Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Here's where you tried to qualify inertia as a dancing tactic (post #27)
Originally Posted by laconicstudent
They don't teach that living matter is inert.
...You haven't provided any. You've provided a logical progression based on an incorrect assumption that living tissue is inert...Again. It isn't inert.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
Just so we are all on the same page, could you give a definition for inert?
An object at rest tends to stay at rest, an object in motion tends to stay in motion.
But then again, God would ALSO only have Himself to blame for your behavior as He provided you with your soul, no?
You're suggesting determinism. The soul as I define it isn't inert. It self-propels by free will and, as such, is responsible for its own behavior. An indeterministic system (a system where the body's behavior is the result of free choice rather than divine engineering) is a necessary component of a theological system that incorporates justice, reward, punishment, mercy, etc. Without free will, none of this stuff makes any sense. it's axiomatic.
Also, i was addressing those atheists who already admit free will (or imply it at least).
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
Third, did you consider quantum phenomena? Quantum mechanics is WEIRD. Actually violates several other laws of physics. Energy, mass, motion can pop into and out of nothing. So this 'first motion' could be a known (but not necessarily understood, at least by me) quantum fluctuation in motion that is perfectly consistent with how humanity understands things to operate.
Objects popping in out of existence gets into areas of humanly unintelligible concepts. This kind of bizarre conclusion is the natural result of theories which, though quite useful/ pragmatic for applied science, shouldn't be accepted as an accurate description of reality. Maybe I'll discuss this more.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
I am committed to the following methodological principle in both religion and science. When faced with two theories, we should tend to prefer the one more humanly intelligible. (That's one reason I reject the notion that God is an intangible substance called spirit). The reason for this methodology is that, as new theories keep appearing, if we keep inclining toward those more and more unintelligible, we end up with utter gibberish.
For instance, imagine a physics conference. All the great minds are there. You stand up and say, "I have a new theory which I call spacetime mega-warp." "Ok, tell us about it." "Sorry, I can't explain it, because it's beyond human understanding." This would be similar to the theologian who says, "I have a theory of the Incarnation but it's beyond human understanding." If your theory is beyond human understanding, then you don't understand it either. For all intents and purposes, you don't HAVE a theory.
Well, I'll qualify. If the theory moves us to conduct experiments in a certain way, and draw a particular kind of conclusion, I suppose we could call it a pragmatic theory as opposed to a "real" theory (a possible revelation of metaphysical truth).
Why do I bring this up? On an old thread I suggested that gravity is evidence of God's existence. One guy replied, "Gravity seems to be caused by massless particles called gravitons." Massless particles? A substance without substance? That's not humanly intelligible. Therefore it doesn't qualify as a "real" theory. It's only a pragmatic theory. For instance, Newton postulated gravity as a "force". He only meant this as a pragmatic theory. He didn't take it literally. He said you'd be a fool to assert that a force acts across a distance. For it is not humanly intelligible to say that I push you, or pull you, from a distance. At the very least, it is far more intelligible to attribute a known push or pull to an impetus transmitted by direct physical contact.
There is a second intelligibility issue in regard to graviton theory. If I emit particles (or waves that act like particles) in your direction, this would tend to impact you in a manner that pushes you farther away rather than pulls you in my direction. A pull is accomplished by casting out a rope to you with a hook or noose at the end, and then I begin to tug the rope towards me (ultimately the movement is thus away from you, not towards you). Thus a graviton (something that pulls by moving toward you) seems to be a humanly unintelligible, even self-contradictory concept. At the very least, it is far less intelligible than ordinary mechanisms of pushes and pulls. In a similar way, I am inclined to characterize terms such as "curvature of space and time" as purely pragmatic theories, because such language doesn't seem humanly intelligible. In fact Einstein's theory of special relativity is internally problematic because it seems self-evidently a logical incoherence. Although it works fine as a pragmatic theory, an atheist who claims that it is an accurate description of "how things really are" seems to be making a very silly statement.
So we don't have many options left as to the cause of gravity. Newton wasn't sure whether it was God or atmospheric pressure. Let's consider atmospheric pressure. Okay, I probably don't have enough scientific knowledge to make such an analysis, but I'm going to try (maybe I'll get lucky). Gravity is a force in all directions conceived as either a push or a pull. Atmospheric pressure would tend to construe it as a push rather than a pull. So imagine the earth immersed in a huge atmospheric field called ether. The ether is pushing on it, and toward it, from all directions. This serves as the source of the earth's gravitational field. To come near the earth is to enter into an area of push, and therefore you will be pushed toward the earth. And if an object on earth tries to depart from earth, the push will tend to propel you back to earth. Now here's what I see as a couple of problems with that model. (1) Since an external agent (ether) is blindly causing the push, it shouldn't care how big the object is. Ether wouldn't say, "I'll push hard on big objects such as the earth, but I'll push softly on small objects such as a marble floating in outer space." Therefore a marble should have a gravitational field equal to that of the earth. (2) The ether wouldn't say, "I'll push harder as the objects get closer together." Newton's theory, which is roughly accurate, held that the force of gravity increases as I approach the earth (to an extent inversely proportional to the square of the distance). So does the ether happen to notice that you got closer to an object and thereby push you harder? And, if it did so, wouldn't that mean that ALL the objects in your line of push, being immersed in that same ether, also be pushed harder, even though they HAVEN'T moved any closer to the earth?
Gravity isn't a purely mechanical push, then. Is it a pull? But that seems to imply that the earth casts out a rope with a noose, yanks me in, and remembers to pull harder as I get closer to it. This doesn't even seem logically incoherent. I also turned to this page on string theory but quickly began to lose interest. The writer speaks of one-dimensional objects, two dimensional objects, realities of 26 dimensions, and particles of zero mass. Okay, none of this seems humanly intelligible.
My conclusion: The observed data concerning gravity seems inconsistent with purely mechanical pushes and pulls. It is more consistent with an "intelligent pusher" who uses a non-mechanical force (His free will) to apply gravity in a uniform manner for the sake of holding the planets and stars in their respective positions and orbits. Perhaps God does indeed uphold the universe as the Bible says.
Unacceptable reasoning, right? Because, this is just another "God of the gaps theory, right?" Perhaps not. Suppose a five dollar bill is sitting on your desk. The next morning, it's no longer there. You unlock your safe, however, and there it is. So you make it a topic of discussion among the employees in your building. One guy says, "I know what happened. Using the force of free will, someone reached out his hand, picked up the money, unlocked the safe, and placed it inside. Because no known mechanical forces would likely have accomplished this remarkable feat."
Another guy objects, "Please. Don't be ridiculous. To postulate a supernatural force such as free will is just a ‘gap’ theory. It's better to assume an ordinary mechanical chain of causality, wholly deterministic, with no one to blame."
Who would you side with? Well, there's certainly value in the "scientific approach." It advances science. But while we're waiting for a viable scientific explanation - one that's at least humanly intelligible - it's probably appropriate to (tentatively) embrace the "supernatural" explanation. After all, if God does exist – and only a fool would deny that possibility – there is probably at least one thing in nature best accounted for by the power of His free will.
Furthermore, CSI detectives operate in a similar manner. When a dead body is found with multiple knife wounds, they don’t spend much time wondering, “I wonder what ordinary mechanical forces caused all this? Surely no one is to blame.” Instead, they quickly chalk it up as a murder or suicide, a homicide caused by the force of free will. Is their approach unscientific? Hardly.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
Again, you're making assertions without addressing the logic of my objections. You're not responding to any of my challenges. If the soul is intangible it CANNOT tangibly impact the body. Why not? That's the definition of tangibility versus intangibility.
if the soul has no tangible impact on the brain, then the brain, which is a thoroughly tangible substance, isn't to any extent driven by the soul. In this case my behavior is the result of my brain (as you YOURSELF already suggested), and God should judge (and blame) my brain, not my soul.
But of course, you'll just do more dancing, because your assumptions cannot address this sort of objection.
Thats a very interesting philosophical conundrum. On the basis of my faith, one can only assume that the soul, as a spiritual component, isn't bound by human logic? I don't really know, since the exact nature of the soul isn't something we can ever really know, and isn't relevant to the core tenets of the faith
Originally Posted by JAL
Huh? Evolution? Where did we get on THAT topic ???
Oops. thats my bad.
Originally Posted by JAL
The words in bold are in direct contradiction to statements you made earlier. This proves that you've only been dancing around in circles.
Or perhaps I'm confused because I'm never quite sure what you mean by "inert". If you want to avoid misunderstandings, define your terms.
Originally Posted by JAL
So what drives the CNS? More chemical processes?
Um. Obviously yes?
Originally Posted by JAL
God has only Himself to blame for my behavior as He allowed me to have this body.
No. God made Man unfallen, then Man messed it up. And you are still responsible for your own behavior as a sentient being.
Originally Posted by JAL
Here's where you tried to qualify inertia as a dancing tactic (post #27)
Yes, because you're pretty vague in just what "inert" means. I originally thought you meant non-organic matter, but then you seemed to imply that everything was inert including biological systems. If you don't want these misunderstandings, be more precise from the outset.
Another guy objects, "Please. Don't be ridiculous. To postulate a supernatural force such as free will is just a ‘gap’ theory. It's better to assume an ordinary mechanical chain of causality, wholly deterministic, with no one to blame."
Who would you side with? Well, there's certainly value in the "scientific approach." It advances science. But while we're waiting for a viable scientific explanation - one that's at least humanly intelligible - it's probably appropriate to (tentatively) embrace the "supernatural" explanation. After all, if God does exist – and only a fool would deny that possibility – there is probably at least one thing in nature best accounted for by the power of His free will.
Not one specific thing to quote, but it seems like you think the Big Bang went something like this:
Mass is.
Mass remains motionless.
Mass suddenly expands.
While it goes more like:
?
Spacetime expands.
Mass expands.
If there was just a lump sitting there before time as we know it existed that just SUDDENLY happened to randomly explode... well, we don't know it and the Big Bang theory is not predicated on that having happened.
Scientists don't seem to be providing a humanly intelligible definition of the initial conditions. So we need to appeal to the law of non-contradiction and extrapolate from there. In each case, BOTH can't be true. We can ask questions like this:
(1) Was there tangible substance? Yes or no?
(2) Was there the potential for motion? Yes or no?
(3) Was the substance self-propelling? Yes or no?
(4) Was there an infinite time lapse? Yes or no?
It is not humanly intelligible - it seems quite irrational - to suggest that these most basic characteristics of reality CHANGED. If an atheist is going to tell me that some of my beliefs are irrational, I am going to remind him that the sword cuts both ways.
The humanly intelligible position is that tangible substance, at the outset of the big bang, wasn't self-propelling, as it isn't such today.
Why does the question need to be answered? Because a system that can address more challenges, and more charges of contradiction, than another, is clearly preferable to a bunch of unresolved question marks. For instance laconicStudent says that he doesn't need to address my questions about soul. Baloney. If I charge him with contradiction, and he doesn't resolve it, then we should prefer a system that can DEMONSTRABLY address the hard questions.
It's sort of like if a scientists presents some new data that doesn't seem to fit accepted theory. Is it appropriate to respond, "Sorry, we don't have to address that objection" ?
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
But here again you're just dancing. CSI would be violating scientific method as well. You haven't shown the difference. You just dance.
And define "Humanly Intelligible"
A theory is unintelligible to me when I cannot conceive of myself or any rational man claiming in good conscience to clearly understand it. For instance I don't have a humanly intelligible theory of the boundaries or outskirts of reality. I can't conceive of outer space as an infinitely extended region because a "region" is a discrete demarcation of discrete size. I do conceive of reality as finite (because a finite substance or region is a concept quite intelligible to me) but even so I cannot clearly define the outskirts of this finite region.
A theory doesn't need to be fully intelligible, however. But we do need to incline toward those theories most intelligible, to avoid a slippery slope into gibberish.
Obviously, a theory that is self-contradictory is humanly unintelligible. If I have a theory that seems self-contradictory, therefore, and another one that seems plainly consistent, I should incline to the seemingly consistent one.
__________________ These are just my opinions, not "the facts."
. For instance laconicStudent says that he doesn't need to address my questions about soul. Baloney. If I charge him with contradiction, and he doesn't resolve it
Possibly because using logic and the scientific method to describe the soul an inappropriate approach for what is a religious subject.
Originally Posted by JAL
It's sort of like if a scientists presents some new data that doesn't seem to fit accepted theory. Is it appropriate to respond, "Sorry, we don't have to address that objection" ?
But there isn't ANY data regarding the existence of a soul....
But here again you're just dancing. CSI would be violating scientific method as well. You haven't shown the difference. You just dance.
Ok, then CSI is violating the scientific method. Of course, people who died a violent death aren't ruled homicide until a medical examiner rules that it is by showing that the nature of the death precludes a suicide, usually by finding direct evidence of a violent interaction with another individual. Your analogy is flawed because forensics can find direct evidence of whether or not there was anyone else involved.
Originally Posted by JAL
A theory is unintelligible to me when I cannot conceive of myself or any rational man claiming in good conscience to clearly understand it.
Of course, that is a personal judgment call, and dependent on your level of education.
Originally Posted by JAL
A theory doesn't need to be fully intelligible, however. But we do need to incline toward those theories most intelligible, to avoid a slippery slope into gibberish.
Whether or not a theory is intelligible depends on your level of your education.
Originally Posted by JAL
Obviously, a theory that is self-contradictory is humanly unintelligible. If I have a theory that seems self-contradictory, therefore, and another one that seems plainly consistent, I should incline to the seemingly consistent one.
Linear Mode
