Hardly...The consequence would be more like Spinoza's "God or Nature," which is the deepest articulation of atheism that I know of.

For OP to claim that his view point is absolutely correct, and that there is no way possible evolution and God can coexist, is naive. There are many things that are beyond yours or any other persons understanding. Just because evolution appears random, doesn't mean that it is. It absolutely could be guided at one point or another, and none of your points or Lawdude's points have been convincing at all. OP points to random events occuring and affecting the course of evolution as proof that God did not guide evolution. What if God put it in motion , and there were a multitude of end results that were acceptable? What if there were 4 armed, two headed creatures who ended up being the ones to be able to read, write, and speak, and they were the ones that ended up receiving and spreading the word of God, and they were god's end result. Nothing any of you have said have proved that God did have a hand in evolution, or the laws of the universe, or any of that good stuff. Some of your arguments as well are based off of things mentioned in the Bible, like humans being made in God's image etc... That does not have to necessarily be a package deal though. A lot of people believe in God and evolution, but think the bible is bologna.

Spinoza denied personality and consciousness to God. I certainly do not. Personality, consciousness, intellect, free will, and rationality are consequences of emergent complex processess. If God is the ultimate eternal emergent complex process why should He not possess these attributes and other attributes beyond my comprehension?

Okay. Can you cite some discussion as to why it took place?

When I introduced the term to the thread I provided a link to the wikipedia article on it. That link contained some discussion on why it took place. Did you miss it?

Anyways...here is a link that popped up when I google behavioural modernity that discusses why it took place. I skimmed it and it seems the author favors the continuity veiw.

http://www.institutnicod.org/Stereln...Mordernity.pdf

If God has consciousness, how is it different than other consciousness in the nature (meaning here, reality as a whole)? I hope you understand why Spinoza denied personality to God. There is a very good reason why he did that. All consciousness is conceptualized as "modalities" of God's consciousness in Spinoza. If you pursue this thought to its end, you may see why it does not make sense to attribute a separate consciousness and personality to God in Spinoza, and why Spinoza's philosophy is in fact atheistic (though strangely coming from a pantheistic viewpoint). How do you think that you improved on Spinoza's philosophy?

This is not a valid argument form. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...ts.html#burden

If it is true that all evolutionary systems whose origins are completely known require heavy handed participation of an intellect at their inception doesn't the burden of proof lie on the ones claiming that the evolutionary system identified by Darwin is some how special in that it doesn't?

this.

No, definitely not this. The burden of proof is on those who say god played a part.

Why?

No...you are just ignoring the proof that God played a part.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I made the claim that intellect very likely played a role in the inception of the evolutionary system identified by Darwin. I backed up that claim by pointing out that all evolutionary systems whose origins we know about share the common trait of having required a heavy handed participation of an intellect to get started. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that all evolutionary systems...including those whose origins we don't have complete information require an intellect to get started.


The proper way to counter my argument is to show that either:
A)Some evolutionary systems whose origins we have complete information did not in fact require a heavy handed participation of an intellect to get started.
B)Show that it is logically impossible for an intellect to have been involved in the inception of the evolutionary system identified by Darwin
C)Show that observing evolutionary systems whose origins are completely known and finding they require intellect to get started does not increase the probability that all evolutionary systems require intellect to get started.

There may be other ways to counter my argument that I haven't thought of but claiming I have shifted the burden of proof is ridiculous....its a cop-out.

If you have the proof that god played a part then I suggest you publish a paper, book etc showing it. Such an amazing breakthrough would shake the world.

I should have said "evidence" instead of proof. Nevertheless my point still stands. Claiming my argument is merely shifting the burden of proof or evidence is nonsense and an intellectual cop-out.

You're guilty of ignoring without good cause the evidence that an intellect played a part in the evolutionary system identified by Darwin.

Where is this evidence?

How about you actually address the content of post 162 instead of playing these childish games.

I'll spoon feed it to you again....try to get it into your mouth this time. Show A B or C to be true or some other reason I haven't thought about. Whatever you do just don't cop out by claiming I have shifted the burden of proof. I have presented an argument(which on the face at least appears to be valid) for you to attack...not ignore.

Saying this doesn't make it actual evidence. Where is the actual evidence of the "heavy handed participation of an intellect"?

A+.

A++.

You haven't even supplied evidence, and you shoot holes in your won argument by creating doubt in your assertion. Ok, so god might have, and he might not have. So far we haven't gotten anywhere, and your definition of god ITT has gotten so nebulous as to be almost meaningless.
This is evidence? I'm gonna need a little more than you saying it to be so.
No, you've done nothing to forward your position other than to repeatedly assert it.

The same principle we use to say the speed of light is a constant is in play here. Nobody can prove that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. It just so happens that everytime we observe it...it appears to be constant...so we accept it as such. However that could just be random happenstance....it is certainly logically possible that by pure random chance it just happens to be going the same speed everytime we look at it....such a notion is just not likely.

Find one...just one evolutionary system whose origins are completely known and show that it had no intellect involved in its existence and you've blown my argument out of the water. As it stands now your retort here amounts to "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"....which is not really a compelling retort.

Nobody has observed an evolutionary system whose origins are completely known and shown that intellect was not involved in its creation. The evidence is right before you...all you have to do is start looking at evolutionary systems whose origins are known. For each one you find where intellect played a heavy hand in its creation (without ever finding one where intellect did not play a heavy hand in its creation) that increases the likelyhood that all evolutionary systems require the heavy handed participation of an intellect in their creation.

absence of evidence being evidence of absence

most scientists that i know don't consider that type of evidence compelling. i think the same of some of the atheistic arguments in this thread