What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#161  Postby Fallible » Aug 12, 2017 8:50 am

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:Why do you?

My preference is to lurk, but it becomes necessary to engage sometimes.


Necessary for what? Each time you break the surface you simply take up where you left off, as though you're responding for the first time and your arguments weren't just demolished by practically everyone here.

Heh. None of my loved ones are believers, so even if by some weird happenstance I were to find myself in heaven, I certainly would not be experiencing joy. I would be extremely depressed at the thought of being separated from them for eternity.

You would find new loved ones. Anyway, once their brutal ordeal in the fires of hell is over - and they are purged of their sins - you will be reunited with them.


You're sailing dangerously close to the wind here regarding the FUA. You're beginning to set off my trolling spidey sense now.

You don't get how this works, do you. Either that, or you very much want to give the impression that you don't get how this works. You are not recognised here as an authority on what freedom means. This being the case, you need to provide evidence for your views regarding freedom, not simply make more assertions. Not that it really matters. Despite your self-professed stealth reading, you have spectacularly failed over a number of months to cotton on to the fact that every single claim you make about the way the world is set up can be totally swept aside by three words, namely 'God is omnipotent'. All you do in response to these words is to make yet more assertions about how certain things are not possible. This is because that is the only place you have to go.

Just because God is omnipotent, doesn't mean that he has to create a world as we would wish it to be. And if he permits human and natural freedom of action, through which we give so much value to, then he also permits suffering to occur as that is the inevitable consequence of freedom of action.


Squirm, squirm, squirm. Yes, well done for finally catching up with what is being said in this part of the discusdion. That is what we are talking about - what he chooses to do, not what he has to do. Thank you for admitting that he allows suffering because that is his choice. Unfortunate for you, I guess, that your apologetics are so inept that you ended up refuting your own argument.

I have asked you previously how long you wish to continue circling this particular mulberry bush. The answer appears to be very long. Very well. If God wanted to, he could have set the universe up so that one can have perfect freedom without freedom to kill, because...(drum roll) HE IS OMNIPOTENT.

All you are doing here is whining why God didn't create a world without suffering.


The least you could do is to try and keep up with the discussion if you are going to take part. You claim this God is omnibenevolent. You are asked the question if this is so, why has he chosen to allow suffering. I dunno, maybe some water got in your ears last time you dove gracefully below the waves, but you do seem to have managed to accidentally on purpose get the impression that this discussion casts you in the role of patient teacher to a roomful of petulant children. No, dear. This discussion is you making a stupid claim which you know is stupid, and then just puking up increasingly stupid apologetics when challenged, rinse, repeat. No one who can manage to string a sentence together like you can (excluding really simple errors like 'contradiction in turn' :lol: ) could possibly think they were making valid points by now, so you either have a blind spot the size of Everest or you are trolling. After this last post from you, my money's on the latter.


I have argued that, in the case of heaven/paradise, he may well have done.


Do stop being silly. You haven't argued anything, and you know it. Saying the first stupid thing that comes into your head is not an argument.

However, for the joy of heaven/paradise to have any meaning, there has to be a world where we are put to the test and can learn the value of good and evil and experience all that there is to be experienced.


God is omnipotent. If God had wanted us to learn and experience everything without being put to the test he could have set things up that way.

I'm trying my best here, but it seems that you are still struggling to understand basic ideas. Tell me what would help you to grasp what I'm saying. Bold font? Pretty colours? I notice later in your post you go on to drag out the tired 'God is omnipotent except when it could mean bypassing logic [which he created]' 'argument'. All the more ironic that you appear so willing to eschew logic in your defence of him. If God prevents suffering, that means God prevents any living being from suffering, spiders included.

And, being omnipotent, God is able to create spiders and predators. But he can't create predators that don't predate. That would be logically incoherent which is not included in the meaning of omnipotence.


Please feel free to troll harder, it's quite entertaining. Yes, I think that everyone has understood from the beginning that God is omnipotent except when this would sink your 'argument'. Sit down.

And a-stultifyingly-boringly-gain, God is omnipotent. Spiders cannot exist by eating grass because God designed them that way. They are predators by DESIGN from your viewpoint. God chose to make their survival dependant on the suffering and death of another species.

Yes, and they serve a purpose in the ecosystem of controlling fly populations. If there were no predators, the flies would overpopulate and destroy their own environment. Yours is an argument from ignorance about the greater good that God is concerned about.


Yes dear, of course it is. How long do you intend to troll? Because unless you are almost done, you're going way too heavy on hubris and are likely to blow your cover entirely with everyone sooner rather than later. You probably won't get banned, as the mods are currently doing a good impersonation of a deistic god, but you might find that the number of people willing to engage you decreases. But maybe not. Some massive trolls are managing to keep it going after months and years. I guess there's only one way to find out, right?

Aww, poor God. Imagine little old me being able to deny him the right to create predators. This is like Stockholm Syndrome. You are willing to come up with any old shit to defend the indefensible, and hang what it makes you look like. With every word you type, you reinforce my view that this God of yours is so pathetic it's really very lucky for him that he doesn't exist, because if he did he'd be in a perpetual state of being unable to do things. That sounds pretty much like a failing human being to me. As I said, what a shit god you have there.

Spiders have every much a right to exist as you do. If a spider kills and eats you, then perhaps God has decided that it is time for you to move on to another plane of existence where you will learn new things.


Whoops! Urgh, that was pretty clumsy, Wortfish. I wasn't expecting you to abandon all pretence of reasoned discussion so early.

This is pretty sad. You're prepared to make just about any excuse to explain away the endless problems with this god thingy. He's OMMMMMMMMNIPOTENT. Say it with me. OMNI...POTENT. If he wanted fewer flies, he could have just preset them to the number he wanted. If he had wanted spiders to just be cool, he could have created them to not need to eat anything. Do you mean to tell me that he never thought of these things? Am I cleverer than god? Some god...

Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. It isn't possible to have predators that don't predate, and it isn't possible to allow freedom and deny the exercise of it at the same time.


Aww, look at you. No. Omnipotence means unlimited power.

No, no - you are confusing 'that doesn't mean...' with 'it would completely sink my lame argument if...' Do you really think we are this stupid? How offensive. Who do you think came up with logic? According to your world view, I mean. Who was it? The word 'omnipotent' is quite specific. It refers to unlimited power. You know - power WITHOUT LIMITATION. To be frank, it is beyond me why you think you are qualified to explain God to anyone, given the tenuous grasp you appear to have on the party line.

No. Omnipotence does NOT mean having no limitations whatsoever. God creates laws that need to be obeyed, even by himself. By creating a universe, he imposed limits on his own actions. Just because a king can kill all his subjects, doesn't mean that he would ever be in a position to do so.


:lol: No. Omnipotence means unlimited power. Just look at what you're prepared to say to keep this charade going. Just because a king can kill all his subjects, that doesn't mean that he can kill all his subjects. In 50 words or less, I want you to tell me why you think I should accept your claims as anything approaching credible. I'm interested to see what you can come up with.

Ah, hilarious. We know the natural world isn't omnipotent, dear, no one suggested it was. You are pretty much hell bent however on missing the point by a country mile that your God, having created every single thing, including logic and 'natural law', had free rein to design everything in whichever way he wanted, and as such, the natural world is limited and fallible BECAUSE GOD SPECIFICALLY SET IT UP THAT WAY.

We live in an imperfect world, imperfect because it cannot be perfect like God is. Hence, we shouldn't expect everything to be 100% joyous.


God is omnipotent. Had he wanted to make this world perfect, he could have done so. Looks like I have more faith in your God than you do.

You are all over the place. Either God is perfect, created the world the way it is in order to put us to the test and omnipotence still means unlimited power, or he is imperfect, gave up his omnipotence when he created the universe, can no longer prevent suffering and omnipotence means power to do only the logically consistent in accordance with the laws of nature. For fuck's sake choose a line of apologetics and stick to it.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 43938
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#162  Postby Wortfish » Aug 14, 2017 1:05 am

Fallible wrote:
God is omnipotent. Had he wanted to make this world perfect, he could have done so. Looks like I have more faith in your God than you do.You are all over the place. Either God is perfect, created the world the way it is in order to put us to the test and omnipotence still means unlimited power, or he is imperfect, gave up his omnipotence when he created the universe, can no longer prevent suffering and omnipotence means power to do only the logically consistent in accordance with the laws of nature. For fuck's sake choose a line of apologetics and stick to it.

I don't know whether you are being serious. I presented you with a place in which suffering and evil does not exist, where you will eventually be reunited with loved ones, and you accused me of trolling. However, your definition of omnipotence ignores divine omniscience which is that God knows what is best for his creation even if you don't. It also means that God can only do things that are intrinsically possible, not impossible. He cannot cease to exist, create a square circle, a predator that does not predate and so on. If he allows for freedom of action, he can't also prevent it. And here comes omnibenevolence. Contrary to what you think, it doesn't mean that God is resolved not to allow suffering. It just means he wishes well for his creation. It does not mean that if I throw myself off a cliff, he will send down angels to rescue me or suspend the law of gravity. With freedom comes responsibility. Suffering may play a very important part in the development of human understanding even though we don't want to suffer. We are not robots; we are sentient creatures that learn from pain.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#163  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 14, 2017 1:22 am

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:
God is omnipotent. Had he wanted to make this world perfect, he could have done so. Looks like I have more faith in your God than you do.You are all over the place. Either God is perfect, created the world the way it is in order to put us to the test and omnipotence still means unlimited power, or he is imperfect, gave up his omnipotence when he created the universe, can no longer prevent suffering and omnipotence means power to do only the logically consistent in accordance with the laws of nature. For fuck's sake choose a line of apologetics and stick to it.

I don't know whether you are being serious.

Well, we certainly know you aren't.

Wortfish wrote: I presented you with made assertions about a place in which suffering and evil does not exist,


Wortfish wrote: where you will eventually be reunited with loved ones, and you accused me of trolling.

False, you dishonest responses to her posts as well as those of others demonstrate you to be either incredibly obtuse or a troll.

Wortfish wrote: However, your definition of omnipotence ignores divine omniscience which is that God knows what is best for his creation even if you don't.

That's a cop-out.
Imagine if a parent was beating their child and when the cops asking him why he says "I know what's best for my children, even if you don't."

Wortfish wrote: It also means that God can only do things that are intrinsically possible, not impossible.

None of the examples presented to you are logically impossible.

Wortfish wrote: He cannot cease to exist, create a square circle, a predator that does not predate and so on.

Your red herrings don't cause my fucks to grow.

Wortfish wrote: If he allows for freedom of action, he can't also prevent it.

He can. He might choose not to do it, but he can.

Wortfish wrote: And here comes omnibenevolence. Contrary to what you think, it doesn't mean that God is resolved not to allow suffering.

It means he loves everyone (and everything). Loving someone includes not wanting them to be hurt.

Wortfish wrote:It just means he wishes well for his creation.

Here's where you have to demonstrate that things like birth defects, rape, (child) molestation and a whole host of other horrors are good for people.

Wortfish wrote: It does not mean that if I throw myself off a cliff, he will send down angels to rescue me or suspend the law of gravity.

Hey-hoy another red herring and yet my field is still barren.

Wortfish wrote: With freedom comes responsibility. Suffering may play a very important part in the development of human understanding even though we don't want to suffer.

Again, only because god designed us that way.
If god had simply designed us with all relevant knowledge, there'd be no need to let us suffer.

Wortfish wrote: We are not robots; we are sentient creatures that learn from pain.

Again, only because god created a universe and a human species that (might) require those lessons.
He could have done otherwise.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27122
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#164  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 15, 2017 12:02 am

I always get a chuckle from the argument that their god is really, really, super duper omnipotent, and could have made our universe just perfect for us. Could have. Omnipotence and all.

But, didn't.

Could have, but didn't. Because, you know, fuck you.

Sort of omnicuntinent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19191
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#165  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 15, 2017 12:06 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:
God is omnipotent. Had he wanted to make this world perfect, he could have done so. Looks like I have more faith in your God than you do.You are all over the place. Either God is perfect, created the world the way it is in order to put us to the test and omnipotence still means unlimited power, or he is imperfect, gave up his omnipotence when he created the universe, can no longer prevent suffering and omnipotence means power to do only the logically consistent in accordance with the laws of nature. For fuck's sake choose a line of apologetics and stick to it.

I don't know whether you are being serious.

Well, we certainly know you aren't.

Wortfish wrote: I presented you with made assertions about a place in which suffering and evil does not exist,


Wortfish wrote: where you will eventually be reunited with loved ones, and you accused me of trolling.

False, you dishonest responses to her posts as well as those of others demonstrate you to be either incredibly obtuse or a troll.

Wortfish wrote: However, your definition of omnipotence ignores divine omniscience which is that God knows what is best for his creation even if you don't.

That's a cop-out.
Imagine if a parent was beating their child and when the cops asking him why he says "I know what's best for my children, even if you don't."

Wortfish wrote: It also means that God can only do things that are intrinsically possible, not impossible.

None of the examples presented to you are logically impossible.

Wortfish wrote: He cannot cease to exist, create a square circle, a predator that does not predate and so on.

Your red herrings don't cause my fucks to grow.

Wortfish wrote: If he allows for freedom of action, he can't also prevent it.

He can. He might choose not to do it, but he can.

Wortfish wrote: And here comes omnibenevolence. Contrary to what you think, it doesn't mean that God is resolved not to allow suffering.

It means he loves everyone (and everything). Loving someone includes not wanting them to be hurt.

Wortfish wrote:It just means he wishes well for his creation.

Here's where you have to demonstrate that things like birth defects, rape, (child) molestation and a whole host of other horrors are good for people.

Wortfish wrote: It does not mean that if I throw myself off a cliff, he will send down angels to rescue me or suspend the law of gravity.

Hey-hoy another red herring and yet my field is still barren.

Wortfish wrote: With freedom comes responsibility. Suffering may play a very important part in the development of human understanding even though we don't want to suffer.

Again, only because god designed us that way.
If god had simply designed us with all relevant knowledge, there'd be no need to let us suffer.

Wortfish wrote: We are not robots; we are sentient creatures that learn from pain.

Again, only because god created a universe and a human species that (might) require those lessons.

He could have done otherwise.

Blasphemer!

The Omnicunt does as he pleases!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19191
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#166  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 15, 2017 7:12 am

Of course, a major part of the problem with the magic man assertion, apart from the nontrivial problem of absence of proper supporting evidence, centres upon two nasty holes in the entire edifice. The first is the existence of mutually contradictory mythological assertions (the whole tri-omni edifice requires logic itself to be thrown into the bin, which is a sure sign that said edifice is in serious need of revision), and the second is that a consilient framework of natural laws, far from providing support for the magic man assertion, renders it superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Elaborating on the first, if an entity is asserted to possess two capabilities, A and B, such that possession of capability A requires, of necessity, that entity to be able to perform actions violating the necessary conditions attached to possessing capability B, then those two capabilities cannot simultaneously be possessed by that entity. A situation arising in no small part from the failure to maintain rigorous control of one's definitions, and ensure that those definitions are consonant with both observational reality and elementary logic.

As for the second, one of the key points physicists have learned about the nature of universes is this: in order for any universe-type entity to possess any recognisable structure at all, even at the level of subatomic particles, then a consillient framework of natural laws needs to be in place underpinning that structure. There has to exist a consistent set of entities, and a consistent set of interactions between those entities, in order for recognisable structure to be present. This is true not only for universes in which organisms such as ourselves are physically permitted to exist (regardless of whether the requisite physically permitted interactions bringing those organisms into existence actually happen, which is a separate issue), but for universes in which organisms such as ourselves are physically impossible. In short, the existence of a set of natural laws places no guarantees on actual historical outcomes, especially if a large range of interactions are permitted, and the first interactions taking place in that history are sensitive to initial conditions.

Attempted escape from the second point and its ramifications fails. One of those ramifications being that that the usual self-regarding assertions presented as purported "conclusions", enjoy no support from frameworks of natural laws. If an exponentially increasing number of possible histories can appear within a system of interactions, the prior probability that any one of those histories will be realised, when viewed from the starting point, is vanishingly small. Even if one set of initial interactions places some constraints upon future sets, the existence of a vast range of choices of historical trajectory, even with those constraints in place, along with the possibility that the current trajectory will enable new interaction histories not previously possible, merely worsens the situation. For this reason, trying to escape the absence of support for the usual assertions, by asserting in turn that a particular choice was made to fulfil a particular destiny, is a stillborn dialectical ruse, one rendered even more so, the moment any indeterminism is present in the system of interactions in question.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21029
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#167  Postby Wortfish » Aug 15, 2017 12:09 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, a major part of the problem with the magic man assertion, apart from the nontrivial problem of absence of proper supporting evidence, centres upon two nasty holes in the entire edifice. The first is the existence of mutually contradictory mythological assertions (the whole tri-omni edifice requires logic itself to be thrown into the bin, which is a sure sign that said edifice is in serious need of revision), and the second is that a consilient framework of natural laws, far from providing support for the magic man assertion, renders it superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

But what is the provenance of these natural laws? Why should Nature conform to a rationally intelligible framework?

As for the second, one of the key points physicists have learned about the nature of universes is this: in order for any universe-type entity to possess any recognisable structure at all, even at the level of subatomic particles, then a consillient framework of natural laws needs to be in place underpinning that structure. There has to exist a consistent set of entities, and a consistent set of interactions between those entities, in order for recognisable structure to be present. This is true not only for universes in which organisms such as ourselves are physically permitted to exist (regardless of whether the requisite physically permitted interactions bringing those organisms into existence actually happen, which is a separate issue), but for universes in which organisms such as ourselves are physically impossible. In short, the existence of a set of natural laws places no guarantees on actual historical outcomes, especially if a large range of interactions are permitted, and the first interactions taking place in that history are sensitive to initial conditions.

Again, what is the provenance of this consillient framework of natural laws that make things so ordered and structured?
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#168  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 15, 2017 12:28 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Of course, a major part of the problem with the magic man assertion, apart from the nontrivial problem of absence of proper supporting evidence, centres upon two nasty holes in the entire edifice. The first is the existence of mutually contradictory mythological assertions (the whole tri-omni edifice requires logic itself to be thrown into the bin, which is a sure sign that said edifice is in serious need of revision), and the second is that a consilient framework of natural laws, far from providing support for the magic man assertion, renders it superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

But what is the provenance of these natural laws? Why should Nature conform to a rationally intelligible framework?

You're question begging again.

Wortfish wrote:
As for the second, one of the key points physicists have learned about the nature of universes is this: in order for any universe-type entity to possess any recognisable structure at all, even at the level of subatomic particles, then a consillient framework of natural laws needs to be in place underpinning that structure. There has to exist a consistent set of entities, and a consistent set of interactions between those entities, in order for recognisable structure to be present. This is true not only for universes in which organisms such as ourselves are physically permitted to exist (regardless of whether the requisite physically permitted interactions bringing those organisms into existence actually happen, which is a separate issue), but for universes in which organisms such as ourselves are physically impossible. In short, the existence of a set of natural laws places no guarantees on actual historical outcomes, especially if a large range of interactions are permitted, and the first interactions taking place in that history are sensitive to initial conditions.

Again, what is the provenance of this consillient framework of natural laws that make things so ordered and structured?

Again, why ought there be a why?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27122
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#169  Postby proudfootz » Aug 15, 2017 1:18 pm

I think one of the animistic atavisms is that when we use the word 'law' to describe regularities found in the natural world, it immediately suggests to some that it is like a human law handed down from some authority figure.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 9999

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#170  Postby Shrunk » Aug 15, 2017 2:07 pm

proudfootz wrote:I think one of the animistic atavisms is that when we use the word 'law' to describe regularities found in the natural world, it immediately suggests to some that it is like a human law handed down from some authority figure.


Just a little bit of thought would reveal that, if you hold a rock in the air and let go of it, the law of gravity means it will fall. It's not that, if it stays suspended in the air, it will be fined or put in jail.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 25965
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#171  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 15, 2017 2:34 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Of course, a major part of the problem with the magic man assertion, apart from the nontrivial problem of absence of proper supporting evidence, centres upon two nasty holes in the entire edifice. The first is the existence of mutually contradictory mythological assertions (the whole tri-omni edifice requires logic itself to be thrown into the bin, which is a sure sign that said edifice is in serious need of revision), and the second is that a consilient framework of natural laws, far from providing support for the magic man assertion, renders it superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.


But what is the provenance of these natural laws? Why should Nature conform to a rationally intelligible framework?


In case you hadn't noticed, I answered the second question above in the next paragraph, the very paragraph you've quoted below.

Wortfish wrote:
As for the second, one of the key points physicists have learned about the nature of universes is this: in order for any universe-type entity to possess any recognisable structure at all, even at the level of subatomic particles, then a consillient framework of natural laws needs to be in place underpinning that structure. There has to exist a consistent set of entities, and a consistent set of interactions between those entities, in order for recognisable structure to be present. This is true not only for universes in which organisms such as ourselves are physically permitted to exist (regardless of whether the requisite physically permitted interactions bringing those organisms into existence actually happen, which is a separate issue), but for universes in which organisms such as ourselves are physically impossible. In short, the existence of a set of natural laws places no guarantees on actual historical outcomes, especially if a large range of interactions are permitted, and the first interactions taking place in that history are sensitive to initial conditions.


Again, what is the provenance of this consillient framework of natural laws that make things so ordered and structured?


At bottom, the answer, unsatisfactory as it is likely to be for our curiosity, is that the existence of any particular foundational system of interactions (upon which other layers therof are built) is a brute fact. Those who wish to try and insert a magic entity into the picture, merely displace the brute factual nature thereof from that system of interactions, to their magic entity. Why introduce a superfluous entity into the picture? In short, a foundational system of interactions, by definition, does not have a "provenance", in the sense of being derived from something else. Lamentable this may be from a self-regarding perspective, but there is no stricture in place in physics, to the effect that any foundational system of interactions must either possess the capacity for sentient thought, or a particular set of thoughts with regard to a small subset of its products. The conceit inherent in thinking that some sort of concern for us is an intrinsic part of the fabric of the universe, is merely our projection of our own concern for ourselves upon our surroundings, and like many such projections, suffers from being potentially extremely misleading if taken beyond tightly prescribed limits.

To provide an example, gravity doesn't care if you end up as a shattered mess on the rocks below, if you are foolish enough to walk off the edge of a cliff. If you provide gravity with the opportunity to propel you in that direction, gravity will do so with no regard to your concerns.

Plus, there is a certain absurdity inherent, in postulating the purported necessity for an entity to be responsible for a foundational system of interactions, when that entity is hundreds of orders of magnitude more complicated than the foundational system of interactions itself. Which immediately leads inexorably to the question of what foundational system of interactions underpins that entity. Because without one, said entity cannot exist, let alone operate.

proudfootz wrote:I think one of the animistic atavisms is that when we use the word 'law' to describe regularities found in the natural world, it immediately suggests to some that it is like a human law handed down from some authority figure.


Which is why I moved on to terms such as "consistent systems of interaction".

The use of the word "law", as a shorthand for "universally applicable rules of interaction", arises in a manner that is both natural and unfortunate in such discourse. Natural, because it allows us to draw analogies with laws we enact to govern behaviour, and unfortunate, because it allows those analogies to be pushed beyond their proper remit, as frequently happens when supernaturalists latch onto a term.

In a somewhat curious manner, the abstract world of pure mathematics is instructive here. For a long time, humans thought that numbers were foundational entities within that world. We now know different. Sets are much more foundational than numbers, and indeed, it is possible to construct numbers as derivative entities, using a combination of set theory and quantificational logic. Willard Van Ormand Quine provides that explicit construction in his textbook Methods Of Logic, and devotes an entire chapter thereto from page 231 onwards, in my electronic copy of that work. Given the deeply technical nature of that work, I don't recommend direct examination of that chapter without a lot of preparatory work beforehand, but the principle embodied therein stands: sometimes, entities and interactions we are tempted to regard as foundational, turn out themselves to be derivative. Physicists themselves discovered this empirically, when a proper understanding of the atomic nucleus required protons and neutrons to be composite entities, for which independent scattering evidence existed even before the launch of quantum chromodynamics.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21029
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#172  Postby Sendraks » Aug 15, 2017 3:28 pm

Wortfish wrote: Why should Nature conform to a rationally intelligible framework?


1. Homo sapiens sapiens are pattern seeking organisms. We go around seeing patterns and creating frameworks and then, despite being the creators of such things, reach fault conclusions that what we perceive must has been created.
2. Do you assume that any other intelligent lifeform would devise the same "rationally intelligible frameworks" as we have?
3. Would our frameworks even appear "rationally intelligible" to other sentient lifeforms?
4. It is NOT rationally inteligible to assume that nature "conforms" to our frameworks.
5. What is rationally intelligble is that we have developed frameworks which conform to nature.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13628
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#173  Postby Wortfish » Aug 15, 2017 4:49 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, why ought there be a why?

Because the universe need not have natural laws permitting it to be ordered, life-conducive and rationally intelligible. Everything could be chaos and unpredictable disorder. That's a major problem for those of a non-theistic persuasion.
Last edited by Wortfish on Aug 15, 2017 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#174  Postby Sendraks » Aug 15, 2017 4:51 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Because the universe need not have natural laws permitting it to be ordered and rationally intelligible. That's a major problem for those of a non-theistic persuasion.


Why are your assumptions that you HAVE to be able to understand the universe in an ordered and rationally intelligible way, a problem for atheists?

This sounds very much like a YOU problem.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13628
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#175  Postby Wortfish » Aug 15, 2017 4:56 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Why are your assumptions that you HAVE to be able to understand the universe in an ordered and rationally intelligible way, a problem for atheists? This sounds very much like a YOU problem.

The theist has a simple explanation for what we observe in Nature: a rational and intelligent creator. The atheist or non-theist, on the other hand, has to explain this in terms of natural processes that obey natural laws that provide the framework for the order we see. So, it is a very difficult task indeed.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#176  Postby Sendraks » Aug 15, 2017 5:42 pm

Wortfish wrote:
The theist has a simple explanation for what we observe in Nature: a rational and intelligent creator.


Your flaw here is in assuming a rational and intelligent creator is a "simple" explanation. It isn't. A simple explanation does not raise more questions than it provides answers and also, has some explanatory power. An intelligent creator is also not an explanation, as it lacks any explanatory power.

Wortfish wrote:The atheist or non-theist, on the other hand, has to explain this in terms of natural processes that obey natural laws that provide the framework for the order we see. So, it is a very difficult task indeed.


No, you're getting things assbackwards again.

1. A long time ago, when humans were ignorant fucks, we didn't understand the world around us so we created deities as a short cut for "explaining away" that which was not rationally intelligible to us. Deities didn't actually "explain" anything, because saying "goddidit" explains nothing and lacks predictive power.

2. Time passes, humans being intelligent curious creatures, are able to come up with rational intelligible explanations for the world around us.

3. Sadly theists, in attempt to remain relevant, have tried to co-opt science by asserting that things are "rational and intelligible" because "goddidit" because, actually, the rational and intelligible stuff still doesn't make sense to them and they haven't yet grasped that "godididit" affords bugger all in the way of an explanation for anything.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13628
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#177  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 15, 2017 5:45 pm

double post
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Aug 15, 2017 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27122
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#178  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 15, 2017 5:47 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Why are your assumptions that you HAVE to be able to understand the universe in an ordered and rationally intelligible way, a problem for atheists? This sounds very much like a YOU problem.

The theist has a simple explanation

False.
Goddidit, does not actually explain anything.

Wortfish wrote: for what we observe in Nature: a rational and intelligent creator.

And yet they fail to present a sound argument for this claim, let alone present evidence.


Wortfish wrote: The atheist or non-theist, on the other hand, has to explain

Atheists don't have to explain anything.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, which are the theists of various denominations and cults.

Wortfish wrote:So, it is a very difficult task indeed.

It is both a straw-man and a dishonest, but transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27122
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#179  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 15, 2017 8:45 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, why ought there be a why?


Because the universe need not have natural laws permitting it to be ordered, life-conducive and rationally intelligible. Everything could be chaos and unpredictable disorder. That's a major problem for those of a non-theistic persuasion.


No it isn't a problem for those of us who paid attention in science classes, as I expounded in detail above. Not least because there exist possibilities for an ordered universe whose underlying physics doesn't permit the emergence of organisms like us, as I stated earlier. With the appropriate physics, there could exist a universe in which the only stable atoms are hydrogen atoms. Or one in which stable atoms themselves don't form, and the only particles extant therein are uncombined subatomic particles. It's not as if physicists haven't investigated alternatives to the physics extant in our observable universe, and indeed, I've presented scientific papers covering relevant research into alternatives in other threads in the past.

Plus, anyone who has spent time studying quantum physics, is well aware of the fun and games arising from indeterminism. Except that, oops, the requisite physics also happens to be capable of predicting behaviours quantitatively, to 15 decimal places of accuracy. A feature that is manifestly lacking from mythology and its assertions.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21029
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#180  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 15, 2017 8:50 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Sendraks wrote:Why are your assumptions that you HAVE to be able to understand the universe in an ordered and rationally intelligible way, a problem for atheists? This sounds very much like a YOU problem.


The theist has a simple explanation for what we observe in Nature: a rational and intelligent creator.


This isn't an "explanation", it's an unsupported assertion. One replete with its own problems, as has been covered in detail throughout this thread.

Wortfish wrote:The atheist or non-theist, on the other hand, has to explain this in terms of natural processes that obey natural laws that provide the framework for the order we see.


Oh, you mean rules of interaction between entities for which we have vast mountains of empirical evidence? Unlike mythological magic entities?

Wortfish wrote:So, it is a very difficult task indeed.


The world's empirical scientists are laughing at your above assertion. Not least because they've been able, via recourse to testable natural processes, to place vast classes of entities and phenomena within precise, usefully predictive quantitative frameworks. Those vast classes of entities and phenomena were beyond the remit of the authors of mythology even to fantasise about. You might want to factor this into your deliberations.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21029
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests