Why Doesn't Dollard Believe In Evolution

[Stephen Brown]

Great Post. Thanks.

I have no idea how Eric thinks, but looking at some of the work he has done and mentioned more than once, I would give it the following explanation.

Based on his stories, Eric seems to have created a miniature galaxy/nebula on a few occasions. The cosmic induction generator seems to have a similar goal. Absorbing energy into counter space and creating a miniature galaxy in that way.

If you look at it that way, there is no such thing as evolution. It's a matter of how things are perceived. Things are created instantly in the counter space dimension, by the wave of a hand in this dimension (or in this case by the wave of the cosmic induction generator in this dimension).

Now apply this same principle to our dimension. Assume we are the counter space dimension of another larger dimension. Then in that larger space/dimension, the wave of a hand (or a cosmic induction generator) creates our galaxy in this dimension. For us it might seem like an eternity (or evolution) because our time is so much faster compared to the larger dimension, while in the larger dimension it is simply created in an instant (no evolution needed for that). Only a fraction of a second has transpired in the larger dimension, while millions of years might have passed in the counter space dimension.

Now apply this recursively going up and down in dimensions.... I think you will get the picture of what Buddha Sakyamuni described.

E.g. from the book Zhuan Falun by Li Hongzhi, chapter 2, I quote:

"Sakyamuni also spoke of the theory of three thousand worlds. He stated that, in our universe and our Milky Way, there are three thousand planets with living beings that have physical bodies like our human race. He also stated that there were three thousand such worlds in a grain of sand. A grain of sand is thus just like a universe, with people having wisdom like ours, planets, mountains, and rivers. It sounds quite inconceivable! If so, think about it, everyone: Is there sand in those three thousand worlds? And are there another three thousand worlds in any one of those grains of sand? Then, is there sand in those three thousand worlds? Then, are there still three thousand worlds in any one of those grains of sand? Accordingly, at the level of Tathagata, one is unable to see its end."

And per chapter 8 of that same book:

"At his level, Sakyamuni brought up the theory of three thousand worlds, which is to say that in this Milky Way there are also people with flesh bodies like those of our human race. He also mentioned that a grain of sand contains three thousand worlds, and this agrees with the understanding of our modern physics. What’s the difference between the rotation pattern of electrons orbiting nuclei and that of Earth orbiting the sun? Therefore, Sakyamuni said that at the microscopic level, a grain of sand contains three thousand worlds. It is just like a universe with life and matter within. If it is true, think about it: Is there sand in the world of that grain of sand? Are there three thousand worlds in the sand from that grain of sand? Then is there sand in the three thousand worlds in the sand of the sand? If the search continues on downward, it will be endless. Therefore, even at the level of Tathagata, Sakyamuni made this statement: “It’s immense, without an exterior, and it’s tiny, without an interior.” It is so immense that he could not see the perimeter of the universe, yet so tiny that he could not detect the most microscopic particle from the origin of matter."

My personal understanding... hope it is of some use

Aaron. Did you post a link to some pictures referencing Eric's cosmos in a bottle?

"Based on his stories, Eric seems to have created a miniature galaxy/nebula on a few occasions. The cosmic induction generator seems to have a similar goal. Absorbing energy into counter space and creating a miniature galaxy in that way."

I saw them, didn't bookmark them and have been looking for them ever since.
Did you remove the post or have I just been searching using the wrong words?
Thanks in advance.
Stephen

[Aaron]

cosmic induction generator

Aaron. Did you post a link to some pictures referencing Eric's cosmos in a bottle?

"Based on his stories, Eric seems to have created a miniature galaxy/nebula on a few occasions. The cosmic induction generator seems to have a similar goal. Absorbing energy into counter space and creating a miniature galaxy in that way."

I saw them, didn't bookmark them and have been looking for them ever since.
Did you remove the post or have I just been searching using the wrong words?
Thanks in advance.
Stephen

Stephen, just search "comsic induction generator" in google in an images search. You'll see the bulbs. The galaxy one was not photographed and happened once to my understanding. The plasma shapes you see are later on. They're in the video I posted with Eric's recent Q & A session.

[TheoriaApophasis]

My quip was merely reflecting the fact that your post is nearly word for word the Wikipedia definition of emanationsim.

Thats because I WROTE IT, so no shocker there.



Our modern sick world only thinks in 2 terms now

1. Creationism (ala the Jews, Christians and Muslims)

2. Nihilists / atomists / atheists



The premise of Plato, Pythagoras, Plotinus is opposite to both those positions.


Nihil ex nihilo cannot be enjoined as logical

nor can and old guy in the clouds be logically enjoined.



Pythagoreanism, i.e. Platonism, or nondual Monism fits logically and perfectly with observable cosmos; and with Dollard.


Of which Dollard himself mentions the golden ratio OFTEN. To wit, the Greek Platonists referenced it often as the premise for Emanationism.


(however today, many Christians have tried to hijack the golden ratio as false proof of Creationism).


Much of pathetic Atheism is just replacing the insane notion of God with energy

but where Atheism fails miserably is that it posits spontaneous happenstance, self-organization from random convergences and generation.

The first mention of Atheism, is by the Greeks in the term atheos, which is in reference to Greek Platonism as refers to the Nous (will/mind/citta/spirit/soul) as found in passage: (Phil 26e-30d) and not to a supernatural persona, i.e. God. The immanent-only materialistic pantheism of metaphysical Atheism is an aphilosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical compounded materiality; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. This anti-divinity of Atheism is the true and shadow-worshiping profanity that is the hallmark of Atheism, not its correct position that, as Plato and the Neoplatonists argued for as well, that there was no Supreme-Being as creator of the cosmos.

Metaphysical Atheism is Atheism, in true and in whole. That some who deem themselves Atheists also admit to, as they would say ‘something’ is certainly not in question, however these people are not in fact Atheists but lazy Agnostics and in most cases crypto-materialists; calling themselves atheists in but they merely deny God, is only a measure of their ignorance in of which they do not know the full scope of the very term Atheism. The Greeks in coining the term as progenitor for Atheism had meant, as Plato, Socrates, and Pythagoras before both, the denial of spiritual and immaterial divinity a-theos, or anti-divinitism.

Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism (only an extension and condensing of Platonism itself), wrote extensively on the denial of the Absolute as not Being, but an active insentient dynamis, an unmediated divinity of which composite Being could not be said thereof; such that Being by definition must partake of more than an uncompounded simplex principle (such as nous). The goal of Vedanta, Advaita, Buddhism (all of which encompass Upanishadic Monism) have Brahman as the endgoal, of which this Absolute is most certainly denied as Being (i.e. God). Atheism in true is none other than materialism, the praise of the existential persona headed for the grave-pit, it cant be shown anything else but contempt for denial of any and all which is outside the scope of the narrow and fallible spectrum of the petty human senses. Gotama Buddha derided Ishvara (God) both in principle and those who aligned themselves in practice with same.

A voracious supporter of Atheism (not a mere God-denying agnostic as in the previous example) will in all instances adamantly deny the metaphysical, the divinity of which atheos, or Atheism is meant in its definition. A true agnostic (merely as meant agnosis, or ignorance! Or, deeming oneself as ignorant) is but an unlearned and unexplored supporter of metaphysics even if only indirectly; that some agnostics would foremostly deny God, does not make them an Atheist. That these ‘unknowers’ (agnostics) would firstly deem themselves as Atheists is but a further expression of their ignorance of the meaning of Atheism and not just of metaphysics.

Atheism is currently not a (sic) philosophical position that God is not, but that theology (again, the study of divinity, which Creationism is only a part thereof) is something to be despised and spit upon. To convince oneself of the insanity of Atheists, they need only watch a debate between Atheists and Creationists; one might gather that such rabid profanity-laced tirades could only be found amongst those made-become Atheists who had been raped over twenty years by Catholic priests. It is highly humorous that Atheists fight and spit so voraciously at the mention of a God whom they deny exists. In true definition further in modern connotation and example, Atheism is little more than anti-religiosity (theo-logy), and not simply the logical denial of God.

Religion is merely the profane secular side of metaphysics; is but popularized metaphysics; as such it is true that religion is as was said “the opiate of the masses”. A modern Atheist is one who hisses like a snake at the sight of religious and or theological institutions of noetic, spiritual examination. He is, as Atheist, far more than one who denies the Creationists God(s); but were Atheism merely this alone, I and many others Platonists, Vedantists, would gladly proclaim themselves as Atheists! In connotation and definition both however to call oneself an Atheist is no different than gleefully calling oneself a demon materialist.

To the ignorant materialistic atheist, and possible expert in objective reality, the metaphysician must declare to such a one as him that “you, while competent in your myopic study of existential things, causes, effects and temporal phenomena; are wholly unschooled in the arena of metaphysics both in whole and in part and therefore should not step, like the proverbial fish out of water, into the denial and speculation upon Subjective metaphysics simply due to your myopic litmus test of rejecting anything both in whole or in part due to a lack of objective investigation into that thing. By logic alone, there is no measuring the Measurer nor is there objective proof for metaphysical subjects anymore so than there is objective proof of your love of your wife or mother.” It is the case that a proud materialist (metaphysical atheist) has made a sort of sick religion out of physicalism. It is ironic that Atheists in general will declare they “merely deny God/gods”, however this is almost never the case, for these same atheists also lump the soul, the Absolute and all uncompounded Subjective Beings, and the notion of a Subjective substrate to phenomena as “unreal, equally as asinine as God, etc.”. The irony lies not in their denial of God/gods, but their vociferous refusal to delve into their other rejection, that of metaphysical subjects; for them, if they are pressed, will equally and soundly denounce the soul and metaphysics as “equally insane voodoo on par with that of a creationist God”.

[Bob Smith]

I don't know why Eric doesn't believe in evolution. But I can express my view, as to why I don't believe in Darwinistic evolution, and perhaps there may be something in common with EPD's view there.

Darwin's evolution theory is just that - a theory, just like Einstein's theory of special relativity is just that - a theory. I don't buy Darwin's theory of evolution for the following reasons:

- I see no evidence for one species evolving into another species, even in fossil records, and there are many who argue the same. One could organize fossils and creatures along lines of seeming progressive features which find their supposed culmination of development in homo sapiens, to point to successive evolutionary leaps. But in my mind this is a framework that is extrinsically imposed for its own purposes, and it bypasses the notion that one species cannot evolve into another.

- Darwin's theory of evolution inviariably is linked to eugenics, which received great impetus in Western culture with the work of Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton. Interesting how Galton's work on eugenics and Darwin's theory of evolution fit hand in glove. We find eugenics often linked in spoken and unspoken ways in certain ideologies which pervade economics, sociology, ethics and medical research/treatment.

- Man and woman are the masterpieces of the natural order. When exercised to their fullest noble potential, human intellect and free will are unsurpassed by any other creature. There is no corporeal being on this earth whose dignity and ability to know and to consciously deliberate on and choose what is good equals that of the human person. This seems to be a consistent hallmark of all the world's great cultures, with the exception of the most despotic and inhuman (such as Communism and military dictatorships), which are not really great cultures at all. Societies generally construct their laws to ensure the protection of the common good, which rests on safeguarding the supreme worth of every individual within that society. Once this supreme worth becomes more important for some than others (which can be a form of eugenics), that society/culture begins its decline. It is easier to dispense with individuals if we think they are less evolved, less human or simply another animal (though perhaps higher evolved than others).

I wonder if EPD shares in some of these, which in my view appeal to reason.

M 2 cents.
Bob

[wayne.ct]

Anyone identify as a fallibleist?

I probably spelled that wrong but I recently listened to an introductory lecture on philosophy and the lecturer stated that he is/was a committed fallible-ist. So committed was he, so he said, that he was uncertain he even existed, etc. To this listener the whole lecture was understandable while listening but quite forgettable. I'm glad I was not paying big bucks to listen to it for academic credit.

Theoria A. can feel free to correct me, but I confess my willingness to continue in the posture of student, a humble student at that. I identify with being fallible.

With that said, I read this thread because the C/E debate is something of a hobby with me. I prefer to see evidence laid out in a logical manner and interpretations posed as hypothetical and not as dogmatic.

The first post of this thread appeared to me to be an attack on EPD because he would not CONFESS himself to be a committed evolutionist. I find that to be crude and harsh. It sounds like a modern atheist, to use TA's explanation. I much prefer to read of some purported evidence, even if it is unbelievable and poorly stated. Mere claims of evidence are superior to the ad hominem attacks of the ignorant shallow thinkers. I did the search suggested, i.e. Ken Hamm fraud, or whatever, and read the top three results. Hamm may be an idiot, but he garnered the air time with a famous evolutionist. Bill Nye obviously enjoyed taking advantage of a creationist buffoon.

The Biblical literalists and fundamentalists genuinely discredit the cause of fiat creationism by their use of "the book". To my way of thinking the evidence in the geology points to a world-wide catastrophe that exceeds anything seen in the last 3,000 years. Anything older than that needs to be handled with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Bottom line for me?

1. What EPD thinks about creation, evolution, Lutherans or whatever has nothing to do with what he can or may offer to the physical experimenter and alternate energy enthusiast. It should not matter.

2. The creation model has a large amount of evidence to speak for it.

3. Evolutionists, on the main, have more faith in their model than run-of-the-mill Christians have in their God.

[dR-Green]

An acorn is bound to unfold to become an oak tree.

The unexpressed idea of the whole oak tree in all its incalculable expressed complexity is contained as One Whole Idea within its acorn seed, and so an oak tree it will invariably become within the dimension of time; It did not evolve to become the oak tree, it unfolded. The invisible unexpressed idea within the seed simply became expressed through unfolding form, and therefore visible. And so likewise all life unfolds from the cosmic/universal seed; Life is not an accident, it is inevitable. Cause is One, effect is expressed through infinitely incalculable complexity of forms.