Just-So Stories With Final Causes: Aristotle Meets Kipling
How exactly has this new study confirmed that dinosaurs evolved birds at a fast pace, and how exactly is it that “paleontologists have long known that birds evolved from dinosaurs known as theropods”? In fact there was no such confirmation and there is no such knowledge, not in any scientific sense.
When we say that scientists “know” something, we do not mean that they personally believe it (which paleontologists do), we mean that they have compelling, overwhelming evidence for it (which paleontologists do not). In the scientific sense, which of course is the sense in which evolutionists portray themselves and the sense intended by the Times article, paleontologists have no such knowledge.
That is not in question. How can I know this? Because I’ve read what they have to say. I know their arguments. Unless they’ve been cleverly hiding their proofs, there is no question that they do not “know” dinosaurs evolved into birds—at a fast pace or otherwise.
In fact what evolutionists have most of to offer is speculation, sometimes referred to as “just-so” stories after Kipling’s classic by the same name. For example, evolutionists speculate that as the dinosaurs became smaller (for some reason) their embryonic development phase shortened. And this abbreviated development period meant (for some reason) that the miniaturized dinosaurs retained into adulthood their juvenile features, “some of which were uncannily bird-like.”
And why would dinosaurs become smaller in the first place? Well maybe they were adapting to living in trees where massive size, after all, puts one at a decided disadvantage. Instead, they would need to be small and agile. And maybe nocturnal as well, so evolving feathers to stay warm would help. Longer forelimbs would also help swing from tree to tree, and perhaps those longer forelimbs evolved into wings.
What evolutionists lack in evidential support they make up for with imagination. And evolutionists frame their just-so stories in Aristotelian, final causes, terminology. For example, there was a “push” toward smaller size, and the smaller sizes in dinosaurs helped to “trigger” a host of different traits. A wing-like surface area would have developed “to help glide” from tree to tree. After all, dinosaurs “were experimenting” with flight in various modes and finally “made the crucial leap” to powered flight, and so birds “were born.”
Dinosaurs were experimenting with flight? This isn’t science, this is absurdity.
Cornelius Hunter: And why would dinosaurs become smaller in the first place?
ReplyDeleteGenerally, because there was a niche available that could be exploited. But regardless of the precise reasons, the evidence shows that some lineages of dinosaurs evolved to be smaller.
What evolutionists lack in evidential support they make up for with imagination.
DeleteHypothesis formation: A common human behavior that Cornelius Hunter has trained himself to suppress.
Dinosaurs were experimenting with flight? This isn’t science, this is absurdity.
DeleteWhen trying to explain things to a general audience, people often use figurative language. It is tendentious to construe such expressions literally.
Cornelius Hunter: And why would dinosaurs become smaller in the first place?
DeleteZ: Generally, because there was a niche available that could be exploited.
J: This is what CH means by teleological thinking in evolutionary speculation. The occurrence of the availability of a niche for small animals is not a sufficient condition of its exploitation by a dinosaur that is not already adapted to it. And there is no reason to believe dinosaurs could will themselves adapted to it.
Jeff,
DeleteThe occurrence of the availability of a niche for small animals is not a sufficient condition of its exploitation by a dinosaur that is not already adapted to it.
There is natural variation in populations,some members of a group are larger some are smaller, the smaller were bit more successful competing the available resources in this case.
What is the logic from the SA view? Did smaller dinosaurs pop into existence?
Z: There is natural variation in populations,some members of a group are larger some are smaller, the smaller were bit more successful competing the available resources in this case.
DeleteJ: That's not logic. That's a story that you've told yourself. Without teleological explanation, you've explained nothing, let alone the amount of time it would take even if historical mutations and their effects serendipitously corresponded to the non-temporally-constrained aspects of your story.
Sorry V, I didn't notice it was you, not Z. But here's the issue:
DeleteCH: "In fact what evolutionists have most of to offer is speculation, sometimes referred to as “just-so” stories after Kipling’s classic by the same name. For example, evolutionists speculate that as the dinosaurs became smaller (for some reason) their embryonic development phase shortened. And this abbreviated development period meant (for some reason) that the miniaturized dinosaurs retained into adulthood their juvenile features, “some of which were uncannily bird-like.”
And why would dinosaurs become smaller in the first place?"
In short, it's not existing smaller dinosaurs competing with larger dinosaurs that explains what is being posited. It's a continual diminution of size of dinosaurs. This is why teleological explanation is inevitable. Because we don't have any knowledge of a-teleological genetic causality that implies that IF any species becomes unadapted or less adapted to a newly-arising environment that mutations will serendipitously adapt the species to the new environment. And even if such a general feed-back mechanism existed, THAT very mechanism would have to be explained evolutionarily. And that hasn't been done. No one has a clue how it could be done.
Jeff: That's a story that you've told yourself.
DeleteIt's straightforward hypothetico-deduction. If birds descended from larger theropods, then there should have existed a progression of increasingly smaller theropods. And that is what the fossil evidence shows, supporting the hypothesis.
"Idea x started out as a conjecture" is a bad criticism because it's applicible to all ideas. So, you cannot use it in a critical way.
DeleteIOW, can you provide a counter example of an explanatory theory that did not start out as conjecture? Specifically, an example where a theory was mechanically derived from observations?
Furthermore, we do not stop there. Evolutionary theory has survived an overwhelming amount of empirical criticism.
Z: It's straightforward hypothetico-deduction. If birds descended from larger theropods, then there should have existed a progression of increasingly smaller theropods. And that is what the fossil evidence shows, supporting the hypothesis.
DeleteJ: No, the only thing that follows from the truth of a single proposition is the falsehood of its negation. You need MILLIONS of hypothesis to get the "conclusions" you're after. And even then, you have no idea if you're contradicting the "laws" of physics and chemistry that you "accept." So you have to further posit that those "laws" BOW to your millions of posited mutations and their posited effects when the posited lineage is the hypothesis at stake.
Z: And that is what the fossil evidence shows, supporting the hypothesis.
DeleteJ: Wrong again. Cladograms require many a ghost lineage to be actual models of what they're posited to model. But the cladograms don't imply that the specific ghost lineages should be what they currently are per currently-accepted fossil succession. And neither does anything we know geology imply them. And you don't have time to enumerate (or even think of them) the millions of posited effects of millions of posited mutations to even get in the realm of inductive criteria.
Jeff: the only thing that follows from the truth of a single proposition is the falsehood of its negation.
DeleteThat's how hypothesis-testing works.Your confusion is entailed in the word "follows", implying deductive certainty. You really don't understand science, do you?
J: No, the only thing that follows from the truth of a single proposition is the falsehood of its negation. You need MILLIONS of hypothesis to get the "conclusions" you're after.
DeleteWe do? Ok, let's try and take your objection seriously, as if it's true in reality, in that your acceptance or rejection of all theories should adhere to it, not just evolutionary theory.
We think gravity works the same, everywhere in the universe. Yet, according to your logic, it seems we would need an astronomical number of hypothesis and their negation reach this "conclusion".
IOW, your position suggests any universal scientific statement is meaningless because it cannot be verified universally true. So, it's unclear how is this materially different from logical positivism.
From the Wikipedia entry on the same...
After the Second World War's close in 1945, key tenets of logical positivism, including its atomistic philosophy of science, the verifiability principle, and the fact/value gap, drew escalated criticism. It was clear that empirical claims cannot be verified universally true. Thus, as initially stated, the verifiability criterion made universal statements meaningless, and even made statements beyond empiricism for technological but not conceptual reasons meaningless, which would pose significant problems for science. These problems were recognized within the movement, which hosted attempted solutions—Carnap's move to confirmation, Ayer's acceptance of weak verification—but the program drew sustained criticism from a number of directions by the 1950s. Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as selfcontradictory. The verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified. Notable critics were Nelson Goodman, Willard Van Orman Quine, Norwood Hanson, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, J L Austin, Peter Strawson, Hilary Putnam, Ludwig von Mises and Richard Rorty.
Z: That's how hypothesis-testing works.Your confusion is entailed in the word "follows", implying deductive certainty.
DeleteJ: You mentioned hypothetico-deduction. A theory is worthless if it doesn't have both practical degrees of predictive breadth and GREATER degrees of predictive breadth than its competitors.
Z: You really don't understand science, do you?
J: No one understands "science" once it's no longer defined as interpreting your experience inductively/deductively in terms of the axioms that ground induction and deduction. That's the source of the demarcation problem. Once you abandon the constraints of induction/deduction, you land where you are now, having to just accept UCA as an axiom that will serve forever as a working hypothesis no matter how many times the sub-hypotheses are falsified.
Again, CH isn't articulating opposition to the use of UCA as working hypothesis for the purpose of generating testable sub-hypotheses. He's arguing against the absurd claim that there is overwhelming "evidence" for UCA as opposed to SA. No one has defined "evidence" such that that claim can be discernibly true.
J1: Once you abandon the constraints of induction/deduction, you land where you are now, having to just accept UCA as an axiom that will serve forever as a working hypothesis no matter how many times the sub-hypotheses are falsified.
DeleteJ2: The logical problem is that an axiom is NOT a testable hypothesis. So, in effect, UCA'ists accept UCA as being true apart from need of evidence while claiming there's overwhelming evidence of it. But that's a contradiction. It's one or the other, and the latter is most obviously false while the claim that UCA is self-evidently true or axiomatic renders it either non-hypothetical or non-scientifically hypothetical. Either way, the demarcation problem is firmly in place as LOGICAL problem.
Scott: We think gravity works the same, everywhere in the universe.
DeleteJ: You mean the equations? The equations don't work for galaxies apart from something like dark matter, remember? And no one can even think of or articulate a set of causal hypothetico-deductive axioms in terms of dark matter to imply that the equations really DO work. So I don't know what you're getting at?
... not to mention the utterly huge set of ways one could posit the positioning and "attractions" in terms of a dark matter solution that are all equally predictive IF someone could just find the time to do that positing. In short, in one of such explanations is utterly improbable on that ground alone. I.e., there can be no real inductive evidence for any one of them unless we find ways to inductively rule out all but one of them.
DeleteCorrection: "In short, in one of such explanations"
Deleteshould be
"In short, EVERY one of such explanations"
"Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as selfcontradictory."
DeleteAmazingly enough, I have a philosopy of science book that claims logical positivism arose in part because of ER and QT. And yet QT denies the universal validity of the LNC. Of course, I could be wrong since that putative denial is only inferrable if the LNC is valid is a principle. These people are at war with logic. They have to be, because they've abandoned the teleological basis of induction, rendering both induction and deduction absolutely indistinguishable from arbitrariness (i.e., ungrounded in anything intuitive to humans qua humans). Thus, epistemology itself is bogus since it's just another "ology" which depends upon deductive and inductive logic and the axioms they depend on to even get off the ground.
CH: "What evolutionists lack in evidential support they make up for with imagination."
ReplyDeleteP: "Hypothesis formation: A common human behavior that Cornelius Hunter has trained himself to suppress."
Which is more helpful: (a) offering a just-so story based on imagination; or (b) continuing to contemplate until you can offer a compelling story?
Darwinists are decidedly in favor of "a".
alethinon61: Which is more helpful: (a) offering a just-so story based on imagination; or (b) continuing to contemplate until you can offer a compelling story?
DeleteActually, proposing testable hypotheses is what it is all about. Evolution has been very fruitful in that respect, including this study.
Alethinon61 Which is more helpful: (a) offering a just-so story based on imagination; or (b) continuing to contemplate until you can offer a compelling story?
DeleteDarwinists are decidedly in favor of "a".
I think you will find that, if anything, biologists are decidedly in favor of (c) bold hypotheses as advocated by the philosopher of science Karl Popper:
Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her.
What you and Jeff and all the other neo-Paleyists here seem unable to grasp - or, more likely, are unwilling to countenance for reasons best known to yourselves - is that Popper's "bold conjectures" - which you are so ready to dismiss as "just-so stories" - are the life-blood of science. This universe in which we find ourselves, whether we like it or not, is a vast, complex and very mysterious place. It's hard enough to come up with enough of any ideas to help explain it, let alone good ones. Even a "just-so" story could turn out to contain at least a grain of truth. The only caveat concerns making premature assumptions of certainty, although this is often more a question of style. The way some scientists write about their pet theories may imply a greater degree of confidence than they will admit to if pressed but that is just a human foible. It doesn't really matter. What really matters is how any theory survives being put to the test by researchers other than its author.
For what it's worth, in my view envisaging science as an edifice building upwards from rock-solid foundations is a misleading metaphor. It is better understood as being extended outwards in all directions from a central core of relatively firm (in the sense of well-tested) explanations to the boundaries of pure speculation. Popper put it a little differently:
Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Actually, proposing testable hypotheses is what it is all about. Evolution has been very fruitful in that respect, including this study."
ReplyDeleteObviously, that's the very point at which we disagree. A fanciful "just-so" story is not really the same as a scientific testable hypothesis.
Alethinon61: Obviously, that's the very point at which we disagree. A fanciful "just-so" story is not really the same as a scientific testable hypothesis.
DeleteA hypothesis is a tentative claim that is proposed in order to test it's entailments. For instance, if we propose that birds descended from primitive theropods, we might look for a transition from larger to smaller theropods. How did you think it worked?
He thinks it works by (b) continuing to contemplate until you can offer a compelling story
DeleteZ: A hypothesis is a tentative claim that is proposed in order to test it's entailments. For instance, if we propose that birds descended from primitive theropods, we might look for a transition from larger to smaller theropods. How did you think it worked?
DeleteJ: A morphological transition isn't an entailment of that hypothesis. It takes WAY more premises to imply that a morphological transition would occur and be verifiable as such.
Jeff: A morphological transition isn't an entailment of that hypothesis.
DeleteIf small birds descended from large theropods through an evolutionary process, then it is a direct entailment that there were intermediates in size.
It takes WAY more premises to imply that a morphological transition would occur and be verifiable as such.
ReplyDeleteShow that you're not bluffing by telling us all about those "WAY more premises" that the stupid biologists don't realize they're positing.
CH: How exactly has this new study confirmed that dinosaurs evolved birds at a fast pace, and how exactly is it that “paleontologists have long known that birds evolved from dinosaurs known as theropods”? In fact there was no such confirmation and there is no such knowledge, not in any scientific sense.
ReplyDeleteFirst, a search of the article returns zero results for the word “confirmed”. So, we’re not off to a good start.
Second, “there is no such knowledge, not in any scientific sense.” is simply false, because it ignores progress we’ve made in the philosophy of science. So, this entire argument is parochial in nature. For example…
CH: When we say that scientists “know” something, we do not mean that they personally believe it (which paleontologists do), we mean that they have compelling, overwhelming evidence for it (which paleontologists do not).
Here, Cornelius is appealing to a specific philosophical position of science, which includes the assumption that empirical evidence plays a specific, positivistic role. As such, even if evidence does exist, but doesn’t play that particular role, then the theory isn’t scientific.
But that’s not a scientific position. It’s philosophical position. So, his objection to evolutionary theory is philosophical, not scientific.
Just as there are different explanations about how the world works, which are comparable with the same experience of fossils, there are different explanations of what scientist actually do, or even what they themselves claim to experience, when they make scientific progress. Cornelius simply doesn’t address this at all.
Apparently, he think’s it’s obvious, which is yet another philosophical position about how we “know” things. As such, it seems he thinks his conception of human knowledge is not subject to criticism. For example…
CH: That is not in question. How can I know this? Because I’ve read what they have to say. I know their arguments. Unless they’ve been cleverly hiding their proofs, there is no question that they do not “know” dinosaurs evolved into birds—at a fast pace or otherwise.
So, apparently, there is no question about how we know things. Sounds oddly like the dogmatism that “evolutionists” *supposedly* exhibit since they know evolution is true and there is no question about it, doesn’t it?
CH: In fact what evolutionists have most of to offer is speculation, sometimes referred to as “just-so” stories after Kipling’s classic by the same name.
Again, this assumes that ides do not (or should not) start out as conjecture, which we then criticize empirically. Evolution is an idea that has withstood overwhelming criticism. And it assumes ideas do not have scientific character after having withstood overwhelming empirical criticism.
CH: And why would dinosaurs become smaller in the first place?
Biological Darwinism falls under the umbrella of our current, best explanation of the universal growth of knowledge. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random *to any particular problem to solve*, and criticism, in the form of natural selection. The result is useful rules of thumb that has limited reach, which is non-explanatory knowledge.
It emulates non-explanatory human knowledge creation because our conjectured theories do not come from observations, either. They start out as creative guesses and intuitions that are not guaranteed to solve the problem we posed them to solve, which we then criticize and discard errors we find.
AFAIK, Cornelius has never actually even acknowledged his explanation, let alone criticized it.
Then again, if Cornelius thought there was no question as to how we know things, he would think there is nothing to acknowledge and discussion would be meaningless. It would be impervious to argument.
Again, this sounds oddly like Cornelius’ objects to evolutionary theory, in which evolutionists supposedly think is impervious to evidence and argument.
CH: What evolutionists lack in evidential support they make up for with imagination.
DeleteWhat else are we supposed to start with, Induction? But no one has devised a “principal of induction” that actually works, in practice. But most importantly, we do we stop there, as we expose our conjectured ideas to criticism. So, it’s not that empirical observations do not play an important role, but that empiricism has the role they play backwards.
CH: And evolutionists frame their just-so stories in Aristotelian, final causes, terminology.
Fortunately, explanations are not limited to what Cornelius can imagine or what doesn’t conflict with his theological commitments. Progress often takes the form of unification. This includes universal theories about how knowledge grows, including knowledge found in brains, books and even the genome’s of organisms. Incredulity is not an argument.
And what of ID’s designer, which is abstract and has no defined limitations? Without an explanation of when, what method, etc., saying some abstract entity has the property of “design” is like saying fire has the property of “dryness.”
I don’t know why this isn’t an issue for ID, even after having brought it up, over and over again.
Then again, I don’t think Cornelius is interested in presenting genuine criticism. Rather he’s merely presenting an elaborate, drawn version of “If design/creationism isn’t science than neither is evolution.” IOW, he’s merely denying that we can and have made progress on the subject.
Which, I’d point out, is in line with a theological commitment that God did it. By definition, there could be no progress and no explanation of how he did it, if he did.
Cornelius (or any other theist for that matter),
ReplyDeleteTake the entire spectrum of theistic creation, from God willing the entire biosphere into existence to God preprogramming each organisms's genomes to God making key genetic course corrections to various organisms along the way. In any of these cases, could we discover what method he used to make those interventions, how he knew what parts would be necessary and work together, etc?
IOW, regardless of what role God played, wouldn’t you assume it was impossible - by definition - to explain or make progress in those particular areas, if he actually intervened there?
It is indeed all speculation in explaining what they must explain.
ReplyDeleteIts funny as the thread shows.
it really all comes down to figuring out biological relationships by comparing morphological traits. I always find this and nothing else much.
Yet this demands on a great presumption. should be obvious!!
Why not a option of like traits for like needs from a like common design blueprint and flexibility??
Who says mammary glands and being hairy means one should be classified as a mammal?? god didn't crearte mammals. Just kinds. nO relationship except like traits.
anyways its all just a presumption about looks. nO biology is behind biological descent or relationship in evolutions claims or everyones labelling.
Robert Byers: Why not a option of like traits for like needs from a like common design blueprint and flexibility??
DeleteBecause the evidence indicates that there is no common blueprint. Adaptations to similar environments show evidence of hereditary relationships.
Robert Byers: Who says mammary glands and being hairy means one should be classified as a mammal??
What we call it doesn't matter, however, there is a non-trivial relationship between traits. For instance, you mention mammary glands. From the presence of mammary glands, we can predict many other traits; eukaryotic cell structure, cell differentiation, bilateral symmetry, an alimentary tube with a mouth at one end and anus at the other, a head with an array of sense organs, bony vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, teeth, amniote, four-chambered heart, bellows lungs, two eyes, three ossicles in each of two ears, etc.
Zachriel.
Deletewith a common blueprint there is allowance for later adaptations . likewise a common blueprint would allow more intrusive biological changing in same directions of unrelated creatures.
many creatures can adapt to a white winter coat if living in the north. Yet no relationship to each other.
People adapted white skin upon moving into europe after the flood from a brown skin, I presume, yet without relationship to other white people. No original white tribe but brown tribes adapting white skin upon migrating from innate biology abilities.
Your other like traits with mammary glands LIKEWISE would be from common design. no reason to classify or presume biological relationship just because of like traits.
a god would do it this way. there are no such divisions in nature as mammals. its a classification myth I say. there are just kinds with like traits for like needs.
its at least a option.
Denying this option has been a investigative failure in origin matters.
Robert, we're not denying this option is a logical possibility. Rather, we're pointing out that it's not a necessary consiquence of a designer with no defined limitations.
DeleteNor have you explained why a designer would choose to create in a way that would appear to be constrained, despite the fact that such constraint would be completely unnecessary.
Take the automotive industry, for example. Automakers currently do not release completely redesigned models every year because completely redesigning a model is resource intensive and time consuming. Instead, incremental improvements are annually made to an existing platform to fund the development and testing of a new platform over a timespan of several years. A manufacturer could build a completely custom designed car for a single individual, but it would cost a fortune, utilize resources it could have used elsewhere.
However, in the future, we will be able to design entirely new vehicles not just every year, but for each customer due to advances in artificial intelligence, computer simulation and just in time manufacturing processes, such as 3d printing. Rather than pickup your car at a dealership, your garage will build it out of raw materials, or even by recycling your existing car. And it might be cheap enough that you could switch between designs you've purchaed based on your transportation needs for the week or even the day.
IOW, we have a good explanation as to why human designed things we design today share common designs: they represent trade offs we make due to current human limitations.
However, ID's desiger is abstract and has no defined limitations, such as limited resources and lead times, a need to price its designs at a level that consumers will by them, so it can make a profit, so it can buy more raw materials and play labor costs, etc.
Does God need to keep his overhead low, so he can offer designs that can compete on price with other designers? Does he need to perform time consuming and expensive testing to determine if his designs are safe and will meet their expected lifespan? Does he need to use the same parts because manufacturing different parts for different models would take too much time and exceed his budget?
Robert Byers: Your other like traits with mammary glands LIKEWISE would be from common design.
DeleteYou haven't explained the correlations we pointed out. Why do mammaries imply three ossicles in each of two ears?
Scott.
DeleteIf its a option then its a option. Common design would predict the likeness of biological functions and results we find in biology.
It is a logical conclusion as a option. No reason to say that likeness equals common descent. its not evidence of that but only a line of reasoning that doesn't allow a creator with a common design. A flaw of investigation in these things from historical evolution.
WHY NOT? n Why shou;dn't a creator just work from common laws/blueprint in biology as he does in physics!? in fact physics should predict the biology is also on laws however more complicated.
In fact its more likely the design takes care of itself and a creator isn't pulling the levers anymore then in physics.
Then also the bible says creation was finished on creation week. So these are the limitations on any futher creator involvement.
This meand biology must have great hidden mechanisms within it.
Robert,
DeleteI'm pointing out there is a difference between a logical possibility and a good explanatory theory.
ID’s analogy or inductive argument is based on observations of human designers and human designed things. While I would agree that human beings are good explanations for human designed things, this is due to our specific human limitations. IOW, we have good explanations for why human beings would use shared design: necessary trade-offs.
In addition, all of our current, best theories indicate it will become significantly less necessary for human beings use shared designs in the future. As such, this supposed analogy / inductive argument, which is flawed in the first place, will no longer match past experience.
Furthermore, ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, unlike human designers, shared design is not a necessary consequence of intelligent design theory. Now, if you’d like to start defining limitations of ID’s designer, be my guest. However, I’m guessing that won’t happen any time soon.
So, yes, it's a logical possibility. But science discards an infinite number of logical possibilities every day in every field of science. It’s unclear why your designer is any different.
Robert: WHY NOT? n Why shou;dn't a creator just work from common laws/blueprint in biology as he does in physics!?
But a creator supposedly exists without the physical world, and created an entire set of beings that exist without physical existence. So, any boundary between the physical and non-physical appears arbitrary. A creator could just as well have chosen to make all of the functionality of our brains non-physical. Or everything but our skin could be non-physical. Or some other ratio. This is because God supposedly created entire beings that can think, choose, obey, disobey, etc., without a physical existence. So, a physical existence is not a necessary consequence either.
If it’s logically possible that nonmaterial minds can interact with out material brains, then it’s also logically possible that a non-material version of our brain could interact with our material spinal cord, or some non-material version of our nervous system could interact with our material skin and muscles, etc. IOW, once you open the door to the logically possibility of non-material interaction, there is no necessary reason why any material to non-material ratio is necessary. “That ratio must be just what the creator must have wanted”, is a bad explanation.
So, it would appear that I’m more open to logical possibilities than you are, in that you only appear to appeal to those logical possibilities that fit your theological views, which are themselves theories.
Again, I’m suggesting that we adopt ideas based on theory, not merely because they are logical possible or because we’ve observed them in the past. No designer we’ve experienced designing anything lacked a material brain. So, following that logic, we wouldn’t expect to experience a designer without a material brain in the future. But, again, I’m guessing you’d disagree with that assumption.
So, theory always comes first.
Scott
DeleteI like your consent its a logical option of common design being behind biology as opposed to common descent. Not your opinion but you say a logical option.
I think this is important in peoples thinking on these matters.
A creator's design as the operation for biology is a option and not seeing like designs MEANS it could only be common descent.
In creating biology it must indeed be in this physical universe that God acts. So why not biology laws like physic laws?
So why not expect like traits for like needs at levels of biological mechanisms not yet discovered. ?!
its a option and like looks does not prove like descent at any level.
No mammals but only kinds with like traits ar creation of later from adaptation based on a common design to allow common adaptations.
Just like with people. There was no white original tribe but brown tribes moving into cloudy Europe all became white without biological relationship. This revealed by languages. Some whites are indo-european speakers and some other language groups like the Finns.
By the way. I agree we are non material beings but we don't interact with our brain but only our memory machine. in fact I think our brain is just a memory machine only.
An aside.
Robert: I like your consent its a logical option of common design being behind biology as opposed to common descent. Not your opinion but you say a logical option.
DeleteI said creationism was a "logical possibility", not merely a logical option. I then pointed out that we discard an infinite number of logical possibilities every day in science.
Evolutionary theory is the only good explanatory theory we have.
While I am open to a version of intelligent design that provides a good explanation, so far, none have been presented.
As for our brains only being memory machines, are you saying that angels cannot remember anything because they do not have material brains?
Again, I'm not agreeing that we are non-material beings, what ever that means, I'm merely trying to take the theistic ideas seriously for the purpose of criticism.
If we take the idea seriously that God can make other beings that can remember things without a material brain, such as Angels, then God could have also made human beings that could remember without material brains. Right?
DeleteFurthermore, if we take the idea that our supposed non material mind can interact with our material brain, then the function of our entire brain could be non material as well and interact with the rest of our body. As could any other part, right?
If God can supposedly make us 80% material and 10% non material, then he could have just as well make us 5% material and 95% non material. Right?
IOW, no particular ratio of material to non material would be necessay for God since he's already supposedly made beings that are 100% non material. It appears arbitrary.
You have no explanation for why we supposedly have non material minds but not non material brains other than, "that's just what God must have wanted".
While this is a logical possibility, it's not an explanation via some necessary consequence or constrait. As such, it appears arbitrary. And I therefore discard it.
Scott
DeleteI guess common descent as explanation for biology is a logical option. its just unlikely and has no evidence to back up the logical hunch.
We are souls and yet clearly have brains for connecting our souls/thinking to the material world.
We move our fingers based on thoights and a machine called the body.
Our non material being therefore needs a material connection.
It follows that its not brain juices or bvrain wiring or bits and pieces but just one thing. one mechanism. I'm confident we are just meshed to a memory machine akk can be explained from this.
i don't see why a actual material brain should be said to be immaterial. its real enough.
Yes God and angels remember things. so do we in the afterlife.
Therefore it must be that upon connecting our soul to the memory it makes both a single entity almost.
then upon death we go to a soul memory without the need for the brain/mind/memory.
We only do this because we are uniquely connected to a material world.
likewise i think Jesus in being likewise connected had no memory of his time as god/trinity.
The bible says jesus had to grow in wisdom as a kid. not needed if he had brought his memory of times as God. ot could only be he had no memory of that time and so likewise we have no memory without our brain. Yet death puts us in the right way.
Robert: I guess common descent as explanation for biology is a logical option.
DeleteWe're talking past each other because you keep using the term "logical option", which ignores the distinction I've made between a logical possibility and an explanatory theory. To quote a past comment...
One of the unique things about people is that we're universal explainers. That we we can create explanations and use them as a criteria for what possibilities we test.
For example, it's unlikely that anyone has performed research to determine if eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. Why is this? Is it because it's logically impossible? No. Is it because it's unfalsifiable? No, this would be trivial to test. Is it because it's a non-natural? No. Why then is it unlikely to be the subject of research? Because we lack an explanation as to how and why eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. As such, we discard it, a priori, even before we bother to test it.
And we do this for a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day, in every field of science.
Again, I'm suggesting that evolution has been widely adopted because it's a good explanation for what we observe, not merely a logical possibility. ID has not been widely adopted because we have no explanation as to how an abstract designer with no defined limitations did it. Being abstract, it appeals to "a designer wanted it that way", without explaining how the designer knew how to do it, the particular method by which it was done, etc. It's an explanation-less theory.
Robert: its just unlikely and has no evidence to back up the logical hunch.
It's unclear how anyone can calculate if evolution is "unlikely" as doing so would require knowing all the possible outcomes. Do y. Furthermore, evolutionary theory has withstood significant empirical criticism.
Robert: We are souls and yet clearly have brains for connecting our souls/thinking to the material world. We move our fingers based on thoights and a machine called the body. Our non material being therefore needs a material connection.
No, it's not clear that material brains are necessary for connecting non-material aspects of us to material aspects. God could have just as well decided we should have non-material brains that connect to a material nervous system. Or a non-material nervous system that connects to our mussels and other sense organs. So, it's merely a logical possibility, not a necessity.
Again, if our non-material minds can interact with our material brains, and we can supposedly exist completely without our brains in the future, then it's unclear why we need a material brain right now. At best, you can shrug your shoulders and say "That's just what God must have wanted", which is an explanation-less theory.
Robert: i don't see why a actual material brain should be said to be immaterial. its real enough.
Things that are immaterial are not real?
Robert: then upon death we go to a soul memory without the need for the brain/mind/memory.
You're confusing dogmatism, with an explanation. You're starting out with the belief that knowledge comes from authoritative sources (namely yahweh), that an authoritative source divinely revealed that knowledge though one particular holy text, but not another, and that you have somehow correctly interpreted that knowledge.
If I were to ask how you know the bible is the divine word of God, how would you respond?
We're not talking past each other . i see no problem by either one of us.
DeleteWHEN i say its a logical possibility I mean a logical biological possibility. Therefore a explanatory option.
Common descent also could claim being such a logical possibility upon superficial observation.
Thats my great point. Evolutionists really do only see one option for likeness in biology and then imagine this reasoning counts as scientific observation and investigation. When its just a line of reasoning even if it was true. Its not science. Further another option, common design, easily explains likeness in biology upon superficial observation.
We all are lust looking at biology looks and drawing conclusions.
Common design nullify's common descent as the only option for likeness and this undercuts much of evolutionism.
Your pushing that ID/YEC can't hypothesis a creator without knowing limitations the creator must work within etc.
Why not? Such a genius creator is beyond mans imposition of limitations.
our other subject about memory is a aside. In dealing with real nature we recognize we have a material brain and so a memory. So why not hypothesis a immaterial soul simply meshed to the memory machine and thus a explanation for how a non material sou; interacts with our body/nature.
We do know a result and can hypothesis. We can't say the brain is immaterial since we see and touch it.
Its an aside.
The progress here is if a evolutionist, like you I guess, agrees there is a option for a hypothesis that biology likeness is from common design at basic levels. Common descent wrongly is said evidenced by likeness in biology because why else likeness THEY SAY.
You are ahead of the curve of what evolutionists must soon submit to I think.
Robert: We're not talking past each other . i see no problem by either one of us.
DeleteWe’re not? then why do you keep ignoring the distinction I’ve making between a logical possibility and an explanatory theory? For example….
Robert: WHEN i say its a logical possibility I mean a logical biological possibility. Therefore a explanatory option.
An abstract designer with no defined limitations “just must have wanted it that way,” is an explanation-less theory.
To quote another previous comment…
For example, I'm a computer scientist, not a cancer researcher. Despite this fact, let's hypothetically assume I decide to create a drug for the purpose of curing cancer. I then order laboratory mice that have cancer and administer my drug. Given the above, it would come as no surprise that my drug doesn't actually serve the purpose of curing cancer, despite the fact that I developed it for that specific purpose.
IOW, any treatment that was actually successful would be successful because it embodied the "knowledge" of how cancerous cells multiply, how they can be identified and how cell death can be induced in just those cells, while excluding healthy cells. IOW, curing cancer occurs when the right transformations of matter occurs, which is independent of anyone's purpose. Ideas are jugged by their contents, not the source.
Even if we assume said designer achieved its goal by willing that knowledge into existence in the process, that would represent the spontaneous creation of knowledge, which even Cornelius seems to think is a bad explanation.
So, I’m at a loss as to how you conclude this is a good explanation, other than thinking a good explanation is one that agrees with a source of knowledge you think is authoritative and infallible.
The idea that knowledge comes from authoritative sources is itself a philosophical idea. And a bad one at that. How would that work, in practice?
ID’s argument is merely a variation of the philosophy that knowledge comes from authoritative sources. So, was the idea of the divine right of kings to rule, which we’ve already discarded.
Robert: Thats my great point. Evolutionists really do only see one option for likeness in biology and then imagine this reasoning counts as scientific observation and investigation.
Which again ignores the differentiation I’ve made. We only see one good explanation, which has withstood significant empirical criticism. An abstract designer with no limitations did it is a logical possibility, which we discard.
Robert: Further another option, common design, easily explains likeness in biology upon superficial observation.
ID is an explanation-less theory since it does not include the human limitations that make human beings good explanations for human designed things. As such, you’ve striped it down to a logical possibility. And we discard an infinite number of logical possibilities every day in science.
Robert: The progress here is if a evolutionist, like you I guess, agrees there is a option for a hypothesis that biology likeness is from common design at basic levels.
Again, I agree that it’s a logical possibility, not a good explanation.
It’s also logically possible that a designer could have created the universe we observe 30 seconds ago, including the biosphere, complete with the appearance of age, implanted false memories, etc. That’s a logical possibly, but I’m guessing that’s an option you do not accept either.
At it again Scott?!
DeleteWith all the time and energy you have put into your argument, you fail to realize that Genesis is in fact a better explanation than Neo-Darwinism. How so?
Neo-Darwinism has a hard time gaining traction with the general population for the simple reason that it has too many caveats, making it an overly complicated set of theories within theories.
Genesis, however is easily understood, fills a void in people's lives, giving hope, resulting in happier, more productive lives.
So a religious explanation, regarding of its truth value has positive effects upon the general population. In fact, statistics bear out the fact of the positive impact of religion on people's lives.
That is the key you are missing in your analysis. It is the desirability, not the truth of the explanation that has utilitarian, pragmatic, tangible value.
IANS, Genesis is a good explanation, Neo-Darwinism a bad explanation.
First, the question is if evolution has scientific character and explains concrete biological adaptations of organisms. Nor is evolutionary theory abiogenesis. So, you've moved the goalposts by trying to apply the theory to a problem it's not designed to solve.
DeleteSecond, we're not stuck with the wholesale adoption of religious ideas and beliefs uncritically. For example, as a philosophical Buddhist, I've adopted practical aspects that have withstood significant criticism, while discarding supernatural aspects, such as the idea that the Buddha was born of a lotus flower.
The idea that knowlede comes from authorative sources is an idea we continue to criticize and discard for the benefit of the general population in many different spheres. Genesis merely a currently socially acceptable variant of this same idea.
It might seem "obvious" and desirable to a great number of the general population, but I'd suggest we would be better off without it. For example, we no longer hold the divine right of kings to rule.
What we want from ideas is their contents not their providence. Genesis is an example of the latter, not the former.
Scott.
DeleteA logical biological possibility must be real. 30 seconds ago isn't and is therefore, to me, not a logical possibility. I mean logical within the minits of the clear observation of the natural world. Logical in agreed understanding of how things work.
i'm really only dealing with biological looks and whether common descent is a exclusive conclusion or hunch. i'm saying common design was not included as a option and so evolutionists failed in doing accurate scientific investigation and so did none. It was all lines of reasoning.
I can't agree with your distinction.. logical option equals legitimate explanation in biology.
Its logical that likeness equals like common design.
Common descent ideas are greatly based on a hunch that likeness cOULD ONLY mean common descent.
A flaw of reasoning and so scientific investigation.
Steve: With all the time and energy you have put into your argument, you fail to realize that Genesis is in fact a better explanation than Neo-Darwinism. How so?
DeleteBetter explanation of what, exactly, Steve? Specifically, Neo-Darwinism does not attempt to explain the exact same phenomena as Genesis. So, it would come as no surprise that you’d consider it a poor explanation, because you’re trying to apply it to questions it’s not designed to solve.
Robert: Neo-Darwinism has a hard time gaining traction with the general population for the simple reason that it has too many caveats, making it an overly complicated set of theories within theories.
See above. It’s unclear that the general population actually understands the theory, the scope of the problems it’s designed to solve, etc.
Steve: Genesis, however is easily understood, fills a void in people's lives, giving hope, resulting in happier, more productive lives.
Genesis fills a different void that evolutionary theory. And it does so poorly, because a near infinite number of other religious origin stories could fill it just as well. It’s a bad explanation because you can vary it significantly without changing it’s ability, or lack there of, to explain origins. Nothing is necessary for an abstract designer with no defined limitations.
That’s what I mean by a bad explanation - it’s easy varied. This is a very specific criteria that can be applied not only in the field of science, but philosophy as well.
Furthermore, we can adapt aspects of religions that are good explanations. Philosophical Buddhism is just one example. Just as we no longer have Muslim algebra or Christian physics, one can gain value from meditation without having to believe the buddha was born of a lotus flower.
Robert: A logical biological possibility must be real. 30 seconds ago isn't and is therefore, to me, not a logical possibility.
DeleteI'm confused. If something really happened, then it's not just a possibility, but actually occurred. So, I'm not clear as two what you mean by a logical biological possibility being real.
Robert: I mean logical within the minits of the clear observation of the natural world. Logical in agreed understanding of how things work.
It's unclear why an abstract designer with no defined limitations, who supposedly could have created the entire universe out of nothing several 6,000 years ago, or 13.7 billion years ago, couldn't also create that same universe 30 seconds ago, complete with the appearance of age, false memories, etc. So, you're making an additional assumption.
If the world "works" in that the designer gets what he wants, it's unclear why he couldn't just as well wanted to create everything 30 seconds ago.
Robert: i'm really only dealing with biological looks and whether common descent is a exclusive conclusion or hunch.
I've merely moved the timeframe. Organisms still would have been created by the designer. And common decent would still be an explanation for the same observations. So, I don't see why this isn't a competing logical possibility. I discard it because we can move the time frame easily varied.
Is ID's designer limited somehow, in that it could not have created the same world we observe, 30 seconds ago? But that doesn't line up with the supposed claim that we cannot know anything about ID's designer.
Robert: i'm saying common design was not included as a option and so evolutionists failed in doing accurate scientific investigation and so did none. It was all lines of reasoning.
It's included as a logical possibility, but no explanation for how the designer did it, when it did it, how it knew what genes would result in the right proteins, which would result in the right features, etc., is provided So, we've discarded it.
Robert: I can't agree with your distinction.. logical option equals legitimate explanation in biology.
If it equals an explanation in biology, then what is that explanation? "That's just what the designer with no defined limitations must have wanted" doesn't actually explain anything, because it could explain everything. Including creating the world we observe 30 seconds ago.
So, again, it seems that your primary criteria for what equals a good explanation is that it agrees with a particular creation story found in a particular holy text. But some other creation story could account for the same thing just as well (or should I say just as poorly). So, it's a bad explanation.
Scott.
DeleteNo . A good explanation is not what is in the bible but is what is observed in real biology.
We are looking at real biology. evolutionists say ONLY common descent could explain likeness in biology. Creationists say common DESIGN can ALSO explain likeness.
Having our option nullify's the evolutionists exclusive option. i say they messed up in thier thinking because they never imagine this possibility and so CONVICTION took place about common descent based on looks. iN fact they turned this into a scientific evidence thing when it was just a line of reasoning after no other reason could be imagined.
a deception took place and morphed into a claim they proved evolution by scientific evidence such as looks.
A major logical flaw.
in fact NO scientific investigation of biology shows common descent on the issue of likeness.
I can't ahree with your limitations idea tripping up my point or ID/Yec seeing a creator working within a established order.
i don't see the 30 seconds idea as within the real universe a creator made.
We are here and the limitations are here.
I know you have stressed this point of yours.
Possibly your point is beyond the practical point I brought up about likeness also being from common design as a option.
Robert,
DeleteWho are these "they" you are referring to? Even if "they" supposedly messed up and failed to consider design, I've considered it and still discard it because it's an explanation-less theory. And I don't think I'm the only one.
We're not referring to just any kind of likeness. Rather, we're referring to a very specific kind of likeness that is far better explained by variation and selection. So, if anything is superficial, it's your definition of likeness, which ignores progress we've made.
Furthermore, if evolution isn't the only explanation, then you shouldn't have a problem explainjng the specific kind of likeness we observe. "That's just want the designer must have wanted" is an explanation-less theory.
And if you do consider it an "explanation", then I don't see why someone couldnt appeal to that same "explanation", in that creating the world 30 seconds ago, complete either the appearance of age, the designer having been the origin of every theory older that 30 seconds ago, rather than human conjecture and criticism, etc, in that could have been "just what the designer must have wanted, as well.
ID says that organisms just appear to to be related in a very specific way, and it was the designer put the knowledge of how to make copies of organisms while creating them, rather than a process of variation and selection.
In both cases, there is a claim of false appearances and the designer having been the origin of knowledge instead.
.
Maybe three ossicles provide a benefit that fits in with mammal lifestyle, just like mammary glands do.
ReplyDeletenatschuster: Maybe three ossicles provide a benefit that fits in with mammal lifestyle, just like mammary glands do.
DeleteAnd what is that benefit of ossicles that only accrues to those with mammaries, and conversely, the benefit of mammaries that only accrue to those with ossicles?
Thanks Dr. H...
ReplyDeleteThe Evo-Emperor has no clothes.
And it is plain as day...
Zachriel
ReplyDeletewhy not the same in these creatures? Just as they all have mammary glands they have these ear things.
Its a common usefulness. They also all have feet. Yet its not evidence of common descent. Even if they were of common descent and these traits were alike because of it.
Its all just lines of reasoning but evolutionists think its evidence of common descent because they allow and imagine no other options. The logic persuades them its biological evidence. Yet its not.
Robert Byers: They also all have feet.
DeleteNot all, though they all have limb buds during development.
Robert Byers: Just as they all have mammary glands they have these ear things.
Yes, but they could be useful in other lineages, as well. You haven't explained anything. Basically, your answer is that it just is.
For other reasons other lineages don't have them. its all interconnected. "reptiles" have like traits for like needs yet they are not reptiles in reality. Just alike in traits. Including a reason for not having these ear things.
DeleteGood reasons.I don't know what myself!
it should not be so persuasive that like traits equals like descent . Its only a line of reasoning.
It easily , very likely, is simply these kinds have like traits for like reasons.
Evolutionism and others are looking too simply at biology. They are not imagining other options for why things look the way they do.
Turtles and snakes are no more related then with hippos. Just kinds and traits as needed.
This one has snakes the birth live or in eggs and "mamma;s" that birth in eggs.
Its an error to classify them on traits unless one has proven beyond mere listing of like traits.
We can do better then such simplicity of first instinct.
Robert Byers: I don't know what myself!
DeleteSo you have no alternative explanation, nor any argument against common descent.
My argument is that like traits equal like needs.
DeleteI don't know the need for the ear things but I don't know the need for anything.
Yet they needed these traits for needs. Yet like traits is not evidence of like common descent.
its just a line of reasoning that it is. A lack of imagination also. A lack of belief in genesis.
there are only kinds. No divisions.. Man is not a mammal any more then a bug.
Robert Byers Yet like traits is not evidence of like common descent.
Deleteits just a line of reasoning that it is. A lack of imagination also. A lack of belief in genesis.
there are only kinds. No divisions.. Man is not a mammal any more then a bug.
Yes, it's a line of reasoning. Reasoning based on observation, on evidence, enough evidence to make it more credible than Genesis.
Genesis may be more imaginative but then so is Lord of the Rings. I don't believe LotR is true any more than you do. There's no evidence that any of it is true and we know the author. We know the author intended it as a work of fiction.
We have no idea who the authors of Genesis were. There's no evidence that the story is true. Even if it were, there's no reason to think the authors were around to witness the events they are describing. Maybe it's as much a work of fiction as LotR. We have no way of knowing. Certainly, we have no reason to prefer it over a hundred other creation myths from around the world.
And what's wrong with being a mammal? I know we're not cute and furry like a lot of them but I'd rather be one of them than a bug. Although, if you go just by numbers, you God seems to prefer bugs to mammals. Which, if you think about it, is something else we can hold against Him.
When I use the line LINES OF REASONING I mean as opposed to scientific methodology.
DeleteA line of reasoning easily can be in error since its not investigating other options or verifying its own option. Its just presuming its option is true.
Evolution has been largely lines of reasoning from basic information.
Its never been the result of scientific methodology.
thats why one can ask for their top three biological scientific evidences for evolution and be confident they can't provide it.
There are none. just other supporting information after presumptions are made.
You talk of "lines of reasoning" as if they are somehow opposed to scientific methodology when they are properly regarded as a part of it.
DeleteIn a scientific theory, lines of reasoning are what is used to connect often fragmentary observational data into a coherent whole. A crude analogy is a join-the-dots puzzle. Observations are the dots and lines of reasoning are used to join them together to make a picture. There are often a number of ways to connect the dots but there is usually only one way to make a recognizable picture. The difference between science and a join-the-dots puzzle is that the puzzle gives you all the dots you need to start with; in science, you have to find the dots first before you can start solving the puzzle. Sometimes you just have to find a few dots by trial and error and hope that connecting them in the right way will point you towards where other dots might be found.
You're right if you mean that lines of reasoning alone cannot make up a scientific theory. It's quite possible to construct a perfectly valid line of reasoning that is complete nonsense. That doesn't stop speculative reasoning being a useful tool for working towards a better understanding of how the Universe really works.
As for evidences for evolution, Douglas Theobald has compiled a list of 29 of them on the Talk: Origins Archive. You may not find them persuasive but s lot of people do.
i use LINES OF REASONING as being in opposition to scientific investigation.
DeleteOr rather the DOTS are very basic or not proven or not relevant to the lines drawn.
For example they use FOSSILS (dots) and then hace LINES connecting them and bang evolution is proved.
i say these DOTS(fossils) are not dots one can use for LINES 9biological processes).
The dots are another species of data. Even if they were ACTUAL true results of evolution as the evolutionists say.
so I'm saying they are only making lines of reasoning as opposed to using science methodology WHICH should be showing there are no dots here.
Of coarse reasoning is science.
Saying having two eyes amongst many creatures equals common descent of same creatures is a reasoning.
Saying having two eyes amongst creatures equals common design is reasoning.
Yet both are just lines of reasoning.
There is no scientific methodology to control either conclusion.
There is no biological evidence for either point being presented in this analogy.
No sci bio at all.
just reasoning from basic data.
"Yes, it's a line of reasoning. Reasoning based on observation, on evidence, enough evidence to make it more credible than Genesis."
ReplyDeleteLet's see, the Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And what is taught in school, in the beginning NOTHING created...
This idea nothing has creative powers gives credibility to the words, educated into imbecility. I would require more from my professor if I were you.
Hi Marcus,
DeleteYou say that the idea that "NOTHING created..." is imbecilic. And you think that "God created" is perfectly credible. Do you realize that God is not a thing.?
If you do, doesn't it follow that "God created" is as imbecilic as "NOTHING created"?
I'd hope that what is being taught is that about 13.79 billion years ago the early Universe suddenly inflated from a primordial singularity at a prodigious rate. What conditions were like in the singularity, why and how it suddenly expanded and why it it did it when it did it are not known at present although there are a number of speculative explanations under consideration.
DeleteAs for Genesis, why should we pick that over all the other creation myths?
Here is a 5min video which should open the door to those not wishing to be seduced by educated imbeciles.
Deletehttp://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/God-vs-Atheism.html#.U-hk6HNenfE
* Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas. But it is a place where you are free to learn.
DeleteFreedom to learn also means being willing to learn new things even when they don't agree with your established beliefs.
Yes, the idea of something coming from nothing sounds absurd and is logically absurd as stated. It's a contradiction. But we also now know that there is an underlying level of reality which behaves very differently from what we might expect. Quantum physicists now routinely observe and manipulate phenomena that sound totally weird to those of us whose understanding of the universe is based on classical physics. They happen, whether we like it or not. We have to accept - to learn - that our common-sense notions of how the Universe works are unreliable at the quantum scale.
"Yes, the idea of something coming from nothing sounds absurd and is logically absurd as stated. It's a contradiction."
DeleteI think we found common ground.
Ian:
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge most other creation myths start with something like water or ice. The gods come out of the water. They don't explain the origin of the water. Genesis, on the other hand, starts with a transcendent God.
Hi natschuster.
DeleteGenesis, on the other hand, starts with a transcendent God.
Does it? A god that walks in the Garden of Eden:
And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
Genesis starts with the creation of the Heavens and the Earth. I would imagine that a transcendent God could choose to act in a way that is not transcendent. And the Bible uses lots of metaphors and anthropomorphisms.
ReplyDeleteThank you, nat. I would imagine that your god could choose to be whatever you imagine it to be,
ReplyDelete