Is evolution hanging on ?

[Jehosefat]

No evidence means no inferences can reasonably be drawn, which means all possibilities must be considered equally likely until more information is acquired.

In that case why are you assuming that god exists? It must follow that it is equally likely that he does not and yet all of your arguments are premised on the fact that he does. You yourself are not considering all possibilities equally likely.

Everything needs God to work. But that can neither be proven nor disproved, and that is not the point at all. I am referring to language constructions, not an actual physical phenomenon.

That is a blatant, completely unsupported assumption and has no more validity than assuming nothing needs god to work.

Because you don't know enough about how the Universe was created to rule out the idea that it was created by a creator. Because that possibility is in play, it is reasonable to try to explain the Universe's existence in terms of that possibility.

Anything else is an argument from ignorance.

So it is only reasonable to assume god exists and to try and explain natural phenomena based on that assumption. But to assume that god does not exist results in an argument from ignorance? That is in absolute contradiction to your position in the first post that I have quoted.

 

[Xarog]

No straw man at all I feel I was very direct in response to his last paragraph in that post. Don't obfuscate logic with me

Wayfarer understands intuitively why rationalism does not sit at the top of any pile of human thought. He's not about to make the mistake you're concerned about, because you cannot be biased about what you are explicitly aware of and accounting for.

 

[Xarog]

In that case why are you assuming that god exists? It must follow that it is equally likely that he does not and yet all of your arguments are premised on the fact that he does. You yourself are not considering all possibilities equally likely.

You must have a reading problem. I do not assume that god exists. I only conclude that it is undeniable that he possibly exists. I make no personal claim to know or believe either way.

That is a blatant, completely unsupported assumption and has no more validity than assuming nothing needs god to work.

Is there a point to this response?

So it is only reasonable to assume god exists and to try and explain natural phenomena based on that assumption. But to assume that god does not exist results in an argument from ignorance? That is in absolute contradiction to your position in the first post that I have quoted.

No, you have posted two posts which say exactly the same thing. The fact that you think they contradict each other shows that you have not understood what was being said properly. I assure you I am equally capable of simultaneously entertaining explanations which postulate alternatively that god does/does not exist. I have no need to favour one over the other.

 

[Bobbin]

So it is only reasonable to assume god exists and to try and explain natural phenomena based on that assumption. But to assume that god does not exist results in an argument from ignorance? That is in absolute contradiction to your position in the first post that I have quoted.

To be fair I think he is saying to give all possibilities equal attention which I can understand.

My position is sort of unique I think in that I acknowledge all possibilities but endeavor to believe what I see as most useful - not necessarily what is true - as it has been long ago proven to me that absolute truth is impossible to achieve.

So I still probably come across as the evil ignorant materialist only because of the things I see as useful vs true

 

[Bobbin]

Wayfarer understands intuitively why rationalism does not sit at the top of any pile of human thought. He's not about to make the mistake you're concerned about, because you cannot be biased about what you are explicitly aware of and accounting for.

Which of the 2 ideologies (Creator or not) carries fewer assumptions? Not counting the absence of something as an assumption itself (as this would be infinite).

And also if we can argue the purpose of a creator to the point of irrelevance then what is the actual point?

 

[Xarog]

Which of the 2 ideologies carries fewer assumptions? Not counting the absence of something as an assumption itself (as this would be infinite).

Did the Universe come from nothing?

 

[Xarog]

As far as I am concerned, what the question really is, is this:

Was the initiation of the Big Bang caused by an entity with agency?

Science, as a matter of necessity, as a working assumption, assumes that anything it has not quantified does not exist. That is a very expensive assumption to make when it comes to using Science to discover the truth. The truth is that Science is actually better suited to finding useful information, and we should not mistake the two.

So yes, a model that presumes that there is no creator is demonstrably simpler. That doesn't say anything about its correctness.

 

[Bobbin]

Did the Universe come from nothing?

I have no strong opinion but if forced to choose at a gunpoint from nothing, creator or infinity I'd prefer some form of infinity as that removes most philosophical problems I'm aware of. That said I don't see why it should have any bearing on local discovery. Which in a sense often makes me atheist by default. If I discover evolution and learn all of its secrets then happy days, but if I say up front that I cannot possibly know all its secrets before I even begin then sad days. This is the danger of fixed ideology one way or another - and I don't see the usefulness in a creator in this equation generally speaking even though you might say I appear to be ignoring it. I'm simply choosing the path that appears (Every time) to hold more in store for advancement.

If that path is false at least we gave it the old college try which is better than relinquishing reality/control to a third party (doing nothing).

I've been a bit of a stuck record in this regard I know.

 

[Xarog]

I've been a bit of a stuck record in this regard I know.

I believe you'll grow out of it.

And if you don't, that's ok too...

 

[Sodan]

To be fair I think he is saying to give all possibilities equal attention which I can understand.

My position is sort of unique I think in that I acknowledge all possibilities but endeavor to believe what I see as most useful - not necessarily what is true - as it has been long ago proven to me that absolute truth is impossible to achieve.

So I still probably come across as the evil ignorant materialist only because of the things I see as useful vs true

Could you please share this proof with us?

 

[Xarog]

Could you please share this proof with us?

The proof is in the fact that you can't prove we're not all in the Matrix.

 

[Sodan]

The proof is in the fact that you can't prove we're not all in the Matrix.

But he said "impossible to achieve", not "impossible to prove".

 

[Xarog]

But he said "impossible to achieve", not "impossible to prove".

Well, if you can't prove it's the truth, how do you know it's the truth?

 

[Bobbin]

Would you please share this proof with us?

The most simple way I can try describing it is by recognizing that everything you observe (Even via instrumentation) must first be interpreted by your brain by its own process of rationalizing. Thus you are always, ALWAYS, separating the truth/event observed with your interpretation of it. That isn't to say your interpretation can't be 99.99% accurate - but it can never be 100% as it is not the event itself.

Furthermore if we view everything in the brain as being rational - then it stands to reason we tend to apply rational reasoning to everything in the universe - but the universe is not rational in any way. There is thus a separation between the "universe" in your mind vs the universe outside - separated by the senses and emotions we have to detect it - even if both systems exist on the same plane. We are likely far far more biased in this sense than it may seem.

Sometimes I take this understanding even further. If we can only observe things rationally then what about things that are out of this scope that exist beyond our means to detect it? Though at this point I start to wonder why bother Even though I acknowledge it might be out there.

 

[Splinter]

No, you are doing that. The words in my reply demonstrated a view on the matter via a particular theistic religion. As some of the present-day "acceptable" language used in discussions of the Theory of Evolution actually includes concepts that derive from the "religion" of atheism, or at least they are explained in terms that clearly demonstrate that underlying assumption. I do not object to those atheist "religious" assumptions, neither do I see you objecting to it. But you spontaneously mock mine.

You could have ignored my reference, or accepted it to be part of the discourse, or challenged it in terms of the topic of the thread and the science being discussed. Instead, your need to be anti-religion or derogatory threatens to change the focus of the thread, and not my brief reply.

What you are correct in is that the thread is not "about religion". Note that no science is free from underlying philosophical notions, and I don't think it is fair to insist that we may only engage the science via the philosophical assumptions that you agree with. Please, do not censure me, and do not attempt to stifle my expression, or unceremoniously pass off my engagement in the topic from my own paradigm as being moronic. Ignore me or debate me, but do not stop me from engaging the topic from my own paradigm.

talking about your own paradigm, where is your reply to my question about all the virgins?

 

[Splinter]

You are incorrect. DNA is not inanimate matter. There are active processes mediating the mutation process. Those processes demonstrate the exact same physical characteristics that our neural networks express as an intrinsic part of their problem solving functions.

What we are talking about in the strictest terms is something that is sensitive to and reacting in a co-ordinated manner to information collected from its environment.

Sounds like a mechanism that evolved...

Edit - this comment may have been a too early from me; let me finish reading the thread

Talking about evolving, none of that seems to have happened in your sabbatical from MyBB....

 

[Splinter]

And you can claim it's a straw man all day long. But the key to demonstrating it is a straw man is to explain how I did not represent your position fairly.

And as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Actually, the saying is, "the proof is in the eating of the pudding"...

 

[Xarog]

Actually, the saying is, "the proof is in the eating of the pudding"...

http://grammarist.com/usage/proof-is-in-the-pudding/

I can see you're going to be doing nothing but nitpicking in this thread.

 

[Splinter]

Because you don't know enough about how the Universe was created to rule out the idea that it was created by a creator. Because that possibility is in play, it is reasonable to try to explain the Universe's existence in terms of that possibility.

You must have a reading problem. I do not assume that god exists. I only conclude that it is undeniable that he possibly exists. I make no personal claim to know or believe either way.

So, to clarify your position - your position of creationism is that it is a religious god?

 

[Xarog]

So, to clarify your position - your position of creationism is that it is a religious god?

I don't even know what you are saying.