Free will, perfection and limits on god

"Green" does indeed address something thought to be in the real world - it represents photons with a particular range of energies. It is not a simple abstract quality.So what concepts from the empirical world are not reducible to examples like "green" that cannot reasonably be "wrong" in the fashion you suggest. How about spatial aspects like size and distance ?As for the other point, I think I have explained myself often enough. Here's a hint - it ISN'T just about what you care about because this is a PUBLIC FORUM.

Well,you have to admit that human activity is certainly an aberration. For most of history they weren't even there.Humans can functionaly change an environment, but this is not part of natural evolution.Well, the mutations are certainly random. The filter is as well. It's always different, and varies with time. It can be long and slow, gradual change or something very abrupt, like a meteor strike or major volcanic activity. It could be a pandemic or the opening of a sea isolating certain species.So do you agree that the system uses random change on both sides?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I thought your aim was to show that belief had no effect on life? So what is belief to you? I'm lost. Can you elaborate on this please? What reality are you talking about? No? What about the effects that you label as coming from belief: How do you know there is belief if there are no obvious effects? Why not? What are you comparing the models to that makes you say they are close to being correct? Why would the models need to be correct to advance science? Why can't they just advance science without having to make a judgement as to its validity? Science doesn't say what is right and wrong, only what can be observed and what we can infer from those observations. Is science the only way to produce knowledge? Haha. Of course I do. It's called illogic, and you wouldn't understand. So science IS the only way to gain new knowledge? Forgive me for relying on a definition, but concept can be defined as "An abstract or symbolic tag that attempts to capture the essence of reality." "God" is the abstract/symbolic tag that attempts to capture the essence of reality (this works when we assume the being denoted "God" is everything in the universe and more). We can assume that there exists an entity that is everything in the universe and more. We can call that entity "God," and thus God becomes a concept. There is no difference, they are saying the same thing. The sentence says that everything that we sense is God, but it does not say that God is only what we sense.It is like saying that all black things are round.This sentence means that if something is black, then it is also round and this is true in every instance of black things. (You cannot find a black thing that is not also round). It would NOT make sense to also say that if something is round then it is black for every instance of round things. This is because we have not said anything about all round things. We have only said that SOME round things are black because all black things are round. Black things are a subset of round things. There could be yellow round things and green round things as well. We don't know because we haven't said anything about the other round things. Some means "at least one," and that is not by any means all. It may be that all round things are also black, but we cannot determine that from our sentence above.We can now apply God to this example. Our sentence is: All that we sense is God.This means that for every instance of things that we sense, it is God. This does not mean that for every instance of God, it is what we sense. It just means that SOME of God is what we sense. And some does not mean all. Does this help make more sense? What is wrong with God being the entire universe? Perhaps the point is not to further knowledge so much as to think in new and different ways.It seems like we are getting hung up on what God is. What do you think God is? More what? I don't know, just more than our universe. I don't know what it would physically be or if it even would be physical.Also, (Super)String Theory is the theory (and I'm not well versed in it) that there are more universes than our own. Of course, it is very speculative, but scientists are taking the question seriously. What basis are you looking for? There are still areas of the universe that we have not sensed or instrumented. Are we wrong to assume this?I would say that possibility and imagination is a basis. The evidence is all around you. From the assumption that God is the universe and more, I can derive that everything in our universe is God, and it is verified by everything in the universe being God. That is the question, isn't it? I was merely asking for your opinion on it. I, too, agree that we don't have anything to compare our universe to in order to answer the question.This message has been edited by QBert14000, 04-28-2005 07:30 PM

That would be the CONCEPT of green. We stuck a word to something we sensed. You cannot point to a green in the physical world because words and concepts do not exist in the physical world. Go ahead, try it. Point to a green. Put one in my hand. Or a yellow or a red.Also, if our senses are wrong, then that photon could be an elephant and we wouldn't know it because of our "undetectable systematic errors" that are undetectable. All concepts are reducible to examples like "green" because concepts do not exist in the physical world. They EXPLAIN the physical world. Spatial aspects can be wrong as well, because everything we know from the physical world we sense. Size and distance are measurements of the physical world. They are not found in the physical world either. Here is what you have "explained:" Also, in message 155, you say that YECs are the only significant group arguing for a young earth. Are you implying that arguments from people who are not YECs don't matter? Um, yes this is a public forum. Which means that I can voice my views and they are no less significant because one group or another does not also endorse them. This is why I don't understand why you brought YECs up.

I agree that for much of history, humans were not here. They are now though, and they were produced out of evolution by natural selection, a natural process. I would think that human impact on evolution is therefore natural. I can assume this, yes. As long as we are only talking about mutation and the filter of natural selection. Human activity being random can be debatable.

Okay.This began with you saying: But through the messages since then you have agreed that the system itself is based on randomness, unpredictability. That contradicts your statement above. A GOD who knows the outcome, the specific product that will be produced yet decides to achieve that end with a random, unpredictable system would be illogical.This message has been edited by jar, 04-28-2005 07:30 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hmmm. I have assumed the things you asked me to assume along the way. Was one of our assumptions that God designed the system exactly according to God's will? To whom is "random" being related?

The system is designed based on random, unpredictable events, both on the change side, mutations, and the filter side, Natural Selection.You were the one that said the system was designed according to GOD's will and so he would know the outcome. I happen to think he did design the system. But if so, then he didn't have a clue what the outcome would be OR he is, as I've said, Loki.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Or God could just not have to subscribe to logic at all.You have an interesting viewpoint. Thank you for sharing it with me

Obviously you are not understanding the point.One more try. Our descriptions of the world are not independant of our senses. Often they are DERIVED from our senses. The undetectable systematic errors are impossible because they would require the sensoory data to be other than it is. If we sensed "green" from elephants then "green" wuld refer to "elephants". As simple as that.As for the rest of yur post, if you don;t understand why I would relate your poitns to the primary topic of the forum for the benefit of others reading the messages then there is nothing more to say.

As I have said. I would say they are always derived from our senses. How do you know that these errors are not occuring now? Our sensory data would still be what it is. They are, as you have said, undetectable, so we would not detect these errors. We would also not be able to compare sensing with the errors to sensing without the errors if the errors have always been there. We can, however, conceive of them and discuss about them.Our sensory data is what we sense. If there is a problem in sensing something that causes what we sense to be different than what is actually there, then that is an error. Because all that we know of the world is what we sense, then it is possible that there are errors in our sensing system that we do not know about.Also, I think you are assuming that our senses accurately represent to us what is in the physical world. I am not making this assumption. In order to dialogue, we must be under the same assumptions. My assumption is that our senses can present other than what is in the physical world. I am going to redefine green right now as what was previously called gray (and gray is now what was previously called green). I now sense green coming from that elephant! Everyone else now senses green coming from that elephant as well! Did it change what I sensed? No.Again, we do not sense green. If we did, then I would not be able to switch green and gray and still refer to an elephant. Green is a word that describes what we sense. Green is not the same word in spanish (verde). Similarly, do english people sense green and spanish people sense verde from the same thing? Yes! That is because even though these are different words, they describe the same thing.My believing that my computer is a monkey does not change what it is. I could call it anything and it would still be what it is. "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet." Ohhh. I thought you were trying to further the discussion because in message 155 you stated that "it is surely relevant that even most [YECs] would have objectiond to your argument." When you said "relevant," I thought you meant to our discussion. I now see that you were merely pointing out that YECs don't agree with my view for the benefit of those readers who either don't know YECs' views or who just jumped into the middle of the discussion.You made it seem like there was something more you were trying to say. When I asked, you could have just said something like, "I am merely pointing out, for the benefit of readers who either don't know YECs' views or who just jumped into the middle of the discussion, that YECs don't endorse your views" because I personally don't care if they do or not. That is why I was wondering why you brought it up.

quote:

---

How do you know that these errors are not occuring now?

---

How do I know that something that can't happen, isn't happening ? If it isn't obvious to you then try thinking again.

What makes you say that it can't happen?This message has been edited by QBert14000, 04-30-2005 05:21 PM

I've already explained why.

I read an article recently that labeled natural selection as a non-random process of evolution. The article said that if this was random, no predictions could be made from the TOE. What do you think?