Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 166 of 297 (417933)
08-25-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Rob
08-25-2007 11:52 AM


Topic Rob
Get back on topic Rob. Thanks.
Edited by AdminNosy, : fixed author

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 167 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 12:03 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 167 of 297 (417934)
08-25-2007 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by AdminNosy
08-25-2007 12:02 PM


Re: Topic Rob
never left the topic Ned...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by AdminNosy, posted 08-25-2007 12:02 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 168 of 297 (417935)
08-25-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
08-25-2007 11:59 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
jar:
Wind, weather, sunlight, gravity, chemical bonding
Which are in turn governed by the physical laws to which I am referring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 11:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 12:11 PM Rob has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 169 of 297 (417936)
08-25-2007 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rob
08-23-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Rob
Rob writes:
Can you provide an example of an evolutionary fact, that falls into this catagory of testable?
I sure can. Antibiotic resistance, wherein bacteria manage to adapt to the assault of antibiotics such as penicillin and others is a serious problem faced by humans worldwide.It is through testing that scientists are able to engage in an ongoing "arms race" with these creatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 9:10 PM Rob has not replied

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


Message 170 of 297 (417937)
08-25-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rob
08-25-2007 11:57 AM


Re: Still misrepresenting folk I see.
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.
Sorry but you are still simply trying to misdirect the audiences attention while you palm the pea.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution which is what Omni was discussing.
As I pointed out in Message 159, the very message you are replying to:
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.
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.
Misrepresenting me yet again, eh Rob?
No, my intent is to point out the Truth, to make it clear when others are misrepresented and to explain clearly to the audience exactly how the palming of the pea happened.
I'm just not biting any longer.
That is fine, you are not required to respond to any posts. One of the great things about a forum like EvC is that we each get to try to provide the best support for our positions, and the audience can see and read, decide for themselves which positions are supported and which have not been.
In this case, in case you have forgotten, the topic is "God caused or uncaused?" and we still await some support for your position on that question.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:57 AM Rob has not replied

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


Message 171 of 297 (417938)
08-25-2007 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rob
08-25-2007 12:07 PM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Which are in turn governed by the physical laws to which I am referring.
Which have not been shown to be the result of intelligence.
The topic, by the way Rob, in case you have forgotten is "God caused or uncaused?"
We are still waiting for you to support your position on that question.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 12:07 PM Rob has not replied

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


Message 172 of 297 (417940)
08-25-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Rob
08-25-2007 11:59 AM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Rob,
Yes.
Excellent, please present your evidence that there is a god, then we can ask whether it was caused, or not.
just remember that that evidence is reached by reasoning and inference.
No, evidence is reached by observation, conclusions are reached by inference.
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 165 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 11:59 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 12:53 PM mark24 has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 173 of 297 (417945)
08-25-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by mark24
08-25-2007 12:28 PM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
mark24:
No, evidence is reached by observation, conclusions are reached by inference.
Both are required mark. We cannot observe without an inference to observation being meaningful. You can call it a conclusion, but it is really an assumtpion. And it underpins the entrie scientific enterprise.
mark24:
Excellent, please present your evidence that there is a god, then we can ask whether it was caused, or not.
The elegant mathematical physical laws that are emperically shown to arise from intelligence (ourselves). The resulting universe of approximately 100 billion galaxies each with approximately 100 billion stars and their associated celestial bodies operating on those laws.
The quaternary code of DNA found in all life forms that is also shown to arise form intelligence (ourselves... in the form of binary computer operating software).
Logic itself is shown emperically to arise from intellignece. Therefore the presence of it in nature shows us from all of the available evidence that it is caused by intelligence.
If there is an alternative theory, it does not cohere with the evidence and is therefore not evidential.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 12:28 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 1:37 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 176 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 3:19 PM Rob has replied

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


Message 174 of 297 (417947)
08-25-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rob
08-25-2007 12:53 PM


More False assertions
The elegant mathematical physical laws that are emperically shown to arise from intelligence (ourselves). The resulting universe of approximately 100 billion galaxies each with approximately 100 billion stars and their associated celestial bodies operating on those laws.
Sorry, but mathematical laws are not physical laws, and the laws you speak of are not what governs anything. The laws you speak of are just human attempts to explain what happens naturally. It is not some human created or intelligence created law, (or at least you have never provided any supporting evidence for such a position), that governs what we see in this universe. What we see in the universe would be there even if humans had never postulated any mathematical or physical laws, existed before any such laws were described and will likely exist long after the last human (as we know humans of today) has evolved into something else or gone extinct.
Also, in case you missed it, the topic of the thread is "God caused or uncaused?" Do you ever plan to offer anything to support your position on that question?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 12:53 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 175 of 297 (417949)
08-25-2007 3:00 PM


jar hits the nail on the head
jar:
What we see in the universe would be there even if humans had never postulated any mathematical or physical laws.
...Also, in case you missed it, the topic of the thread is "God caused or uncaused?"
It just so happens that our postulations actually reflect reality. Otherwise they would not be actual scientific empericism.
I post jar's observations not in response to jar, but for all of you. According to jar, it appears that reality simply is. It is uncaused. And it was there before we observed it as I said in post 155.
Or as Jesus said, 'before Abraham was; I AM'.
I think a repost of the entirety of post 155 needs to be made. A lot of people are missing what was said. Some don't have the intuitive capacity to comprehend it. there is nothing that can be done for them... For the rest of you like mark, who actually can ask intelligent questions and engage without logically fallacious complex questions I provide it now:
[quote]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.[/quote]

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


Message 176 of 297 (417950)
08-25-2007 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rob
08-25-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Rob,
All you have done is present some scientific facts, where's the evidence of god?
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 173 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 12:53 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 3:37 PM mark24 has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 177 of 297 (417954)
08-25-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by mark24
08-25-2007 3:19 PM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
All you have done is present some scientific facts, where's the evidence of god?
The existence of logic itself that matches our constructs to create total coherence. The emperical world itself!
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
The physical world proves our logical constructs valid. That is what started science. From Copernicus to Newton, 'God said it, it must be so. Let's prove it'...
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
No logically solid physical laws governing physics, and even physicality cannot hold together.
Ask a physicist what would happen if the physical laws changed. They do not change.
Reality is absolute, logical, and uncaused. And the defintion of God is 'reality'. Reality does cause the physical world, though it is itself uncaused and unchanging.
Malachi 3:6 "I the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
Think about it...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 3:19 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 5:54 PM Rob has replied
 Message 180 by mark24, posted 08-25-2007 6:18 PM Rob has replied

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


Message 178 of 297 (417973)
08-25-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rob
08-25-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Rob says:
Reality is absolute, logical, and uncaused. And the defintion of God is 'reality'. But it does cause the physical world.
Sorry but definitions are not the reality, but just a history of how humans have used a word. The definition can be an accurate representation of reality or totally unrelated. Finding that at sometime in the past, people have used the word God to represent reality offers no support for anything other than the fact that people have used the word that way.
In addition, a definition does not cause reality. To so assert is simply to present another fallacy.
It does not provide any support for the assertion that God equals reality and in particular, does not provide any support for a Christian or Biblical God.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 3:37 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 6:05 PM jar has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 179 of 297 (417976)
08-25-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
08-25-2007 5:54 PM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Reality is absolute, logical, and uncaused. And the defintion of God is 'reality'. But it does cause the physical world.
is now...
Reality is absolute, logical, and uncaused. And the defintion of God is 'reality'. Reality does cause the physical world, though it is itself uncaused and unchanging.
Sentance restructured in message 177, to show original intent without the possibility of misinterpretation.
Or I could accuse you of misrepresentation...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 5:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 08-25-2007 6:29 PM Rob has replied

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


Message 180 of 297 (417980)
08-25-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rob
08-25-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused
Rob,
The existence of logic itself that matches our constructs to create total coherence. The emperical world itself!
Nope, it could have come about naturally.
The existence of "reality" is the thing we are trying to explain, its existence alone tells us nothing about how it came to be. If it tells us nothing then it can't be considered evidence of anything.
Again I ask, where is this evidence of god?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 3:37 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 6:32 PM mark24 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