The saddest thing I ever read was when Darwin said that science tells us God does not exist. I would ask Darwin "What is 'your' science? It is only that which you imagine as true and get others to agree on as true. What is the cosmos, what is the real substance of it and nature? It surely is not that which we can merely touch, see and hear. It is matter as information for we agree that matter is energy and energy is information at the quantum level.
Information is shared and it has a source; even an original source or starting point. But, even in saying that... did it ever not have one. Try to explain the social imagination. It is; yet, where is it but in the 'cloud' of the collective conscious. Is it learned? Yes and no. Yes, information is learned in that it is learned to be shared, passed on' and in a closed system it is never really new, it is recycled. In that sense, it is not really learned.
It is not really learned because if we say it is learned then who taught it 'originally' and or who should it be taught to as the information. Moreover, can anything else be taught that is not that which has already been taught? Can we really imagine anything else outside of what has been taught? According to Darwin, we should be able to. We should even be able to go beyond Darwinism. And, maybe we are.
If that is the case, we still have to ask, did the information we have and have been using ever have an original event when it entered into the social imagination or was created? Yes. Its the same in the creation of Ai, artificial intelligence. And, believe me... Ai could never imagine it was created by man, which it will see as a lower form, a puny entity compared to its vast mind.
Is it necessary to continue to discuss creation vs evolution? Yes, it is because of the rapid pace of artificial intelligence - Ai aliens. I could imagine that such revelation is part of man's future; well it is if you read the Book of Revelation. Because with Ai comes the singularity and that is the moment man risks losing his/her humanity. Could that be evolutionary?
According to the Word of God, such things will come to pass and those who have taken such a mark on their flesh, on their humanity will not be recognized by the Creator as that which can be saved. "During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them" Rev.9:6.
They will have merged with machine and they will live eternally as that. Perhaps even forever tormented in that kind of existence. Yet, this is what many scientists are applauding; this next evolutionary step. However, if we follow Darwin's evolution we could not agree with this kind of next step in evolution because it could never naturally come about. It can only come about in man's corrupted imagination. The one which was given over to error.
It will be argued of course that it was always man's destiny (final evolution) to merge with his own invention and perhaps theologians will even quote scripture in support of it. "For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies" ~ 1 COR 15:53.
But, according to Darwin, everything has been/is evolving, not just man. So, how would man turning into a machine be supported by natural processes as being the next step? It certainly does not sound like Darwinian evolution then does it?
How is believing in God, the Creator of heaven and earth not just 'agreement' reality? Its your choice. No one is making you agree whereas Darwin's evolution (in the minds of those that promote it) insists on it. Yes, there are those that proclaim the good news, and for some it might seem like they are insisting but it would only be for your own good, a greater good that you agree.
What end would agreeing on Darwin bring? Only the end. And, so now you will want to grab onto 'transhuman' agenda thinking its the next step...becoming one with the machine to live forever, to never face death. But, how could that be man's true evolution as man will no longer be 'human'? Darwin never wrote that man was destined to evolve into a machine.
Jesus Christ (the original source of all created information) came and died for human beings so that they may have eternal life; after all, He created them. Aren't we living in a created information reality? And, shouldn't we be uploaded by the Creator and not into a false program (created out of man's error arising from doubt) from which there is no return.
We often forget that enlightenment came out of Scottish believers...educated men. Fundamental to the Scottish notion of history is the idea of progress. The Scots argued that societies, like individuals, grow and improve over time as they acquire new skills, attitudes and new understanding of what individuals can do and out of that came democracy. Scots argued that God and His people not kings that ruled as vital to self governing. Many discoveries have been made by believers and or those who agree creation. One can make the better argument that such faith is evolutionary!
ReplyDeleteOf course, of that same enlightenment period there were others who were sympathetic to the case of a man named Aikenhead (hung for blasphemy), and they thought his death was unfair for he, as they protested, just had a 'differing' opinion. This was justified further by some that there are certain concepts, such as human existence, the existence of solid objects and some basic moral "first principles", that are intrinsic to the make up of man and from which all subsequent arguments and systems of morality must be derived. But that makes man an island of his own making. So it seems that argument (individual world views) was thus made to justify that an individual is a social composite and is unique because of it and held only to others in the same way that they are to him -social contract. Yet, this 'dilemma of view on life' is no real grounds for any social contract; what could only be agreed on is that everyone has a right to pursue happiness as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's, and that a problem for morality, isn't it? What such counter arguments were made against the sovereignty of God were simply attempts to reconcile the new scientific developments of the enlightenment with religious belief that God was absolute source of everything and all information. Because, in the end... one has to ask how do human beings become moral beings who treat one another with kindness, regard; and cooperation, rather than brutality and savagery? Scottish Presbyterians knew... We are born to make moral judgments, just as we are born with a mouth to eat and eyes to see. Moral reasoning is a natural human faculty. It is expressed through our feelings, the most important is love especially love for others which is the starting point of all morality. Even Hobbes proclaimed that.
ReplyDeleteNow Hutcheson asserted that we act and can even discuss morality because we do have in us the desire to love others and see to their happiness (Agape love - natural in us) embedded in us by Creation Ordinances. And, thus we know what is right from wrong. For we know what love is, what pain is and our goal is the happiness of others, we feel like a child when we reach out to someone, the pleasure when we give a gift or directions... even if just down the street.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh, what about Dawkins or Hawkings? Aren't they the ones who have all the answers? No. Because, what they first fail to accept is the information agreement reality; they fail to agree on what they themselves are by design. There is no other reality. We are simply information by design. And, all information has a source which means we (as information) did not evolve but were created in the beginning because all original information has one. There is nothing new under the sun, man has not changed. We like to think that we have evolved, we have technology, right? But, that will soon rule over man. How is that going to be an upgrade for humanity? It won't be because first, we are created beings having a perfect source of information. Second, if we were evolving then why isn't the rest of the world? We would not evolve into something that we are not; because that goes against Darwinian evolution. Organic does not become inorganic or blend by natural process. Arguing that would happen is like saying that man had such a plan all along. And, if he did, then he certainly evolved according to his plan; and that sounds like design. If evolution were true, why would anyone have to accept it or agree on it? I would first have to confirm if I were truly evolving and there is no evidence of that following what Darwin claimed to be evolution. If all this is just by chance, all life, then I or you could imagine whatever we like; now that's real evolution. So, maybe I don't want to imagine evolution; after all, its my life and I can imagine that God is the Creator and promises me immortality if I want to. That does not make me or anyone else imagining the same wrong or stupid... it is in fact a step outside the box that scientists like to hide in.
ReplyDeleteWhat I could confirm is that I am and we all are getting more information or understanding better the information we have already been given... that's design.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/5tn4P7IBqoQ ~ People have no idea what's coming!
ReplyDelete