Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 33 of 301 (282706)
01-30-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
01-30-2006 5:38 PM


Hi, Faith. Sorry I couldn't return to the discussion sooner. At some future point I'd like to continue discussing brain/mind issues, but for now I'd like to go with the flow in this 2nd part thread.
The issue at hand IS that it logically follows from the ToE that either there is no God or God is evil because He created a world full of death and destruction, which you have just affirmed by your example of the fossil record -- which is regarded as major evidence for the ToE after all.
Those are not the only two possibilities. Another possibility is a Creator who is not omnipotent--a God who can create the universe but not dictate every detail of its unfolding. An omniscient God might see that the game is worth the candle but be unable to prevent the burns along the way.
Is it bad form to link to my own messages? Oh well. Here's what I said to mike the wiz on the subject earlier today.
Indeed, many early religions distinguished between the creating god/gods and the "operating" gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 5:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:42 PM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 48 of 301 (282726)
01-30-2006 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
01-30-2006 8:42 PM


Re: atheism / any God but Biblical God
OK, I'll accept that. It's just a matter of modifying the OP list again. So what logically follows from the ToE is 1) No God 2) An evil God, or 3) an Impotent God. Or maybe it should be summed up:
Either no God or any God but the omniscient omnipotent God of Love of the Bible.
Well, part of my point, Faith, was that if we have free will, then the unfolding of the universe is not omnipotently ordered.
We can only posit an Evil God (in the context of this logical construct) if that God is omnipotent and thus could have ordered the universe so that pain and suffering were unnecessary.
But if we turn that logic on the Biblical God, then we have to ask: is there pain and suffering in the world because the Biblical God is evil? Because the Biblical God is not omnipotent? Because the Biblical God has voluntarily sacrificed/restrained omnipotence for a free Creation?
It gets complicated well beyond an either-or.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 10:46 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 95 of 301 (282832)
01-31-2006 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by AdminWounded
01-31-2006 8:17 AM


Re: Lit-crit
The rhyming and scansion on that last couplet are dubious.
I believe the term of art is "post-Fall couplet"--half-rhymes and extra feet.
*shudders*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AdminWounded, posted 01-31-2006 8:17 AM AdminWounded has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 9:56 AM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 112 of 301 (282871)
01-31-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
01-31-2006 9:56 AM


Re: Lit-crit
Ah, yes, like the single, deliberately thrown stitch in the otherwise perfect Persian carpet...
Works for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 9:56 AM Faith has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 152 of 301 (283004)
01-31-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Jazzns
01-31-2006 9:30 PM


Re: Welcome
What Jazzns said.
iamaelephant, your post was entirely appropriate; I disagree strongly with iano about that (and much else!). Faith can take care of herself just fine.
So, yes: Welcome.
Lay on, McIamaelephant. Lurk no more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2006 9:30 PM Jazzns has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 155 of 301 (283012)
01-31-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by iamaelephant
01-31-2006 9:38 PM


Re: Welcome
iamaelephant writes:
Thanks mate, I appreciate the support Of course, the last thing I want to do is make enemies on this forum, so if I'm stepping on anyone's toes I do appreciate it when someone pulls me up on it.
You can't make an enemy of iano--he's a Christian!
He was just being gallant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by iamaelephant, posted 01-31-2006 9:38 PM iamaelephant has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 159 of 301 (283022)
01-31-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
01-31-2006 10:38 PM


Re: Welcome to the chorus
Faith, no offense, but do you...drink?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 01-31-2006 10:38 PM Faith has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 239 of 301 (283904)
02-04-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
02-04-2006 1:25 PM


Re: on Belief
The turkey welcomes the farmer who comes to feed him every day for 364 days. Then, one day in November...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 1:30 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 255 of 301 (284026)
02-04-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
02-04-2006 7:54 PM


Re: on Belief
Beliefs, thoughts, mind, sense of self, all are just part of this automaton that is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical entity that came about by the purely physical processes of evolution. These patterns were selected by physical processes to enhance survival. That makes all the thought processes "automatic" in a sense, or preprogrammed in a sense, rather than intended. Without intention any correspondence they may have with actual fact or truth is purely accidental. I think.
How could a process that only accidentally yielded correspondences with truth enhance survival? Survival is enchanced by accuracy, and evolution has produced processes which maximize the probability of accurate thoughts. The brains that produced inaccurate thoughts suffered the consequences and produced fewer to no descendants. Evolution produced the engine of thought, not the thoughts themselves.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-04-2006 08:30 PM

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 7:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 8:35 PM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 259 of 301 (284045)
02-04-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
02-04-2006 8:35 PM


Re: on Belief
but surely evolution selected according to the accuracy of the thoughts -- not the engine, but the thoughts, since it is the thoughts that make the difference. In any case, even if they are accurate, they are still "accidental" in the sense that there is no *I* thinking them, they are merely automatically produced.
Sure, evolution would select according to the thoughts, but the quality of thought depends on the quality of the engine: bad engine, bad thoughts; good engine, good thoughts.
The thoughts are produced via interaction between the environment, the engine, and the engine's past experiences; the engine must be able to see itself in possible consequent scenarios. These interactions ultimately produce the I, the unique perspective of that engine with that history having that particular interaction.
The process is responsive, but I see no reason to describe it as automatic. The ability to imagine multiple possible scenarios, and the ability of the thought engine to be aware of itself and its capabilities/outcomes in those scenarios, would both be an immediate advantage: the ability to see what might happen. Once that evolves, another layer of reflection and accuracy-testing kicks in: how accurately are the scenarios imagined? How accurately are others' responses predicted?
To me, the metaphor of critical mass would be useful; consider increasing numbers of neural connections rather than colliding particles. Once a threshold of accurate reflection is crossed, one can not only consider multiple scenarios in which one is a player but also inquire of others about other possible scenarios--not only experience but the experiences of others become grist.
Further, one can learn algorithms (like formal tests for validity and soundness) that promote accuracy: I tend to underestimate the duplicity of others, so if I memorize a little saying about that ("Everyone's queer but me and thee/and I'm not sure of thee"), and invoke it despite my tendency to ignore the issue, I'll do better.
As a sufficient mass of fissile material erupts into a thermonuclear explosion, a sufficient mass of self-awareness/imagination/self-reflection, memory, etc., creates a consciousness that can study it's own engine and say,
"Where did all this come from? Am I real? Am I a ghost in the machine or the illusion of a ghost in the machine?"
Once you can ask those questions, if not before, you are more than an automatic responder.
Complexity builds on complexity, and at some threshold the difference becomes qualitative, not just quantitative.
That's an abstraction of how I envision a more-than-automatic consciousness arising, and I don't intend it as a proof.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-04-2006 09:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 8:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 9:39 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 278 of 301 (284365)
02-06-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
02-04-2006 11:03 PM


Good morning and thanks
Just wanted to say good morning, and thanks for the verse, Faith. I enjoyed the poem.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 11:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 02-06-2006 10:40 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024