Quote:
|
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
But what if God is not the designer, but rather the creation designs itself? What if the meaning of man being created in the image of God does not mean the flowing white beard, but rather the power of creation?
Everything in the universe connected by via an intricate web of energy, interacting and influencing ... with the thoughts and words and actions of every living thing having an effect on the universe.
Heheh, if humans are involved in the design of things, can there be any wonder that the design has so much waste and poor craftsmanship?
I'm not saying any of this has to do with the evolution of biology, per se. But the same forces that affect the universe through our thoughts and words and deeds were acting long before humans existed. If "GOD" set things in motion, with the details determined by GOD's "partners" in creation ... every star and atom and rock and creature ... it would account for some of the haphazardness in a design, but not deny the existence of a design.
Frogberto makes some excellent points about considering the downsides and the upsides of the 'design' question. But when RStar made that comment about man's inability to create a seed, I don't think it was to be taken literally as a "seed." Rather, it was the legitimate question of why can't we yet be Frankenstein, creating life in the lab? Perhaps billions of years are necessary for random lifelikeness to arise ... but why should it take that long if purpose is behind it?
There are no good answers, but obviously plenty of really fasctinating questions.
For myself, I am encouraged that man's explorations into quantum physics lean more and more toward evidencing the universe of metaphysics which is the underpinning of my spiritual philosophy. Namely, that we are indeed made in the image of GOD ... we have the power to create, and we are - all of us - doing so, whether consciously or not - with every thought and word and action. The universe is made by us.
|
I'd say, for one thing, to make sure you're not getting all of your science from "What the @$@#% do we know?". If your premise is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality, with a conclusion that we literally create reality with our thoughts, that conclusion is wrong.
Unfortunately the theory of quantum mechanics does not say anything of the sort, and most people are confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Extrapolating to “we literally create reality by out thoughts” is applying reductionism to an absurd level.
David Albert, a professor from the Columbia University physics department, is quoted in Salon.com saying:
"I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. "
And here's the thing: Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with metaphysics, or religion, or mystal thinking on consciousness. I am reminded of Richard Feynman’s famous quote, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".
Quantum mechanics is not telling us this is the way the universe necessarily is, and it certainly doesn't allow us to "make our own reality" -- in fact, even with observation as a component, an electron, or quark - or any other piece of matter, only spins, or decays, in accordance with probability. It doesn't "do whatever you like" by creating a new reality, at all.