Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 151 of 297 (417728)
08-23-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Rob
08-23-2007 10:13 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Rob writes:
Thank you. A dying environment where the complex and simple alike lived together as a whole and complete family.
Well, that is not a devolutionary fact: as a sentence fragment, it is not even an assertion.
Try again.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 10:13 PM Rob has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 152 of 297 (417729)
08-23-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Rob
08-23-2007 10:15 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Rob writes:
Omnivorous:
That's really tired. I see that you do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Oh but I do Omnivorous... Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation
Near the end, is the information on raw energy and snowflakes etc...
Links to other people who do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics will not demonstrate that you do.
I didn't go there: Why should I? What would be the point? I assert your prior post demonstrates your lack of understanding. How could a web site link be at all relevant?
Get to the meat and stop waffling--do you deny there are local areas of both increasing and decreasing entropy in the universe?
Hint: saying yes demonstrates your lack of understanding.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 10:15 PM Rob has not replied

Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 153 of 297 (417730)
08-23-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Rob
08-23-2007 10:15 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Rob writes:
A dying environment where the complex and simple alike lived together as a whole and complete family.
Rob writes:
Near the end, is the information on raw energy and snowflakes etc...
Dude, these aren't even sentences.
Can I have some of whatever it is you are smoking, because it must be awesome stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 10:15 PM Rob has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 154 of 297 (417733)
08-23-2007 10:41 PM


Topic gonzo
I'm closing this for some hours. Since no one seems anywhere near the topic.
Afterward individual suspensions will be issued for off topic chatter.

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 155 of 297 (417916)
08-25-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by mark24
08-23-2007 3:20 PM


Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
mark24:
Please answer the questions.
1/ For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to?
Yes...
mark24:
2/ Please define coherence. Specifically internal & external coherence.
I don't want to "answer that for myself", I want you to define your terms.
Mark
It simply the scientific method, but I would like to use my own words.
Internal coherence is the logical coherence within any given philosophy or theory as you said. Almost anything can be internally coherent (ie.'The unicorn created the universe'). Worth noting, is that internal incoherence (ie. 'I do not exist') is accepted by virtually no-one.
External coherence is the logical pattern (story) that the evidence tells with or without our understanding (ie. systems of facts and laws as yet undiscovered). It is worth noting that we asssume this to be the case before even attempting to understand scientifically.
And when the evidence -available to all parties- matches any theory we have tested and combined coherence + or -.
When we have total coherence, it moves beyond theory and suppositions to fact or law. Theories in conflict with law and fact are then ammended or discarded because they lack coherence with said laws and facts.
This can be as simple as the theory that the universe is ordered. And that is a theory held long ago. The discovery of law and order has since proven that theory to be a fact. Hence the scientific enterprise.
It is this combined coherence to one level or another, that I am looking at in particular.
The interesting thing is... that until this combined coherence/incoherence is discovered, everyone believes that their philosophy (theory) matches the evidence. So there is another method applied by science historically, and it called the 'Inference to the best explanation'.
You will find a critique of IBE here: Philosophy | The University of Edinburgh
I found wikipedia's explaination of IBE particularly fascinating, and I think we all know where the buzz comes from. The machinery is rolling to attempt to cover all the bases. The Ad Populum fallacy maneuver is in full swing.
The fact is, IBE is historically part of our ordinary reasoning process. The last paragraph of the PDF link I gave above, sums up the difficulty for what I presume will be your position on the matter. Empericism will be acting in a revisionist mode by adopting this position strictly for the purposes of denying ID.
So, I now need to show how this relates to the debate between ID and the TOE, and then move on to it's relation to the thread topic.
There is a particular mystery in biological systems. One that the TOE is incapable of adressing in terms of current evidence. On this issue, the TOE is hopelessly metaphysical. It is the presence of a quaternary digital code that stores the information to build all of the parts in any given organism.
And no organism has been found that deos not have this code.
There is only one cause (emperically) that we see information resulting from, and that is intelligence.
So everything we know in terms of evidence shows the theory of 'inference to design' to match the pattern of the evidence. If we received information with radio telescopes that was defined as a code, or even a simple signal of mathematical expresssions, we would know immediately that it originated from an intelligence (SETI).
If there is some unknown cause for the formation of information we have yet to find any evidence for it. It amounts to a theory with no evidence to support it. But we have a myriad of evidence for the ability of intelligence to be the cause of information.
Furthermore, to use the argument of mutation as a means of giving a cause to the pattern in DNA is futile... because you have nothing to mutate out of the starting gate. Not to mention the host of other machinery (cell walls, energy conversion factories, transporting and transcripting machines etc...) necessary for the DNA to be of any use. Neither DNA, RNA, or any proteins are able to function autonomously. And that is all based upon the evidence available today. Speculations as to alternative material explanations are purely theoretical and have no evidence whatsoever to support them. They lack combined coherence of any kind with the enidence. A material explanation is consistent with the fact that there are material explanations for many other things in the universe. But not the evidence in biological appearence.
As Jonathan Wells said, 'Natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest'.
Even more mystifying, is that the current definition of science limits [b]scientific explanation[/]b strictly to material causes. And that is a position that is purely philosophical in terms of reasoning. There is no evidence to suggest that we must confine all things into that box. As Richard Lewontin admits, it is an a priori adherence to materialism. It is predetermining what the evidence is allowed to show in terms of testing our theories. In fact, the evidence shows quite the opposite. There is tremedous evidence of non material forces causing matter to behave according to their will.
Do the physical laws have material causes, or do they cause the material to behave in a manner that reflects them?
What would happen to matter without the laws that hold the atom together?
Is the quantum dimension materially caused?
Here is something that is completely taken for granted in much of the arena. We have this connection between mankind and the universe at large. The universe reflects incredible simplicity in terms of law and order, which results in incredible sophistication in terms of material behavior. We should expect that our minds would reflect that order also since we are a part of it. Why would anyone conclude that our perceptions run on a system counter to the very nature that supposedly gave us those perceptions to begin with? Are our minds the only thing in the universe that is bent away from the otherwise universal and simple logical order?
Where else do we see order being established?
In the actions of intelligent human beings who take resources and build with information they have formulated. All of it operating on the most basic principle of logic (law of non contradiction) or LNC.
It's all perfectly natural and emperical. This logical (or mathematical) pattern runs our reality from top to bottom. Without LNC, nothing that has been made is made.
Reality is ordered though materially it is diminishing. The laws remain the same, but the material itself is diminishing.
The logic (immaterial) that the material universe is built upon and sustained by is not caused. The material is the only thing where the laws of causality apply by definition. As far as the material world is concerned, logic is the cause.
And where do we find logic?
Bingo! intelligence.
If you say that we invented it, I say your quite right (intelligence), that's the evidence. And then I just point you to the heavens and say, 'Which came first'? Our minds cannot have created the universe that we are a part of even though some new age pantheists say just that.
The reason I say logic isn't caused is because it isn't; it just is. Or as according to the Bible, God told Moses, "Tell them 'I AM' sent you". It is the law of noncontradiction. Without it, we have no science or reasoning whatsoever. We don't even have a universe. It holds all things together.
And if we try to deny LNC, we only prove it, because we cannot argue for any thing, position, or concept without using it. Our thinking is utterly dependent upon Him (I mean 'it' )
Now this brings me to my next point. We don't have to use ID to explain everything. Though I might argue that the universe as a whole is intelligently designed according to laws originating in wisdom and logic of God's omniscient mind, it does not mean that every system within it can be understood by this revelation. There are material causes within the system that are best understood by the mechanics that we can observe. I only remind you that mechanics is goverened by 'sovereign laws'.
If we want to understand reality, we have to understand both.
Dr. Wells catures the point very well:
Jonathan Wells has received Ph.D. degrees in Molecular and Cell Biology (University of California at Berkeley) and religious studies (Yale University) He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and has taught biology at the University of California at Hayward. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American biology Teacher. He has also authored two books, ”Charles Hodge’s Critique of Darwinism’, and ”Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong’.
Wells on the question: ”What potential benefits does Intelligent Design Theory hold for science’?
“Before Darwinsim took over in the late nineteenth century, virtually every Western Biologist believed in intelligent design. The founders of all the modern biological disciplines; Mendel, who founded genetics, Leneaus, who founded Taxonomy where we name organisms; the early Embyologists, the early Paleontologists . All of these people believed in design, and they founded modern biology.
Darwinism came along and said, ”no . design is an illusion’, but yet it kept all these disciplines . of course that’s what we now work in. And I see the current revolution as a return to our roots; our scientific roots, which were design roots. And so I see science once again returning to a design paradigm.
Now, the Darwinists claim that this will restrict scientific inquiry. I see it just the opposite . What I see now, is that the Darwinists cannot allow any hint of design in living things. They have to exclude every possible aspect of design. And this narrows the range of explanations tremendously. And it forces them to cram the data into these boxes that end up distorting the truth.
In a design paradigm however, the whole range of explanations is wide open! It doesn’t mean everything is designed . So some things can still be a product of random variations and natural selection as Darwin said they were. But it greatly expands the range of explanations that we have, and liberates science to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
So I see a tremendous invigoration . a reinvigoration of scientific research opening up areas that are now closed.”
Now just between me and you mark... I don't think this is going to happen. ID is going to be defeated after an initial harvest and battle. I don't know how long it will gain acceptance, before it is defeated, but it will be defeated. Otherwise the Bible would be untrue.
It will seems as though ID has given the materialsits a fatal wound, but they will prevail on material terms by shear defiance. Ultimately they will prevail only after the rapture of the church.
He (mankind as a concensus) will insist that materialism be the absolute in spite of the non-material reasoning that anchors the pressuposition itself which is only philosophical. He (mankind) by Ad Populum fallacy, will create a false dichotomy between the material and the nonmaterial. He has already done so...
There is an insistence that the only thing that be considered and worshiped for guidance is the creation itself (the material world) known as the Biblical metaphor, 'the beast'.
Re 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Re 13:12
He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.
Re 13:15
He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
Re 14:11
And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."
By rejecting logic, they crucify their true self.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by mark24, posted 08-23-2007 3:20 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 11:28 AM Rob has replied
 Message 158 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 11:32 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 156 of 297 (417921)
08-25-2007 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Omnivorous
08-23-2007 10:10 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
omnivorous:
Further, you again assume that evolution requires a progression to greater organization/complexity. That is not so: evolution merely describes the process by which generations of organisms over time adapt to a changing environment.
I see... so life did not start with single celled organisms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2007 10:10 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 11:35 AM Rob has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 157 of 297 (417922)
08-25-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rob
08-25-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Rob writes:
There is only one cause (emperically) that we see information resulting from, and that is intelligence.
Sorry but that is simply false.
When we look around the universe the vast majority of information out there is created by non-intelligence, by random events in nature and by chemical reactions and physics.
A few examples are the rings in trees produced by variations in the seasons and weather, ripples on a pond or waves on an ocean, patterns in crystals, inclusions in rocks, sand dunes in the desert and snowflakes.
While the appearance of design is pervasive and ubiquitous in reality, almost all examples are simply the result of natural forces and not intelligence.
And none of that has anything to do with the topic which in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 10:54 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:52 AM jar has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 158 of 297 (417923)
08-25-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rob
08-25-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Rob,
It simply the scientific method
It would have saved a lot of time if you'd just argued that your evidence is better than mine without all that red herring nonsense about coherence.
So, we are basically having an evidence based discussion, yes?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 10:54 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:43 AM mark24 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 159 of 297 (417924)
08-25-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rob
08-25-2007 11:26 AM


Still misrepresenting folk I see.
Rob writes:
I see... so life did not start with single celled organisms?
in reply to Omni saying:
quote:
Further, you again assume that evolution requires a progression to greater organization/complexity. That is not so: evolution merely describes the process by which generations of organisms over time adapt to a changing environment.
Sorry Rob but your response is not simply an example of misrepresentation, but rather irrelevant as well.
If life started as a single celled organism, then at that point in time the only option was towards greater complexity. However that applies only during a period when there are only single celled organisms. Once there are multicelled critters evolution could be towards greater complexity or towards lessor complexity and we can see examples of both.
Evolution does not require a progression to greater organization/complexity.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:26 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:57 AM jar has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 160 of 297 (417926)
08-25-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by mark24
08-25-2007 11:32 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
mark24
It would have saved a lot of time if you'd just argued that your evidence is better than mine without all that red herring nonsense about coherence.
But that is precisely why one theory is chosen over another. If there was no coherence, there would be no empericism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 11:32 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 11:57 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 161 of 297 (417928)
08-25-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by jar
08-25-2007 11:28 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
jar:
While the appearance of design is pervasive and ubiquitous in reality, almost all examples are simply the result of natural forces and not intelligence.
And none of that has anything to do with the topic which in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?"
What is the cause of the natural forces you mentioned?
jar:
A few examples are the rings in trees produced by variations in the seasons and weather, ripples on a pond or waves on an ocean, patterns in crystals, inclusions in rocks, sand dunes in the desert and snowflakes.
Tree rings are produced invariably by the DNA expessing itself in conjuction with the physical laws.
As for the other examples, they are not information per se, but rather a result of information being expresssed. They are the patterns created by physical laws overlapping.
It is the laws themselves and the DNA that is the information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 11:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 11:59 AM Rob has replied
 Message 166 by AdminNosy, posted 08-25-2007 12:02 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 162 of 297 (417929)
08-25-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by jar
08-25-2007 11:35 AM


Re: Still misrepresenting folk I see.
jar:
Evolution does not require a progression to greater organization/complexity.
As far as origin of life is concerned, yes it does. It's called abiogenesis or 'chemical evolution'. there are no higher organisms without it.
The only one misrepresenting anything in this thread is you.
I can't even believe you're allowed to participate in these forums. I'll ignore all future posts from you jar. Your only intent is to irritate and offend.
I'm just not biting any longer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 11:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 12:09 PM Rob has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 163 of 297 (417930)
08-25-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rob
08-25-2007 11:43 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Rob,
But that is precisely why one theory is chosen over another. If there was no coherence, there would be no empericism.
But it's neither here nor there. You could have said we were having an evidence based discussion a la the scientific method & the result, when we get to it, would be exactly the same. All you have done is to insist you reword the scientific method without changing it & thereby wasted everybodies time. This is message 160+ & we have yet to begin.
We are having an evidence based discussion, yes or no?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:43 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:59 AM mark24 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 164 of 297 (417931)
08-25-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Rob
08-25-2007 11:52 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
What is the cause of the natural forces you mentioned?
Wind, weather, sunlight, gravity, chemical bonding ...
Tree rings are produced invariably by the DNA expessing itself in conjuction with the physical laws.
Snowflakes have no DNA, nor do waves, sand or inclusions.
The information we see in the universe, the vast majority of the information, from the shape of stars and galaxies to the ripples on a pond are caused by non-intelligence.
Sorry, but thems the facts.
And it still has nothing to do with the topic which in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?"
Do you ever plan to post something that is relevant, important or not a misrepresentation of facts or someones position?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:52 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 12:07 PM jar has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 165 of 297 (417932)
08-25-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by mark24
08-25-2007 11:57 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
mark24:
We are having an evidence based discussion, yes or no?
Yes. just remember that that evidence is reached by reasoning and inference.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 11:57 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 12:28 PM Rob has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024