Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Re Basenote
    
    As a corollary to the topic, in order to argue against the postulation
    in the Basenote, one must first refute the "goal seeking" aspect of
    living things.  What life form(s), are not goal oriented?  
    
    Secondly, if one doesn't care to refute the above, the next thing is to
    refute the idea that "goal seeking" is under the direction of
    Intelligence.  Can goals be sought without a guiding Intelligent Force?
    
    And thirdly, if we accept the centrality of Intelligence in the
    Universe, is that justification and proof positive of the existence of
    God?  Does scripture or any other religion ever claim more of God, than
    that which is implied of this Central Intelligence ideology?
    
    Is not the nature of religious doctrine occupied with revelation of the
    operations of this Central Intelligence?
    
    Playtoe

RE: .0

>    Firstly, the SUN causes growth and increase of life, but not life
>    itself.  Life must exist before the SUN can stimulate growth and
>    increase.  If there are no seeds in the soil, no matter how long the
>    SUN shines upon that soil, no life will come forth.

This may be true if you're only thinking in terms of months or even centuries,
but evolution took place iver  the course of millions of years.  In the absense
of an experiment, there is at any rate no proof that sufficient sunlight +
the conditions of the very early earth could not produce life from non-life
given enough time.

>  Consider the dead
>    person, and how the nails and hair continue to grow inspite of the
>    decaying body...Why?

My guess is that the cells that produce nail and hair growth are still alive
even though the body as a whole has died.

>  From this I perceive a difference between that
>    which the SUN causes (to wit hair growth and nail growth), and that
>    which LIFE causes (to wit animated body--motion and consciousness). 
    
You've lost me here.  Are you saying that a dead person's hair and nails
will grow if and only if the corpse is exposed to the sun?

>    The mortal flesh, the physical body, is stimulated by the SUN to grow
>    and develop, but the "course" which that growth and development takes
>    (eg to become a Man, or an Animal, or a Plant) is caused by LIFE, and
>    not the SUN...the SUN did not determine what would be, but merely gives
>    increase to that which IS.
    
In the case of hair and nails, the growth pattern of the hair and nails
is determined by the genetic structure encoded in the cells' DNA (or is it
RNA?), so it's a function of life.  According to the theory of evolution
the DNA evolved ultimately from the primitive earth plus energy from the
sun.

>    So, what is LIFE?  That MAN, and all life forms for that matter, are
>    "goal seekers"; EVERY LIVING THING seeks to accomplish SOME GOAL,
>    beginning with "survival".

Plants are "seeking" to accomplish the goal of survival because a plant
species that does not survive will not survive to the next generation.
It's an on-going process.  This doesn't mean that plants are intelligent.

>    Moreso, this is affirmed by the FACT that the ONLY thing that can
>    ENHANCE and ENRICH any living things life as an increase in KNOWLEDGE,
>    and not energy/SUNLIGHT.

Is this really a fact?  How can I enhance and enrich the life of a plant:
by giving it light, water and fertilizer or by giving it knowledge?

> But NEVER has the increase of KNOWLEDGE destroyed the
>    central LIFE of a thing, but has ALWAYS enriched and enhanced LIFE. 

Well, some pieces of knowledge (death of a loved one, learning that one has
a fatal disease) have resulted in people committing suicide.

>    Also, it has been recently advanced by researchers that "altered
>    conscious states" or by changing one's level of consciousness/beliefs
>    or perception, one can effect one's health and even things which were
>    harmful (rays of sun) can become absorbed without harmful effects just
>    due to the state of consciousness.

The relationship between the mind (brain) and the body is not well understood,
and it's quite possible that a person's mental state could help or hurt that
person's health.

>  In other words, the WILL could
>    stimulate cell manufacturings of the necessary enzymes to produce
>    melanin, thus preventing the harmful effects of the sun.  
    
Just as the WILL could stimuate muscle cells or expand or contract, thus
giving people the ability to walk.

>    The point being that INTELLIGENCE is the center of life and not the
>    SUN.
    
Playtoe, I don't understand the importance you're placing on the SUN as
being the supposed (according to whom?) center of life.  Is this metaphysical
or something?

>    Any comments?  Or have I zeroed in on proof positive of the
>    Intelligent Center of Life, thus proof positive of the existence of a
>    Supreme INTELLIGENCE, a Universal MIND, a CREATOR, GOD?
    
I don't think so.

Re: .1

>    As a corollary to the topic, in order to argue against the postulation
>    in the Basenote, one must first refute the "goal seeking" aspect of
>    living things.  What life form(s), are not goal oriented?  
    
It depends on what you mean by "goal oriented".  A plant's "goals" are very
different from a human's goals: the human's (conscious) goals are a product of 
intelligence and the plant's are not.

>    Secondly, if one doesn't care to refute the above, the next thing is to
>    refute the idea that "goal seeking" is under the direction of
>    Intelligence.  Can goals be sought without a guiding Intelligent Force?
    
Again, it depends on what you mean by "goals".

>    And thirdly, if we accept the centrality of Intelligence in the
>    Universe, is that justification and proof positive of the existence of
>    God?

It depends on what you mean by "God".

>  Does scripture or any other religion ever claim more of God, than
>    that which is implied of this Central Intelligence ideology?
    
Well yes, it does.  The Bible makes many statements about the nature of God
which go far beyond the premise that an intelligent entity must have
created the universe.  Even if you proved, which I don't think you have,
that an intelligent entity must have created the universe, this doesn't
prove that the entity gave commandments to Moses, sent his son to die for
our sins, etc.

				-- Bob

re Note 408.2 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> >    increase.  If there are no seeds in the soil, no matter how long the
> >    SUN shines upon that soil, no life will come forth.
> 
> This may be true if you're only thinking in terms of months or even centuries,
> but evolution took place iver  the course of millions of years.  In the absense
> of an experiment, there is at any rate no proof that sufficient sunlight +
> the conditions of the very early earth could not produce life from non-life
> given enough time.
  
        And, it must be pointed out, that even if there were "proof
        that sufficient sunlight + the conditions of the very early
        earth could produce life from non-life given enough time",
        that would not prove that that indeed is how it did come
        about.  And either way, it would say nothing about the
        ultimate involvement of a Creator, since, by definition, the
        Creator created all matter too, therefore the matter may be
        simply following the Creator's plans.

        Bob

     By definition, doesn't a Christian *already* believe in God?  And,  if
     so, what is the relevance of this topic to Christians?

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

re Note 408.4 by CHGV04::ORZECH:

>      By definition, doesn't a Christian *already* believe in God?  And,  if
>      so, what is the relevance of this topic to Christians?
  
        Well, it might be useful for evangelization.

        Bob

    re 2
    
>of an experiment, there is at any rate no proof that sufficient sunlight +
>the conditions of the very early earth could not produce life from non-life
>given enough time.
    
    I hardly think "TIME" is the solution to the origin of life.  "Time and
    Conditions" may answer the reason why life manifested here on earth, as
    opposed to the moon or other planets in our solar system (if that be
    the case).  It may also answer why certain lifeforms are now extinct
    and others remained against the changing conditions...but for me it
    just doesn't answer the question of "origin".  Seeds of life,
    apparently, are floating like "pollin" throughout the universe, just
    waiting to land in a fertile and growth stimulating land/sea.
    
    You must remember that "life" initially came out of the "water", and
    initially did NOT require the light of the sun at inception.  "SUN" I
    say is merely a "stimulant" of life and not the creator or "life
    giver".
    
>My guess is that the cells that produce nail and hair growth are still alive
>even though the body as a whole has died.
    
    Exactly, I knew that...but I say, in that light, it indicates a
    "difference" between that which grows from flesh/earth, and the energy
    force that animates the body.  The "life force" and the "stimulator"
    being two different things...can you see what I'm pointing to?
    
>You've lost me here.  Are you saying that a dead person's hair and nails
>will grow if and only if the corpse is exposed to the sun?
    
    No, I'm saying that the SUN stimulates the growth and development of
    the flesh/body, generating health and stability in it.  As a result the
    nails and hair still grow after death, perhaps because of a store of
    that energy in the body cell...which body cell energy is not the cause
    of life itself...because the body cell doesn't determine the life form. 
    The SUN doesn't determine that this life form will be a man and this a
    dog and this a cat, etc...The SUN didn't set of the order of life forms
    we find?  As you can see "TIME" is not a factor.  Surely no "condition"
    is responsible either, because many difference life forms exist in the
    same condition and same level of sunlight.
    
>Plants are "seeking" to accomplish the goal of survival because a plant
>species that does not survive will not survive to the next generation.
>It's an on-going process.  This doesn't mean that plants are intelligent.
    
    I didn't say that meant "plants" were intelligent...I said an
    "intelligent" force is compelling the plant to seek it's survival.  If
    we agree that "goal seeking" is a sign of intelligence.
    
>Is this really a fact?  How can I enhance and enrich the life of a plant:
>by giving it light, water and fertilizer or by giving it knowledge?
    
    If you could indeed give "knowledge" to a plant you would enrich and
    enhance its "personal" life.  But as it is MAN through knowledge is
    left to shower it with his knowledge, and often his ignorance.
    
>Well, some pieces of knowledge (death of a loved one, learning that one has
>a fatal disease) have resulted in people committing suicide.
    
    That's truly ashame, but that merely goes to show that ALL knowledge is
    not necessarily "life enhancing and enriching"...there is indeed "good
    and evil"!
    
    Playtoe

     Re. The hair and nails thing

        This is one of those things that I have read or heard so
      many times that I just assumed there was some truth to it.
        Well, I was wrong. I checked this out in two different
      books and what happens is the skin contracts after death
      and it makes it appear that the hair, particularly the beard
      on males, and the nails have grown. The body also dehydrates
      rapidly which increases the illusion of hair and nail growth.
         

                                                               Mike

    RE: 7
    
    Hummm, I guess I've been watching too many horror movies.
    

    Re.8
     
    
     Playtoe:
               Hey, I thought it was the truth myself until I
             went to the library and hit the books.
    
                                                        Mike

    Re: 9
    
    It is a continually mind shattering experience as I grow older and find
    that much of the things a learned in school as a youth is not true, the
    things I see on TV are not true, and as a result I have not been
    properly prepared for manhood/adulthood.  As opposed to an educational
    system in which "higher learning" means correcting all the falsehoods
    you were taught in K-12 (eg Columbus discovered America, falsehoods
    about Africans, Indians, Europeans, Orientals, etc, etc, etc), I would
    like a system which offered an education which if you never went to
    college what you knew already from K-12 school was at least true, but
    not necessarily the whole story...as it is oftentimes people come out
    believing they infact have the whole story and they are seen as
    foolish.
    
    Even in this situation, I'll have to go look for myself, because I
    understand the receding skin idea, but are you sure it says "no growth
    at all" takes place after death...I mean because I thought it was a
    scientific documentary which showed the nail and hair growth of
    corpses.
    
    Anyway it doesn't change my original position, as it wasn't based upon
    this phenomenon primarily.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 9
    
    Mike,
    
    Also, I mentioned the ideas which must be refuted to cancel this idea,
    in reply #1, specifically relating to the "Central Intelligence" factor
    of life.
    
    Playtoe