Is Genetics a Program?

[TagliatelliMonster]

We create fantasy with digital machines and pixels, is it so impossible to believe that a Supreme Being is creating a physical dimension with atoms in much the same way?

Clearly, it's not impossible to believe that, since many people believe exactly that.

The question however is not "is it possible to believe it". It rather is "is it true".

Every good story has some elements of truth in it, that's what makes it a good story, I suppose it just depends on which pill you choose to take.

I totally disagree that that is what makes "good" stories. In the sense that it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a bad story that has MORE truth elements then some good story.

But this is more a philosophy statement than biological science.

You don't say... science doesn't deal with stories. Science deals with evidence and conclusions.

Though I suppose an atom could be perceived as a 5> dimensional pixel in that sense, and what powers it?

Yeah, when one is allowed to use his/her imagination and doesn't have to actually support those "perceptions" with independently verifiable evidence... you can come up with pretty much anything that is somewhat internally consistent.

 

[Hallstone]

Clearly, it's not impossible to believe that, since many people believe exactly that.

The question however is not "is it possible to believe it". It rather is "is it true".




I totally disagree that that is what makes "good" stories. In the sense that it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a bad story that has MORE truth elements then some good story.




You don't say... science doesn't deal with stories. Science deals with evidence and conclusions.



Yeah, when one is allowed to use his/her imagination and doesn't have to actually support those "perceptions" with independently verifiable evidence... you can come up with pretty much anything that is somewhat internally consistent.

Imagination is what powers exploration, I suppose its ok to wait for evidence to fall on your head, but since I'm convinced that there is a Boat, I'd rather not miss it. Each to his own, if you choose to believe hard evidence I think that is fine, but where does that leave faith, needing evidence in order to have faith has never been taught as a positive spiritual thing, it shows that one lacks the quintessential quality that is required to make it to the next world. But that is destiny, and that belongs in the philosophy forum too. There are correlations between genetics and programming, since both deal with coded information, a person can perceive it however they choose, I just think the whole thing is fascinating, and I feel that it may play a part in events that are to happen in the near future.

 

[Hallstone]

It is not impossible to believe, but given that there are various alternatives and many thousand variations on the nature of the Supreme Being(s), then it seems churlish to opt for just one.

Each person is drawn to whatever God they feel is true, I don't think that in itself is mean spirited, I think its just natural, the only problem is there is only one true God and each one of us must discover Him before the time runs out, and that is the rub.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Imagination is what powers exploration,

But it is not what constitutes knowledge.

I suppose its ok to wait for evidence to fall on your head, but since I'm convinced that there is a Boat, I'd rather not miss it. Each to his own, if you choose to believe hard evidence I think that is fine, but where does that leave faith,

It leaves faith where it belongs. And it's not in science.
I don't consider faith (as in: belief without sufficient evidence) to be a good thing. Faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith is gullibility. Faith is superstition. Faith is taking things as true without good reason.

needing evidence in order to have faith has never been taught as a positive spiritual thing

I don't want to have faith, nore do I need faith.
In fact, I actively go out of my way to accept things only on faith.

Taking things as true on faith, is not a rational position.

, it shows that one lacks the quintessential quality that is required to make it to the next world.

Which is something you believe on....faith.
I think I just told you what I think about such beliefs.

There are correlations between genetics and programming, since both deal with coded information

No. Genetics is just chemistry.
They are not "compiled lines of codes executed by a CPU". They rather are "chains of molecules interacting according to the rules of chemistry".

, a person can perceive it however they choose

You don't say.

, I just think the whole thing is fascinating

It certainly is fascinating. But I fail to see the point in drawing analogies and then pretending as if the analogy is the actual real thing.

, and I feel that it may play a part in events that are to happen in the near future.

Ok.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Each person is drawn to whatever God they feel is true, I don't think that in itself is mean spirited, I think its just natural, the only problem is there is only one true God and each one of us must discover Him before the time runs out, and that is the rub.

And let me guess.... YOU happen to believe in the "right" god, and all the others are incorrect?


And I agree that it is natural for humans to have religious tendencies.
It's called superstition and it is quite common in the animal kingdom.

 

[Ophiolite]

Each person is drawn to whatever God they feel is true, I don't think that in itself is mean spirited, I think its just natural, the only problem is there is only one true God and each one of us must discover Him before the time runs out, and that is the rub.

You will understand that, from my perspective, that is a delightful fantasy, belief in which is only possible through the application of faith. I do not hold the same reverence for faith that you do. Reason, applied to what is observed, will lead most people to the same conclusion. Faith appears to lead people to many diverse paths and therefore, in my universe, is found wanting.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I suppose its ok to wait for evidence to fall on your head, but since I'm convinced that there is a Boat, I'd rather not miss it.

So you've somehow been convinced, without evidence, that there's 'a Boat' you could miss, and so you've decided to believe in admittedly imaginative ways not to miss it, because you feel it's true... 'don't miss out on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity'.

Reminds me of the way people are convinced to buy products they didn't know they needed by slick marketing that uses images of tanned and smiling models using the products as the core of their aspirational lifestyles. All based on what looks right, what feels good, all carefully phrased to disguise the absence of evidence, "...gives the visible appearance of a reduction in wrinkles...", "...shapes and tones to make you look and feel younger...".

Appeals to the cult of self.

What about, "..secure the future of your loved ones with easy monthly payments..." - the appeal of a simple solution to fear and uncertainty of the future; is "Believe now for salvation later..." really so different, when the 'loved one' is yourself?

 

[Hallstone]

So you've somehow been convinced, without evidence, that there's 'a Boat' you could miss, and so you've decided to believe in admittedly imaginative ways not to miss it, because you feel it's true... 'don't miss out on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity'.

Reminds me of the way people are convinced to buy products they didn't know they needed by slick marketing that uses images of tanned and smiling models using the products as the core of their aspirational lifestyles. All based on what looks right, what feels good, all carefully phrased to disguise the absence of evidence, "...gives the visible appearance of a reduction in wrinkles...", "...shapes and tones to make you look and feel younger...".

Appeals to the cult of self.

What about, "..secure the future of your loved ones with easy monthly payments..." - the appeal of a simple solution to fear and uncertainty of the future; is "Believe now for salvation later..." really so different, when the 'loved one' is yourself?

No, its just simply, if you know there is a Boat, don't miss it. If you don't know that there is a Boat, then you have no choice available. There is no need to be cynical. Those that know of the Boat are concerned about not missing it, while those that do not know of it, or do not care to look for anything of that nature, will definitely not be found on it. It is just that simple. Proof is irrelevant, since no proof is needed for those that know it, that's why they are called 'chosen'.

 

[Hallstone]

You will understand that, from my perspective, that is a delightful fantasy, belief in which is only possible through the application of faith. I do not hold the same reverence for faith that you do. Reason, applied to what is observed, will lead most people to the same conclusion. Faith appears to lead people to many diverse paths and therefore, in my universe, is found wanting.

Yes, many diverse paths, but the one that is narrow and leads to a small door that is difficult to find is the one that concerns me, like many I am striving to enter it as instructed, and there are many dangers and distractions, but with faith it is possible to circumnavigate. With bruises, broken bones, and scars one may reach that destination, but it will be worth it. Where a persons treasure is, that is where their heart will be. Not so fantastical in a Universe that was brought out from nothing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, its just simply, if you know there is a Boat, don't miss it. If you don't know that there is a Boat, then you have no choice available.

You said you were convinced of it - what was so convincing?

There is no need to be cynical.

I don't think it's cynical to question the basis of beliefs that appear to be without evidential support.

Proof is irrelevant, since no proof is needed for those that know it, that's why they are called 'chosen'.

The majority of knowledge is unprovable, but it's reasonable to expect verifiable evidence. Human history is a long story of people convinced they knew things that turned out to be demonstrably wrong. I suspect it's no coincidence that the majority of current belief systems are unfalsifiable, there's no way to show them right or wrong. There are currently millions of people who 'know' that you are wrong because they are convinced that they know the truth and it conflicts with what you think you know; millions of others 'know' you're both wrong because they're convinced of something different. Do you just ignore this fact, or do you feel that your beliefs are inevitably correct because they're your beliefs?

If your beliefs are truly based on knowledge, how would you convince them that you are right? how could they convince you that it is they who are right? what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

If your beliefs are reasonable you should be able to answer those questions (I'm not asking for the answers, but I wonder if you can answer them).

 

[Hallstone]

You said you were convinced of it - what was so convincing?

I don't think it's cynical to question the basis of beliefs that appear to be without evidential support.

The majority of knowledge is unprovable, but it's reasonable to expect verifiable evidence. Human history is a long story of people convinced they knew things that turned out to be demonstrably wrong. I suspect it's no coincidence that the majority of current belief systems are unfalsifiable, there's no way to show them right or wrong. There are currently millions of people who 'know' that you are wrong because they are convinced that they know the truth and it conflicts with what you think you know; millions of others 'know' you're both wrong because they're convinced of something different. Do you just ignore this fact, or do you feel that your beliefs are inevitably correct because they're your beliefs?

If your beliefs are truly based on knowledge, how would you convince them that you are right? how could they convince you that it is they who are right? what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

If your beliefs are reasonable you should be able to answer those questions (I'm not asking for the answers, but I wonder if you can answer them).

Hardly anyone believes anything without having some evidence, but when someone has a body of evidence provided by witnesses, then one would have to decide whether or not the witness is true or false, in this case it would be truth or lies, because with eye witnesses they either telling the truth or lying, if in fact they did witness something, so I would say if you have a body of evidence provided by witnesses, then it narrows your search down a little, since it can be verified that the witnesses did in fact exist, which has been verified by non biased secular historians then that does add some weight to the witness, and since evidence can be admissible even if the person is no longer living in some cases, and if the information collaborates with other information from other witnesses, then that also adds some weight to the testimony, also if the witnesses are willing to die rather than reject there testimony, that would also add some viability, all these components added together warrant serious consideration to what was being witnessed and what the conclusion of it may be, even if it seems fantastical, and some will investigate the information and be persuaded to believe it, and also there will be some who naturally tend to be disobliging and hypercritical, but that is simply human nature in all its complexities. I have been persuaded by the testimonies that I have investigated and have come to my conclusion of it, and am convinced entirely, but not everyone has done that yet, and some never will, but if anyone asks me why I believe I will tell them gladly. I believe God through Jesus Christ is trying to draw all men to Himself, we are actively responding to it or we are actively rejecting it, I don't believe there is any other state.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hardly anyone believes anything without having some evidence, but when someone has a body of evidence provided by witnesses, then one would have to decide whether or not the witness is true or false, in this case it would be truth or lies, because with eye witnesses they either telling the truth or lying, if in fact they did witness something, so I would say if you have a body of evidence provided by witnesses, then it narrows your search down a little, since it can be verified that the witnesses did in fact exist, which has been verified by non biased secular historians then that does add some weight to the witness, and since evidence can be admissible even if the person is no longer living in some cases, and if the information collaborates with other information from other witnesses, then that also adds some weight to the testimony, also if the witnesses are willing to die rather than reject there testimony, that would also add some viability, all these components added together warrant serious consideration to what was being witnessed and what the conclusion of it may be, even if it seems fantastical, and some will investigate the information and be persuaded to believe it, and also there will be some who naturally tend to be disobliging and hypercritical, but that is simply human nature in all its complexities. I have been persuaded by the testimonies that I have investigated and have come to my conclusion of it, and am convinced entirely, but not everyone has done that yet, and some never will, but if anyone asks me why I believe I will tell them gladly. I believe God through Jesus Christ is trying to draw all men to Himself, we are actively responding to it or we are actively rejecting it, I don't believe there is any other state.

So who were these eye-witnesses?

You should be aware that being prepared to die for your beliefs doesn't make them more likely to be true - judging from the extreme beliefs that tend to favour 'martyrdom', the opposite is the case.

 

[Hallstone]

So who were these eye-witnesses?

You should be aware that being prepared to die for your beliefs doesn't make them more likely to be true - judging from the extreme beliefs that tend to favour 'martyrdom', the opposite is the case.

The 12 apostles were well known, among others, even Christ Himself is mentioned in ancient Roman secular writings, so we cannot deny that these men existed, and that they did provide a testimony. Martyrdom does not prove anything in itself other than to show the strength of someone's convictions which does account for something when added to the body of evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

The 12 apostles were well known, among others, even Christ Himself is mentioned in ancient Roman secular writings, so we cannot deny that these men existed, and that they did provide a testimony. Martyrdom does not prove anything in itself other than to show the strength of someone's convictions which does account for something when added to the body of evidence.

I believe Jesus (the man) existed, the apostles too probably, I'm still an atheist / agnostic though.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The 12 apostles were well known, among others, even Christ Himself is mentioned in ancient Roman secular writings, so we cannot deny that these men existed, and that they did provide a testimony.

Hmmm... last I heard, historians feel the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person is probable rather than certain, but there's that there is little historical evidence for rest of the story - see this article on evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, and this examination of Jesus myth theory.

 

[Radrook]

Chance makes chaos not complexity, complexity must be created and maintained by intelligence, agendas can cause us to disregard the obvious. It is easy to see that someone designed and built a computer or some other machine, but that does not threaten anyone's faith whether it be in chaos or Christianity. But when the design glorifies the intelligence, that's when people start to get nervous.

Easy to see yes! Easy to admit that it is being seen is the difficult part.