Page 1 of 1

Old Earth Procedural Generationist...?

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:21 am
by Tornadopelt
Old Earth Procedural Generationism is something I thought of during a rather strange night of imbibing in Mountain Dew and my brain going 1,037 miels an hour, where the person of such thinking believes that a creator made certain "base parameters" under which the universe operates, but everything within the bounds of those parameters is effectively random... much like how Minecraft has a base set of parameters (which can be modified to the user's whim or just left alone) and, while each world is generated within the bounds of those parameters, the bounds are loose enough that every world is different from the next and thus keeps the game interesting. I think it's a happy medium between creation and evolution.

Re: Old Earth Procedural Generationist...?

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:17 pm
by brachiosteve
Hi Tornado. Would that be in a junkyard? Not sure what you mean by, or are coming from, when you say, ‘Old earth Procedural Generationism’, but perhaps you mean deistic? Something/someone started the process, incorporating some rules to sustain it, with built in flexibility, allowing for a whole range of situations around the universe. But I could be wrong.

We often create things to explain wider situations, our own existence or beliefs. There’s a lot of sense built up to explain the Christian God and His ways and how the world fits into that idea. It’s comforting, gives us hope and explains, to a degree, our inner need for justice, hope and the reality or illusion of sin/bad, though we need to do a lot of cherry picking to arrive there. And likewise, the Hindu religions and many others all have a good crack at trying to fit a world philosophy into a box.

Unfortunately, no box has thus far been able to contain everything. Certainly the ones where a god(s) of sort have arisen or try to explain any gaps or start balls rolling. Infuriating, but significant contradictions tend to pop up and end up in discussions like this. I think if we based ideas or evidence, byilding to theories and removing the bad, keeping rhe good, would be a better way, but our emotions, beliefs and hardened ways or traditions and superstitions can be tough cookies or obstacles to overcome in the search for truth, which should be evidence based. But we are emotional beings, so it's hard to separate all of this. Is it mere geographical coincidence that religious groups dominate communities, be it the US mid West or Pakistan or do we tend to pass on our beliefs and have a certain... .expectation' (to keep it mild), that they follow suit? It certainly isnt pure, unadulterated investigation and fee will to determine what you believe.

The term, creation vs evolution is a misnomer, but due to popularity, it’s definitely staying here, as a discussion forum. In political election build ups, all the minority representatives complain that they don’t get equal space/time as others. But it has to have some proportion/statistical representation involved. Flat earth vs round earth for example. I’m sure that ONE of these sides would like more billing and think they have an equal and worthy say/justification for their view. Sadly, science, evidence, and the number of people that follow it don’t agree, so it’s a false equivalence. Not to say that popularity should be a deciding factor. Most Americans may not know where Iraq is Most Americans may not know where Iraq is or believe in ghosts, aliens or (but it still exists), or may believe in ghosts, bigfoot, aliens or god, but numbers do not equate to what I right or wrong.

Which brings me to the final point. It is not about finding a happy medium or pleasing any/all sides. It’s about seeking truth (whatever the cost or majority viewpoint) and finding this out from where the evidence leads. Not selected or biased or uncorroborated evidence, but sound, where possible peer reviewed evidence, that has been put out there for scrutiny and has been secured or battled the injuries sustained.

This is not to say that there are not options. Wholly naturalist evolution, theistic/deistic evolution (over short or long periods of time). Another possible theory/idea to explain things?

We should all be aware of our own motives, biases and the influence of our beliefs on our minds, research or desires. You cannot go into seeking, with undue bias, whether you hold to a naturalistic view or otherwise. As adults, we have mostly formed a view, however arrived. Like law of gravity, which anyone is free to challenge, but would lead a poor quality of life if they decided to challenge it all the time.

Evolution is a biological theory/fact (depending on how you use the term) and terms outside of this, like stellar evolution or inorganic stuff, like, 'of motorcycles' etc. are merely derived. Whether evolution occurred or not, and if so is it set out from the strt or directed, does not tend to affect our necessary daily lives, but for those who truly seek to know truth, the ability to be genuinely open to whatever the evidence shows/brings, and be wrong, and have our own notions challenged, is exciting, liberating and a wonderful state to experience.

If you, yourself are coming at this from a theistic position, may I ask why you enter a being or first cause into the equation? Could it be some of Aquinas's arguments, like the goldilocks zone or apparent design or order in the universe or gaps you perceive and want to try to close or explain them, by inserting a trump card which fits/explains all?

Re: Old Earth Procedural Generationist...?

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:14 am
by Tornadopelt
I guess you could say that. The OEPG thought process was just a random idea that my brain took off and ran with after a little bit of Mountain Dew.

I accept the belief in God mostly because it feels "right" to me (I also accept that currently we have no means of being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, but that may change in the future as technology gets better and better), but I try not to let my faith in God get in the way of my powers of reasoning. Besides, a good friend once told me that "faith and reason are like shoes - you walk a lot further with both of them on". However, there is no need to worry - I accept that evolution happens, and that the current understanding of our world is as correct as we can be certain of. However, there are some things we do not know. For example, God could be a being that "ascended" to a higher form in a universe before this one, if there even was a universe before this one (Ah, Big Bang, thou art a heartless bitch!), and then set everything in motion with a set of base parameters to try and replicate the universe he came from with His own big bang. Or, perhaps God created it with those laws in place already, and left us to discover them. I just don't know. And I accept that I don't know, and that's fine.

A Christian I may be, but I have no qualms about science (UNLIKE A CERTAIN FAMILY OF FUCKSTICKS CALLED THE HOVINDS!!!!!! ---- sorry about that).

Side note, I'd like to be able to check out the phylogeny tree.

Re: Old Earth Procedural Generationist...?

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:25 am
by Casey
For example, God could be a being that "ascended" to a higher form in a universe before this one, if there even was a universe before this one (Ah, Big Bang, thou art a heartless bitch!), and then set everything in motion with a set of base parameters to try and replicate the universe he came from with His own big bang. Or, perhaps God created it with those laws in place already, and left us to discover them.
Perhaps god doesn't exist at all, and everything is the result of completely natural processes. I think your idea about procedural generation like Minecraft is fun to think about, but without any evidence to support it, it's simply your imagination gone wild.

I'm curious, though; You say you accept that you don't know, and that it's fine - but if that's the case, why do you pretend (read: have faith) that god exists in the first place? Isn't saying "I don't know" more honest and accurate?

Re: Old Earth Procedural Generationist...?

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:49 am
by Tornadopelt
Duly noted. I see where your point comes from.