect, its what caught my attention.It just made so much sense to me,more so than any ideology.I did much meditating, and still do, as to why no intervention and why should I care if that's the case.I view it as tough love,and believe God has set up rewards for us. By rewards I mean friends,moments of true happiness, chemicals that are released in our brains that produce unbelieve highs (like one I experienced the first time I held my son),energies that provide us with mystical experiences and esp etc. I view these all as comming from a God who cares and has provided for us well-not from some distnant,uncaring being who created us just because.I've given all this much thought,so please don't view my opinions as being so because someone told me to.I also know you've put great thought behind your opinions.By the way, did you ever get the pm I sent you?If you did, I'd really like to hear back, even if its to tell me its none of my business! Any way glad to get this cleared up!I respect your views and the thought you put behind them. They just won't sway me:)lol--julie

Well done Julie! I love how you have kept the conversation respectful and polite. That is what Deism is all about. Ehsan I know you have great knowledge and you are very passionate but you have to remember that people don't have to prove anything to you. You need to remember this and respect that Julie has her beliefs and that they make sense to her and her only.

We all come from different backgrounds and parts of the world where our experiences on life and views on the world can be very different. We individually make decisions on what makes sense to us and what makes sense to you could be complete nonsense to me (this is just an example).

Deism gives us the umbrella where we can all comfortably fit and create our own piece of the puzzle. It may not fit next to your piece but in the big picture all of our individual pieces create a wonderful picture representing Deism.

Thank-you Spiritseeker!You made the point beautifully!

Just some more excuses from the accused.
Most of the time I need to search for people's reasons behind their different opinions after my personal search suggests some strong conclusion. Being most harsh on myself, thats my try, I don't tolerate being on a point of view which is not the best alternative in the present state of human knowlegde. My dire need to find out what reasons, evidences can exist against my conclusions, to test my conclusions, stumbles me into overdoing it, I apologise for this!

There is no doubt in my mind about the right of everybody that their choices must be respected. However my problem is that I don't want to give this right to myself! My ambition is to find a choice which is the best and I would love to jump for a choice which is better than what I currently have, why not? Most of the time here at NG we talk about common human questions and it does not matter, for me, if one is at the time of Socrates 470 BC or in future at 4000 AD, in Athens or Jerusalem, of a royal Roman or Chinese background. So for me about myself the excuses, like the one in the quote below, to leave a best choice do not exist:



Deism for me is the complete liberty to go for the best without any excuse! Unfortunately finding the best and confirming that what I have found is really the best needs asking for people's reasons, evidences and this frequently becomes the most difficult task for me... Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I think we all have a lot to learn from one another here. It is entirely fair to argue one's point, or even to point out inconsistencies in another's position, but we must respect one another. We differ on particulars, not on the most important things.

Eshan, Sometimes I have a hard time trying to understand your points, so forgive me if I've misintrepreted.Who are the accused giving excuses?If you're speaking of me or Spiritseeker, I don't see it that way. What are we being accused of? You may not feel like my beliefs are enough for me to have come to them. For me I have all the evidence I need. If God intervines, where was it when I was 7 years old with mental illness?I was scared, alone, ashamed and knew I was different and held the belief I was a horrible person.Noone noticed for 8 years there was anything wrong.Why didn't God help me when I wasn't able to help myself? So some more of my evidences which lead me to my conclusion. Why do you feel like whatever beliefs you hold have to be continually challenged? Challenges can organically occure. There's nothing wrong with sitting on a philosophy which makes sense to you until something happens to challenge them.Its okay to be satisfied.Just keep studying what moves you and take life as it comes and you will come to challenges along the way.there is no way I or anyone else can give proof of our conclusions, nor can you. You are maybe too hard on yourself and as a result, others.

Isn't it obvious the accused is no other than me! Are you sure julie, you read all my post.
I am just giving my excuses against your objections.

And cclendenen had no confusion like that when he advised.


I would welcome if cclendenen could help me to covey my points to satisfy julie and others