My Beliefs- GDR

First you need objective evidence that there is a Tom before you have any point to make about the nature of Tom and what he can do.- Oni

Mostly I don't understand what you say.The materialist keeps adding natural processes...? Isn't it true that for all past "Tom answers" that we have explained it turned out to be natural processes? Why should we expect it to be different next time?A gap requires an opening? The gap talked about in this context, as I understand it, is a gap in our knowledge. There is a gap in our knowledge about how life originated is there not? How isn't a lack of knowledge about the origin of life or of the universe a "gap"?You are using Tom as an explanation to fill that gap are you not? Are you suggesting that this isn't god of the gaps theology?What we are all saying is that the answer to questions about these two gaps is, right now, "I dunno." We are not filling the gap at all. The gap is there and we dunno the answer.We don't use the gap to support the idea (or belief if you want) that there are natural processes around us. We don't need a gap to support that idea.There is no parallel to me between these two positions; one uses a lack of knowledge to support a position the other uses existing known things to suggest a position. The second does not use a gap to support a position.

Yes. Life is thought to have emerged within about a billion years of the Earth's formation. Life has existed for over four times as long as that.I believe that the usual explanation for this apparent paradox is that the presence of pre-existing life would preclude the emergence of a second biota. The existing life would out-compete the simpler organic molecules to the point where they would not have the opportunity to undergo the complex chemistry that led to the previous emergence of life. In short, the first life gobbled up the primordial soup until there was none left for second helpings.Saying that, there's no reason why it absolutely could not have happened, in some remote ecosystem, like a cave. Scientists are always on the look out for the possibility. I hope they succeed. Seeing a completely unrelated form of life would be amazing!Mutate and Survive

I speculate how sure we can be that even the extant life that we see is only from one origin. What if (the speculation) the base components don't have a lot of latitude. In that case the common base chemistry of the bacteria and archea might be convergent evolution rather than common ancestry. I'm not giving that much credence but I don't know enough to know how sure we can be.It has also been suggested that we haven't found a few pockets of another family tree (I doubt that more than pockets could be left) because they are so different we don't recognize them or we aren't looking with the right PoV. There is, iirc, some research exploring this thought not because it is given a high probability but because the payoff would be huge.

I'm sorry but I just didn't have more time for this today, but I was glancing through the news in the NY Times and came across this article.
The Core of Mind and CosmosHere is the first couple of paragraphs. The author of the book is a non-theist by the way.

quote:

---

The scientific revolution of the 17th century, which has given rise to such extraordinary progress in the understanding of nature, depended on a crucial limiting step at the start: It depended on subtracting from the physical world as an object of study everything mental — consciousness, meaning, intention or purpose. The physical sciences as they have developed since then describe, with the aid of mathematics, the elements of which the material universe is composed, and the laws governing their behavior in space and time.

​

We ourselves, as physical organisms, are part of that universe, composed of the same basic elements as everything else, and recent advances in molecular biology have greatly increased our understanding of the physical and chemical basis of life. Since our mental lives evidently depend on our existence as physical organisms, especially on the functioning of our central nervous systems, it seems natural to think that the physical sciences can in principle provide the basis for an explanation of the mental aspects of reality as well that physics can aspire finally to be a theory of everything.

​

However, I believe this possibility is ruled out by the conditions that have defined the physical sciences from the beginning. The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order — our structure and behavior in space and time — but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience — how it is from the point of view of its subject without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.

---

If it is alright I would like to reboot and put my views in one post as much of what I’m responding to are essentially the same issues anyway.Part of the issue from my perspective is that you guys take materialistic theories and call it science. Just because it is possible that one day science may actually confirm these theories, does not make them scientific at this point. Possibly one day science will confirm the existence of Tom. Who knows where science will go in the future.We can observe evolution in action through natural selection. I am no biologist but from what I have read the DNA record shows pretty conclusively that evolution is a fact. Fromm what I have read it appears that evolution likely didn’t need tweaking although that is not conclusive, however theisticly speaking it doesn’t make any difference on way or the other.The other big issue seems to be the definition of evidence. I think that a better way of dealing with this is that I should start using the term evidence to only mean something that we can empirically be pretty certain about. I’ll try and remember to use terms such suggestive of for things that we can’t empirically know. I think that it is reasonable that you would say that all we have been able to discover are natural processes and that is suggestive of the idea that there is nothing but natural processes involved in our existence. I would on the other hand say that the complexity of a cell, consciousness or morality is suggestive that there is an intelligent root or plan to life and that Tom, [a generic intelligent planner(s)], exists. Something that is suggestive is an unproven belief or something that is believed subjectively. Straggler would say that not all beliefs are equally valid but that again is subjective as in the example I have used both sides claim that their beliefs are more valid that the other.I’ll just go through all of the posts that I haven’t answered yet and work with specific questions. I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually think that way. If there is a plan then there is an ultimate meaning to our existence. If there is no plan then ultimately all will be gone with no memory of what once was. If there is a plan then we have to think about what part we play in that plan but if there is no plan then ultimately it doesn’t matter what we do.I agree that there is no objective evidence that an intelligence exists but i do believe that there is a great deal that is suggestive that Tom exists. If my wife prepares a great meal for me it is suggestive but not conclusive that she loves me. I believe it without proof as there is enough to suggest that to be the case. Exactly. There is a great deal that is true that science can’t prove. I think that this a case that we don’t have evidence of certain things but we have that which is suggestive such as the things I mentioned earlier in this post such as consciousness and morality.I believe that the apple falls from the tree naturally because everything we know is suggestive that that is the case. Sure. Religions are human institutions made up of people with at least similar views about the nature of Tom. The fact that the Golden Rule is so universally accepted, even though not all that often practiced, is suggestive that it forms the basis for a universal truth whether or not life exists in this universe. Actually I don’t care about going back to the BB. It doesn’t really matter to me whether or not Tom is responsible for the BB. My point is that he is responsible for life and how it arose and that is the first cause I was referring to. I agree that we can study evolution just as well in a naturalistic universe as a divinely created one. Scientifically we can’t tell the difference anyway. In a naturalistic world everything has a cause, whether it is natural selection or an apple falling from a tree. If organic life came into existence as it was caused by the right combination and the right chemicals and the right environment then there needed to be a cause for those for the chemicals being there and for the right environment, which then needed a cause and so on. I don’t know how far you want to go back but ultimately there has to be a first cause and I don’t see how you can have a first cause that is naturalistic as there would have to be nothing causing it. Remember in a totally natural world everything has a cause.

No one here has done that. Can you give an example? All we are referencing is objective evidence and the scietific method vs your own personal subjective interpretation of the facts.In fact, the only one that keeps bringing up materialism is YOU. And also the fact that there is no objective evidence for an intelligent agent (ie. Tom) at all.The reason you believe complexity suggests there is a Tom is because you already arrive at the issue of complexity believing Tom exists. So everything after that you try to say it is proof of Tom, and you commit your favorate fallacy of putting the cart before the horse. A fallacy that should suggest to you that perhaps you've approached the issue in the wrong manner. Sure, but since there is no evidence for a planner, it follows that there is no evidence of any plan. This new word you want to use "suggestive" is just another way of presenting an argument from incredulity.Volcanoes used to suggest that gods were angry. Do they still suggest that? Sure, but then again she does exist, she is your wife already, love exists, and there is nothing that requires you to believe something without proof of it. In other words, she's real. Love is a real feeling (aside from getting into the chemical aspect of it).So when you say it is suggestive of love, you're pointing to something for which there is objective evidence of. Not something for which ZERO objective evidence exists.- Oni

I think you mean hypotheses.What you're trying to object to is that we think that the explanation for things we can't yet explain is "materialistic". But that is an empirical conclusion --- every time we can actually find out what causes something, it is "materialistic". But yes it does. It doesn't confirm them as true beyond all possible doubt, but it does make them scientific. Quite, but you could say that about anything. "Possibly one day science will confirm the existence of werewolves. Who knows where science will go in the future." But for now, if someone asks me if werewolves exist, I would say "no". If pressed, I would admit the impossibility of proving a negative, but that's where we are at this point. But I find this talk of a "plan" by theists rather disingenuous. It isn't merely a plan that you want. Suppose, for example, that our universe was created by a bunch of super-powerful pan-dimensional beings so that they could place bets on how many times in your life you will masturbate. They didn't make you immortal, because why would they?Well in that case your life now has a plan, and indeed the whole of our universe was created for you. Do you feel good now, or would you feel stupid and embarrassed and despairing? Would you not rather have a situation where there is no plan, but you get the eternal bliss anyway?There could be a plan and it's awful, or there could be no plan but things work out just fine. Surely what you actually want is not a plan as such, but for things to work out well for you. Having joined the Christian tradition, you associate the two, but there is no logical reason to do so, is there?

The example I would give you is simply that there are only natural processes with no intelligent input responsible for the existence of life.Here is the definition for materialism

quote:

---

a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter
b : a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress
c : a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused compare historical materialism
2
: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things

---

If that doesn’t apply then I’ll use whatever term you want me to. There seem to be so many levels to the term atheism that seems to cause problems so I hit on materialism. ... which is exactly what you do when you attribute life to nothing but natural processes with no intelligent input. All natural processes including evolution are suggestive of a plan. It is the plan that is suggestive of a planner not the other way around. .. but it is fine for you to say that the fact that science has only found natural processes is not only suggestive that only natural processes exist but it is evidence of it. There seems to be one rule for theists and one rule for atheists, materialists, agnostics, believers in absolutely nothing or whatever you want to call yourselves. No. I subjectively decide based on what I objectively know, in the same way that I subjectively come to the conclusion that Tom exists based on what I objectively know. I objectively know that conscious life exists for example.As I said before. Every natural occurrence that we know of scientifically has a cause. So, even if you find the process that began evolution then that process also needed a cause and once again it is turtles all the way down.

I have NOT said there are ONLY natural processes. I have said, repeatedly, over now 1000 posts, that there is no objective evidence for an intelligent designer.So, to conclude that life, or volcanos, or the Big Bang suggest an intelligence and a plan, first, you would need objective evidence of a designer. Otherwise it's nothing more than an argument from incredulity. No term applies, since this thread is about YOU and YOUR belief and how it stands up to scurtiny.I have not made any claims about philosophy, materialist or otherwise. The ONLY THING that I have discussed in this thread is YOUR position. But I don't do that. I have not said it is 'nothing but natural process'. I have said, repeatedly, over now 1000 posts, that there is no objective evidence for an intelligent designer and there is ONLY objective evidence of natural processes.This is about what objective evidence exists and what can be derived from that evidence. Even if there is an intelligence that created the universe, that still doesn't mean this intelligence had a hand in the creation of life. It could just be that it created the universe and left it alone to evolve on it's own as designed.So again, first we need objective evidence of a designer. Then we can go on to investigate if the designer is hands on or just creates the universe and leaves it alone. In other words, all the work is still ahead of you. No they aren't. Sure, but since you're wrong to begin with, the rest doesn't follow.Evolution doesn't suggest a plan when 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are extinct. What a shitty plan. Well no, see, not JUST evidence of natural processes. It is also the LACK of objective evidence for any other alternative.Maybe it's not god, or Tom, or anything spiritual. Maybe it's like Dr. A. said: Some scientists in another universe that created us just to take bets on who masterbates the most. I would probably win, btw.There is no limit to what there could be out there. Tom is just one belief, there is a lot more. But, for now, all we have evidence for is natural processes. So tentitively, we can say with confidence that it suggests there is nothing else. But, that is not an absolute fact. If I ever see evidence of gambing scientists from another universe I would have to give that alternative hypothesis some credit in creating us. What do you mean no? There is evidence of the feeling love and scientific evidence of the chemical reactions when one feels love. There is no evidence for Tom.When you say your wife making you dinner suggests she loves you, you can say that with confidence because there is evidence for love. When you say that consciousness suggests there is a Tom, you say that having ZERO evidence for Tom like you do with love.Therefore it is not the same thing. It's not turtles all the way down.That's what you would have to believe when you make your argument that complexity suggests a designer, which the intelligent designer would have to be even more complex, and by your own logic would need an intelligent designer was well. THEN it's turtles all the way down.For evolution it would mean that the bonding of elements (ie. chemistry) created life, and the elements were found on Earth when the planet formed, and planetary formation occurs when a star froms, and stars form due to the collapse in gravity of hydrogen atoms that fuse to created helium. And that takes us back to the Big Bang.No more turtles needed.- Oni

Sure, I’m fine with hypotheses.Science only looks for naturalistic or empirical conclusions so what do you expect? Again, science can’t prove that my wife loves me. All I can do is consider what is suggestive of that and from my subjective conclusion. I’m repeating what I said to oni but when I consider all that is involved with the complexity of life and particularly in terms of morality and emotions I find it suggestive that there is a plan and a planner. Because it is subjective others such as yourself will come to different conclusions. I believe that someday science may very well find that passing through a worm hole will find other dimensions/universes, and that in those dimensions/universes there is an intelligence that is in some way interlocking with our own 4 dimensional universe. Now my theistic views are scientific theories and can be considered science. Not quite. We can observe the things that we do know and consider what it is suggestive of even though it can’t be proven. You are making some assumptions there. First off I’m a Christian. Part of the Christian faith is that ultimately all of creation will be re-created so that includes both of us. Yes, I think that this life is going to in some way determine what happens then, but I don’t see myself as deciding that anyway. It is my understanding, which is Biblical, that it is about the heart. I can’t will myself to desire selflessness. I can act altruistically but if I am only doing it to give me a better spot in the new creation then nothing has changed in my heart. So no, I didn’t become a Christian because I wanted it to work out well for me. I became a Christian because I believe it is true as I laid out in the OP.I’m a theist as it does appear that this world is evolving progressively towards something which I find suggestive of a plan — thus a planner. I’m a Christian because after hearing both sides of the issue I find that the suggestion that the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event much more convincing than that it was something else. That combined with personal experience is the reason that I am a Christian.

- Oni

Science.You keep using that word.I do not think that this word means what you think it means.

That's a "naturalistic or empirical conclusion", and yes it can. The phenomena are such as to be consistent with the theory, so yes she does. No, not really. The addition of science-y sounding words doesn't make something "scientific". If I say "I believe that some day science may very well find that there are organisms capable of spontaneously altering their phenotype from that of Homo sapiens to that of Canis lupus" then despite my use of scientific terms I haven't made my belief in werewolves scientific just by my gratuitous use of polysyllables. Well, no. My point is that you were making assumptions when you talked about a "plan", as though that would be a good thing. What you want is your particular plan where you get to live forever and god gives you cake or something --- it is not a plan as such that you thirst for.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You can call it an argument from incredibility all you like but the fact is that in the view of many including myself, although there is no empirical objective evidence, the world as we experience it is in so many ways suggestive of a plan requiring a planner. Nonsense. Sure the thread is about my beliefs but either we are the result of an intelligent planner or we are the result of nothing but non-intelligent natural processes. There is no objective evidence for either position and so the two views have to be compared. You can’t just discuss one position or the other in a vacumn. As soon as you deny my position it automatically puts you in the other camp. You keep going around this one. Yes there is no evidence as you understand the word evidence for a designer. There is a designer or there isn’t, and it is my view again that the world we experience is very suggestive of a designer and IMHO the natural processes themselves are highly suggestive of a designer. That is your subjective opinion. Why is that? The extinct species have just evolved into new species and apparently in many cases more advanced species. There are certainly different ideas about the nature of Tom but the one thing that is consistent is The Golden Rule which, if he exists should tell us something about his nature. I have no way of knowing that she loves me when she makes me dinner. Maybe there is an ulterior motive, however, although I can’t know it, it is an suggestive of the fact that she loves me. You can go back to whatever point you want but our science tells us that nothing happens without cause. A billiard ball will sit forever on a the table until something happens to make it move.It’s turtles all the way down.We know from science that there is much more to our reality than what we directly perceive. I’ll requote that headline is SA.

quote:

---

Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter — An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own

---

Now I realize that is theory and that the author is not talking about a place for Tom. However theoretically Tom could exist as part of a greater reality with multiple time dimensions meaning that conceivably our universe with just one time dimension is part of something greater with more than one dimension in time resulting in life without any boundaries of time.I agree that is very highly speculative but at least it is one way of considering a first cause from a theistic perspective where it isn’t turtles all the way down as it is with your proposal.