Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 10:35 PM
120 online now:
14174dm, dwise1, edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Tanypteryx (6 members, 114 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,579 Year: 10,185/21,208 Month: 3,272/2,674 Week: 688/961 Day: 150/151 Hour: 1/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Is A Materialist View Less Parsimonious?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4549
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 42 (789022)
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Obviously I can appreciate that, "supernature" is assumed, and has to be taken by faith, as it is implied by the natural creation. I admit that by faith we believe in God.

However the materialistic creation story of atheism, obviously doesn't need to assume a supernatural realm which might make it more parsimonious in that regard which I would concede. However, how many more assumptions/entities/variables, must be assumed in order to accept materialism?

For example, if we believe that the specified complexity, contingency planning, correct materials, in organisms, and so forth, are designed by a designer as is usually the case, into an induction of hundreds of millions of examples and no examples of random design without a designer, then obviously we don't need to assume that millions of transitional species once existed as part of our argument.

What am I saying? I am saying for one part of the materialistic explanation (life's diversity), we would have to invoke millions of transitionals but if an animal kind was created then as creationists we don't have to assume millions of ancestors, so there are far more assumptions to that one part of the story.

But what about the rest of the story? Obviously within the universe there are separate explanations for different things, but nevertheless this is all part of the same story that the universe created itself and then created everything in itself.

So then there are also many more assumptions for abiogenesis, such as a fictional primordial form of life, a common ancestor to all life, and abiogenesis itself must be assumed it seems, with a fictional primordial reduced atmosphere. But with creation, obviously all life is created by design, so again, less assumptions and we can just accept the real fact of an earth-planet without having to argue it used to not be like earth.

Then we have to consider the planets and stars and galaxies. If creation is true, God made the galaxies according to their factual nature, which is a completed state, and the factual nature of the planets is a completed state, but a materialistic explanation means we have to believe that once the earth was a primordial blob, and we have to believe accretion, that the planets made themselves and the stars and galaxies made themselves even though they are all now completed, according to the facts, like animals are completed, without transitionals, according to the facts.

So the picture I am painting is that the materialistic explanation seems to depend on two things;

1. Many, many more assumptions and separate explanations for different things within the universe.
2. The belief that nature and the reality of the universe has drastically changed, but just happens to never show any point of change unless you again make yet another assumption that the present state is also a state of change. (begging-the-question)

It seems that with a creation, all you have to do is go with the true facts of intelligibility and design in the universe, and accept the creation for what it clearly is. We don't need to pretend that a tornado in a junkyard can assemble a 747 jet, nor do we need to assume hundreds of thousands of transitional creatures, etc...we can explain the facts of design, by the simple and obvious truth that design is caused by a designer, which fits will all of the evidence. Each separate thing in the universe, being neatly explained by God's omniscient designer capabilities. This would certainly fit logically, given the field of biomimetics has us stealing those designs on a constant basis, because they are superior in their cleverness, than anything we can create.

An example of that is the aggregate eyeball, the design MATCHES the physics, showing that a neat explanation is that the designer of the eyeball also designed physics. The designer needed to know and understand Abbe's sine's law, the laws of bifringement in crystals, etc... I am rusty on that but another example is the archer fish, the designer has to know that a jet of water leaving water would create a parabolic trajectory. Again God has to know His own laws of physics, and has to give the fish the software to compensate for the change of the angle, it also has to have the ability of the use of kinematic gathering, so the correct force of water hits it's prey, again in accordance with the laws of physics. It makes sense therefore, that the designer both knew and created both the physics, as well as the fish, given He made it to obey those physics, and the fish is riddled with specified complexity, etc..neatly explaining both the fish and the phishics, without depending on a separate explanation for each like with materialism.

CONCLUSION: While we accept faith in God is not provable, the explanation that the universe is created by an intelligent agent, as an argument, seems much more parsimonious at the very least. I fail to see why anyone would pretend otherwise unless they simply didn't want to acknowledge that fact because they know it heavily favours theism.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2016 2:54 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 08-09-2016 3:20 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-09-2016 3:47 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 9 by jar, posted 08-09-2016 5:05 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-09-2016 5:11 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Pressie, posted 08-10-2016 7:56 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Pressie, posted 08-10-2016 8:16 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Parasomnium, posted 08-10-2016 5:25 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1785
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 42 (789024)
08-09-2016 2:39 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Is A Materialist View Less Parsimonious? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12572
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 3 of 42 (789025)
08-09-2016 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Let's start with this claim

quote:

What am I saying? I am saying for one part of the materialistic explanation (life's diversity), we would have to invoke millions of transitionals but if an animal kind was created then as creationists we don't have to assume millions of ancestors, so there are far more assumptions to that one part of the story.

Let's apply similar reasoning to ordinary human descent over the last 6000 years or so to avoid any argument over how long humans have been around. If you trace back your ancestry then eventually you will run out of records. Is it really more parsimonious to assume that the oldest ancestors you can trace were miraculously created rather than having parents of their own who themselves have parents tracing back over the entire period we are considering ?

I can't think so, nor do I think that the number of ancestors that have to be assumed makes much difference. Any number of ordinary human ancestors would - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - be more parsimonious than a single miraculous creation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2016 7:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2859
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


(4)
Message 4 of 42 (789028)
08-09-2016 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


I do not think itta means...
mike the wiz writes:

Obviously I can appreciate that, "supernature" is assumed, and has to be taken by faith, as it is implied by the natural creation. I admit that by faith we believe in God.

However the materialistic creation story of atheism, obviously doesn't need to assume a supernatural realm which might make it more parsimonious in that regard which I would concede.
However, how many more assumptions/entities/variables, must be assumed in order to accept materialism?

None.

Materialism doesn’t make assumptions. That’s the whole point of being a “materialist”… you only deal with what is material… what you can touch, see, sense… what you can show to be real. The entire idea of materialism is to not make any assumptions.

The rest of your post only includes assigning the word “assumption” to a materialist hypothesis which is then tested and has either been shown to be accurate (now a fact) or shown to be false (discarded).

Your belief in God may only have one assumption. But one is more than none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2016 7:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 4:30 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1350
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


(2)
Message 5 of 42 (789030)
08-09-2016 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Obviously within the universe there are separate explanations for different things, but nevertheless this is all part of the same story that the universe created itself and then created everything in itself.

Well, the silly Mike the Wiz Story anyway. You and your fellow creation myth believers are the only ones who think the Universe created itself.

However, how many more assumptions/entities/variables, must be assumed in order to accept materialism?

You are the only one making up these assumptions/entities/variables.

but a materialistic explanation means we have to believe that once the earth was a primordial blob, and we have to believe accretion, that the planets made themselves and the stars and galaxies made themselves even though they are all now completed, according to the facts,

Believe accretion? Do you even know what accretion is? Who ever says that stars and galaxies made themselves, besides you?

Even though they are now completed? What does that even mean? Stars evolve, galaxies evolve. We can look out into the Universe and see them at many different stages in their evolution. According to the facts gathered by observation.

It's too bad you have never bothered to actually study astronomy or astrophysics.

We don't need to pretend that a tornado in a junkyard can assemble a 747 jet,

Well, that's good because only an idiot would pretend that or that anyone besides creationists believe that.

Creationists DO believe that an imaginary being poofed everything into existence out of nothing.

nor do we need to assume hundreds of thousands of transitional creatures, etc...

Interestingly, neither do we. We actually have hundreds of thousands and probably more, fossils of transitional organisms, so no assumptions needed.

An example of that is the aggregate eyeball, the design MATCHES the physics, showing that a neat explanation is that the designer of the eyeball also designed physics.

I am not familiar with the aggregate eyeball but I would expect vision to evolve to function to detect the physical parameters of light.

the explanation that the universe is created by an intelligent agent, as an argument, seems much more parsimonious at the very least.

The problem is: it is not an explanation at all. The Universe is complex and a simple fantasy about an imaginary entity does not explain anything.

Science is a systematic technique to try and understand the Universe. It is the details that matter, based on observations of reality.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2016 7:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 4:32 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 6 of 42 (789032)
08-09-2016 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Stile
08-09-2016 3:20 PM


Assumptions
Stile,to MTW writes:

Your belief in God may only have one assumption. But one is more than none.

Isnt that the basic difference, though? One side claims one basic assumption: God Exists. The other side makes no such assumptions.

Dictionary.com writes:

noun
1.
something taken for granted; a supposition:
a correct assumption.
Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.
2.
the act of taking for granted or supposing.
Synonyms: presumption; presupposition.
3.
the act of taking to or upon oneself.
Synonyms: acceptance, shouldering.
4.
the act of taking possession of something:
the assumption of power.
Synonyms: seizure, appropriation, usurpation, arrogation.
5.
arrogance; presumption.
Synonyms: presumptuousness; effrontery, forwardness, gall.

It is true that believers assume. Scientists don't.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 08-09-2016 3:20 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 7 of 42 (789033)
08-09-2016 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tanypteryx
08-09-2016 3:47 PM


Mind Over Matter
Butterfly writes:

You and your fellow creation myth believers are the only ones who think the Universe created itself.


Nonsense. Matter cannot create matter.

The Universe is complex and a simple fantasy about an imaginary entity does not explain anything.
Even if we could share the belief that God exists as a fact rather than a fantasy, we still would have lots of questions. In fact I may need to call you...I have butterflies in my stomach!

Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-09-2016 3:47 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 08-09-2016 4:39 PM Phat has responded
 Message 11 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-09-2016 6:01 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 8 of 42 (789034)
08-09-2016 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
08-09-2016 4:32 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
But no one except Creationists think, say or believe such nonsense.

Have you ever seen the formula E=mc2?

If it was written as m=E/c2 what would it mean?

Do you understand equivalency?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 4:32 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 6:21 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 9 of 42 (789036)
08-09-2016 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Mike just makes shit up
MtW writes:

However the materialistic creation story of atheism, obviously doesn't need to assume a supernatural realm which might make it more parsimonious in that regard which I would concede. However, how many more assumptions/entities/variables, must be assumed in order to accept materialism?

First Mike, there is no such thing as the materialist creation story of atheism.

Second, there are almost no assumptions in the conventional theories of Old Earth or Evolution.

No really need to stop posting supposed refutations of claims no one makes; it just makes you look silly.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2016 7:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15790
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 10 of 42 (789037)
08-09-2016 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Well, we can find intermediate forms and we can observe the evolutionary processes of reproduction, variation, and selection. Adding a hypothetical God into the mix is not parsimonious, because that is adding one more thing which we don't need.

Suppose we are on the African savanna. Our guide points out footprints in the dirt and says: "These are the footprints of a lion; these of a zebra; these of a wildebeest ..."

"Wait," you say, "wouldn't it be more parsimonious to suppose that they're all the footprints of one single animal with many kinds of feet that no-one has ever seen."

No, it's not more parsimonious, because we already know that lions and zebras and wildebeest exist. You are conjecturing that we should add one more thing to our picture of the world in order to explain our observations --- one more hypothetical thing that we don't need, since we can explain things just fine in terms of known, non-hypothetical entities.

So your conjecture is exactly the sort of thing that the principle of parsimony is meant to prevent people from doing.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2016 7:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1350
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 11 of 42 (789038)
08-09-2016 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
08-09-2016 4:32 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Butterfly writes:

You and your fellow creation myth believers are the only ones who think the Universe created itself.


Nonsense. Matter cannot create matter.

What is your point? I am pointing out to the wiz that no one but him is claiming the Universe created itself. He is erroneously implying that scientists think the Universe created itself.

In fact I may need to call you...I have butterflies in my stomach!

If they are orange ones, like Monarchs, you should induce vomiting immediately because they contain toxins.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 4:32 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 12 of 42 (789041)
08-09-2016 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
08-09-2016 4:39 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Do you understand equivalency?
Not really. I googled it and didn't find an answer that I could understand. Does it refer to courses taught at various universities having a set standard or consensus as to what is taught?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 08-09-2016 4:39 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-09-2016 6:40 PM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28677
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 13 of 42 (789043)
08-09-2016 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
08-09-2016 6:21 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
No. What it means is that energy and matter are interchangeable and so matter can be created from energy or energy from matter.

Further, additional evidence seems to indicate that both are just inherent parts of space/time.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 08-09-2016 6:21 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-10-2016 7:32 AM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9447
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 14 of 42 (789050)
08-10-2016 3:39 AM


I fail to see why anyone would pretend otherwise unless they simply didn't want to acknowledge that fact because they know it heavily favours theism.

These kinds of statements are fairly commonly made by Creationists in these forum. But the form of the statement is ridiculous. Your inability to see something is very little argument that you are right.

Secondly, I think most people can count and would acknowledge the count of entities. However, Occam's razor is not sufficient to identify the correct theory, so perhaps you are wrong about what people admit or acknowledge.

Another issue is that there is an underlying assumption that science is in some way directed against religion because it generates different answers that theists propose. But is that really how scientists behave? Is there really any logical reason to assume so? Or is that simply further indication of forming an opinion without a true rational basis?

As a final point, the attempt to apply Occam's razor here is as poorly an attempt as I have ever seen. Yes, when formulating an hypothesis, you should endeavor to minimize the number of entities involved, but you should not do that by removing entities for which there is evidence. Such technique would be foolish and might lead to things like assuming that your 85 inch TV set was whisked away by magic despite evidence that somebody kicked in your door to gain entrance to your house while leaving behind several pairs of muddy footprints and fingerprints. The fact that the multiple man break-in theory requires several entities does not make it less reasonable than the magic theory.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 15 of 42 (789058)
08-10-2016 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
08-09-2016 6:40 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
so lets get hypothetical, rather than Biblical. In the beginning....there was

a) Matter
b)Energy
c)Nothing
d) Everything

One wag said it succinctly: In the beginning there was either God or Dirt.

What say you?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-09-2016 6:40 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 08-10-2016 7:58 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Pressie, posted 08-10-2016 8:00 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 20 by jar, posted 08-10-2016 9:10 AM Phat has responded
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 08-10-2016 11:52 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2016 6:48 PM Phat has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017