Iacchus said:
Well, the whole point is to establish whether or not the Master Gardner truly exists, otherwise what's the point in trying to establish the other? Because the two are obviously dependent upon each other.
I think you are going about this in a bit of a backwards fashion.
From what I understand, you are proposing a theory, and searching for facts to fit the theory. That is not proper reasoning
What you should do is gather information, scrutinize it, and make sure the information you have gathered is accurate. From there, you can develope a theory around the information.
I don't doubt that credence should be given to the theory of evolution, but there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that we're spiritual beings, in which case I think it's necessary to try and find grounds by which to integrate the two.
I have a wholly different concept of "spiritual" than you.
What do you mean by "spiritual beings"?
And why bother to bring up the Bible without including the possiblity of what the book of Genesis says? Afterall this is what I'm basing my point upon.
I do in fact consider the information written in Genesis.
From the information we have observed and demonstrated today, it appears there is quite a bit of conflict with the information written in Genesis. The material in Genesis is inconsistent with our scientific data, therefore when we consider the possibility of a Genesis creation in any particular sense of interpretation as a historical device, we see that there is nothing to gain. Genesis is quite incorrect as historical tool.
Yes, but if you're going to use science as the means of inquiry, it would be nice if you can find reasons to include the book of Genesis. Afterall it does say Adam and Eve were an orginal pair who, through a lack of spirituality let's say, were banned from the (spiritual) Garden and had to eke it out in the natural world. How does this conflict with what I'm saying?
There is conflict because that is not what the history of the world reads.
The first anatomically modern humans was nothing remarkable. In fact, it was probably hardly noticeable. The transition between Humans (Homo Sapiens) and Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) was very gradual, very slow, just as you would expect from Evolution.
This gradual process is quite the antithesis of your hypothesis that humans suddenly popped into existence in the Natural World. As the information demonstrates that gradual change is the way humans came to be, that is the theory we must adopt.
While it
would be nice if we could find reasons to include the book of Genesis, it would not be pragmatic. We gather information, we do not try to force the information to conform to our beliefs.
Indeed maybe it had to happen this way, in order to establish a rational means by which to understand that which is spiritual? Or, at the very least it helps further the illustration that a difference in potential exists between the natural and the spiritual.
And, while this may sound like a horrible thing to do to one's newly born creation, maybe it's none other than the type of shock a plant experiences when it's transplanted to a new environment?
One of the important things to keep in mind the difference between science and spirituality.
Science describes how things work and why they are what they are. Religious Spirituality is a tool important to give these things meaning. For this reason, I try to keep my Natural World seperate from my Spiritual Understanding.
Perhaps you should try a more allegorical approach.
The bible is filled with enormous symbolism and quite dramatic allegory. I think this source is as appropriate as any, but have you read SparkNotes? SparkNotes annotates the Old Testament as an allegory, and it does a fairly nice job of doing so.
From
SparkNotes - The Old Testament:
Analysis
...
The major thematic link of the first eleven chapters is the structuring of the world around a system of parallels and contrasts. Light breaks into the darkness, land separates water, and “the greater light” of the sun opposes “the lesser light” of the moon (1:16). A more complex occurrence of parallel and contrast occurs with the account of man’s creation. Man is not only made in the image of God, paralleling him, but woman, made from the man’s rib, contrasts with man. The Genesis writer uses the poetic device of antistrophe, or the repetition of a line in reverse order, to highlight the parallels and contrasts in the creation of man:
<blockquote>
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 1:27–29</blockquote>
The antistrophe suggests that the world is logically organized around binary opposites, or basic opposing forces. Positive and negative, work and rest, and day and night are among the many binary opposites that the first chapters of Genesis describe. Good and evil is probably the most consistently explored binary opposite in the Old Testament, and the story of Cain and Abel initiates a long analysis of the difference between good and evil. Cain’s deception and murder of Abel, as well as his evasive response to God’s questioning, describe his evil as inherent in his character and unmitigated by other good traits. God’s punishment, however, demonstrates both justice and mercy, establishing God as the absolute good that opposes Cain’s absolute evil.
...
In the account of Noah, God himself uses symbols as much as the authors of the story. God explicitly calls the rainbow a “sign,” or symbol, of his covenant with humanity after the flood (9:12–13). God frequently uses physical objects to show his spiritual -purposes. But unlike the Greek gods of Homer or other Near-Eastern deities, the Hebrew God is never depicted as limited or defined by these objects. Rather, the authors of Genesis suggest that God is telling an elaborate allegorical story through the act of creation and that as God manages the affairs of the earth, symbolic -meaning is one of the primary ways in which he communicates with his creations.
And yet as you say, "God is to be understood from what has been made."
Although I think the Deistic concept is fairly close, we still have to account for the fact that we have a soul which, transcends the natural world upon death. Which of course is stressed throughout the Bible, at least in the New Testament anyway.
I have a different concept of a "soul" than yourself.
From your description over in my "Yahweh's Proof of Naturalism" thread:
If you got rid of all the matter which comprises who you are physically, and examined the remaining engery field or pattern, this would be your soul which, if you could see, would probably look identical to your physical body.
What you should understand about this definition is that it is a very Materialistic definition.
As detailed by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, energy and matter equivelant. In actuality, all things are comprised of energy, what you recognize as matter is nothing more than "congealed" energy.
When you get rid of all the matter/energy which comprises your physical existence, you have an empty space.
You predict this empty space will look identical to your physical body, however it will not. In an absence of matter, you have a vacuum.
You are free to call this vacuum a "soul", however it will be completely alien definition of a soul which I am familiar with. Your prediction that that this void transcends the Natural World at death is quite bewildering. There is nothing transcending anything.
[nitpicking]
It is very hard to define exactly what composes your physical body. Does the oxygen fused into my bloodcells compose my physical body? It is hard to say, that oxygen fused into my red bloodcells used to be fused into someone else's red bloodcells, and possibly in a billion other people's red bloodcells, and that oxygen was possibly a molecule of H<sub>2</sub>O at one point in the past.
[/nitpicking]
I have a different concept of a "soul" than yourself, however I do not believe my concept of "soul" exists.
My concept of consciousness is different from yours as wel. Whereas you describe consciousness as something which exists as a "field" or a substance seperate from matter, I describe consciousness as a property which means "self-awareness" (the reason you are self-aware is due to a series of complex functions in the brain associated with rapid fluctuations of electricity coursing through the Corpus Callosum).
Also, if we were truly spiritual, we would be closer to the hand of God so to speak, and more privy to the "synchronistic nature" of things, in which case we might be poised to see things a bit differently, and more apt to accept something as a miracle, as opposed to that which has occurred at random. In which case it might seem like God has taken a more active role in our lives.
I have an image in my head of what you just described, and I'm afraid it was not the point you were trying to get across. Please correct me, but when you say "if we were truely spiritual... we might be ... more apt to accept something as a miracle", this translates to me as "If we were more gullible, we might be able to accept things which are false and irrational as actual truths". In that case, I would think it would be a
bad thing to be spiritual. (I am cynical by nature.)
I am certain that you were not trying to say "gullibility is a good thing", can you clarify?
I understand that Voodoo is a pretty powerful medium and, that meditation is an accomplished path, however I don't recommend taking up Voodoo as a discipline.
If ever there was a connection between the natural world and the spiritual world, it would have to be through mankind now wouldn't it? 
Acts of Mankind more specifically
