Human Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Just use SEDI

What evidence?

Fossils? rocks? DNA? distant starlight?

Are you telling me those show the Earth was spoken into existence ex nihilo?

 

[SelfSim]

Logic is demonstrably something our minds do .. there's no evidence its exists independently from one. (Ie: 2+2=4 is demonstrably our description .. and not independent from it being one).

2+2<>10
Two plus two, it is not ten.
It is not ten, no matter when.
It is not ten, not here or there.
It is not ten, not anywhere.

"It might be ten. Yes, it could be.
If God, this world, didn't oversee.
Maybe on an alien tree."

It would not, could not, in a tree.
"On Krypton?" No, you let me be.

It is not ten, not in a box.
It is not ten, not with a fox.
It is not ten, not in a house.
It is not ten, not with a mouse.
It is not ten, not here or there.
It is not ten, not anywhere.
I do not need to state again.
It is not ten. It is not ten.
-- doubtingmerle

You cite a poem as evidence?
I thought you, yourself, said you require evidence in order to change your position?
A poem is not evidence .. (even when its used as a replacement for nothing more than petulant foot stomping).

 

[doubtingmerle]

You cite a poem as evidence?

No.

I wrote the poem as another tool of communication, not as evidence. I thought that would have been evident.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I tried.

This is apparently in response to, "If I were to become a young earth Creationist, I would need to ignore this evidence, yes?"

You tried to ignore the evidence? How did that work out for you?

 

[SelfSim]

No.

I wrote the poem as another tool of communication, not as evidence. I thought that would have been evident.

I understand and accept the evidence of your belief there.
There is no need to restate it in different (poetic) ways.

The obvious symbolism, alone, in '2+2=4' however, serves as my evidence that this math expression is demonstrably a human description, or a model .. with no evidence for it existing independently from a human mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is apparently in response to, "If I were to become a young earth Creationist, I would need to ignore this evidence, yes?"

You tried to ignore the evidence? How did that work out for you?

I asked who painted the Mona Lisa, and you tell me it's currently housed at the Louvre.

That's about how well it's working out.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The obvious symbolism, alone, in '2+2=4' however, serves as my evidence that this math expression is demonstrably a human description, or a model .. with no evidence for it existing independently from a human mind.

As I explained in post #254, numbers and mathematical symbols are manmade ways of describing facts about quantities. Number systems are not universal. But facts about quantities, ratios, shapes and physical patterns are universal and apply in every possible world, regardless of whether a God exists in that world.

For instance, 2+2=4, and 2+2<>10 in any possible world. The symbols used to express that fact will differ, but the underlying mathematical facts cannot possibly be different.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I asked who painted the Mona Lisa, and you tell me it's currently housed at the Louvre.

That's about how well it's working out.

Here is an example of a fact that refutes young earth creationism. The light from supernova SN 1987A has been traveling for 169,000 years. I explain how we know that at How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free. But young earth Creationism says the universe is not even that old.

Now what do you do with that evidence? If one were to become a young earth Creationist, would he need to just ignore that evidence?

 

[SelfSim]

Number systems are not universal. But facts about quantities, ratios, shapes and physical patterns are universal and apply in every possible world, regardless of whether a God exists in that world.

Let's leave God out of it for a moment, eh? (That's disinteresting for both of us).
Where is your evidence which allows us to distinguish between the obvious models of: 'quantities, ratios, shapes and physical patterns' from 'number systems', the latter of which you now appear to accept as being human models?

For instance, 2+2=4, and 2+2<>10 in any possible world. The symbols used to express that fact will differ, but the underlying mathematical facts cannot possibly be different.

You keep restating that, but my question is not asking for your clarification(s).

Rather the question is: How could you possibly know this, whilst excluding any mind whatsoever in the method you use in coming to that conclusion?

Math (logic) 'facts' have a long evidenced history of some pretty cool human thinkers having developed them. There's no evidence of any of them existing independently from those minds.

 

[SelfSim]

I asked who painted the Mona Lisa, and you tell me it's currently housed at the Louvre.

That's about how well it's working out.

...
Now what do you do with that evidence? If one were to become a young earth Creationist, would he need to just ignore that evidence?

@AV1611VET: Please remember your so-called 'Prime Directive' here.
I, (along with many others familiar with it), am/are watching.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know what you mean —"acting on the word of God"?

You said 'When people hear the Word of God, they always react, sometimes negatively, sometimes positively.'

I'd assume that if someone heard the word of God telling them what was the right course of action, then they'd take that course. How do I know they are doing what God wants them to do?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is an example of a fact that refutes young earth creationism. The light from supernova SN 1987A has been traveling for 169,000 years. I explain how we know that at How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free. But young earth Creationism says the universe is not even that old.

Now what do you do with that evidence? If one were to become a young earth Creationist, would he need to just ignore that evidence?

You must have missed this thread: SN1987A

 

[Estrid]

You cite a poem as evidence?
I thought you, yourself, said you require evidence in order to change your position?
A poem is not evidence .. (even when its used as a replacement for nothing more than petulant foot stomping).

The questions are evidence. Or a Sign.

 

[SelfSim]

The questions are evidence. Or a Sign.

Which questions do you mean there?

 

[SelfSim]

You must have missed this thread: SN1987A

Uh huh:

'168,000 light years away' does not contradict the Bible; '168,000 years ago' does.

(.. the Prime Directive in operation and the objective evidence pertaining to the speed of light gets tossed).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let's leave God out of it for a moment, eh? (That's disinteresting for both of us).

The problem is that someone here keeps insisting that God made all the rules of math, and that there would be no rules of math if God hadn't done that. That person is wrong. I cited one example of a rule of math that has to be true regardless of whether a God exists:

2 + 2 <> 53567

Do you or do you not agree that this rule exists, even if God does not exist? If this rule exist even if God does not exist, then we have shown that person to be wrong when he tells us all laws of math come from God.

Where is your evidence which allows us to distinguish between the obvious models of: 'quantities, ratios, shapes and physical patterns' from 'number systems', the latter of which you now appear to accept as being human models?

Where do you disagree?

Quantities exist regardless of people or Gods, yes? On distant galaxies there are distinct counts of bodies, ratios, shapes, etc. So surely you must agree with me that quantities exist without people being there.

And number systems are manmade. That is obviously so. Are you disagreeing that the decimal system, for instance, was made by people?

Rather the question is: How could you possibly know this, whilst excluding any mind whatsoever in the method you use in coming to that conclusion?

Are you really, truly trying to argue that sometimes 2+2=10?

Math (logic) 'facts' have a long evidenced history of some pretty cool human thinkers having developed them. There's no evidence of any of them existing independently from those minds.

LOL! Of course there is.

There was a distinct quantity of stars long before people were around to count.

Planets moved in elliptical orbits long before anybody knew what an ellipse was.

These mathematical relations were true long before anybody discovered how to express human math. Human math is just a way for us to state the mathematical relationships that are already existing in the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh huh: (.. the Prime Directive in operation and the objective evidence pertaining to the speed of light gets tossed).

Perhaps you missed this post: Genesis for Normal People

 

[Mark Quayle]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming (oops!) that you were trying to echo the options A. First Cause has a mind B. First Cause does not have a mind

If you are just making assertions then why pretend to have a logical argument?

Because, in spite of protests to the contrary, I doubt there has ever been a comprehensive argument on any subject; everybody makes unsupported assertions, specially commonly held assertions; nobody would read the wall of text on this site, that's for sure. We could argue the question of whether this or that assertion can be proven, but to prove the whole matter would be laborious and not likely read—not in one shot, anyway.

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps you missed this post: Genesis for Normal People

Don't push yer luck wiff me now, thar pardna!

 

[Mark Quayle]

First, if you are going to insert your comments into a quote, please use brackets instead of parenthesis.

Second, when I said, "none of that," it clearly means that which I had just said, namely the description of human evolution. It does not mean "none of anything I ever said".


If you read what I wrote at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free, how is it you appear to completely misunderstand what I wrote there? Read it.

Understood. But at first I thought by "nature" you were talking about physics. Later, it appeared you were changing the topic to the origin of logic and math.

If you wanted to argue for the origin of physics, you could at least make an argument that sounds reasonable.

But if you try to claim there could be no mathematical facts without God, your arguments just looks plain silly.


Clearly you did not read what is in the link. There I mention first cause multiple times. (Note: I do not capitalize "first cause". When I speak of first cause, I am speaking of the ultimate explanation for reality.) As I mention there, this first cause likely does not have a mind, and if not, it would not be proper to call it God. You could read what I said if you are interested. Instead, you argue about what I said, with no apparent understanding of what is there.

Pro 18:13
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.​

Once again, I am stating that 2 + 2 = 10 is logically self-contradictory regardless of whether a God exists. It is inherently contradictory.

You, on the other hand, have implied that it is contradictory only because God said so. If there is no God, your argument implies that there would be no law that says 2 + 2 <> 10.


Good grief. Get over it. This thread was supposed to be about human evolution. Read the title of the thread and the OP. You however, insisted we need to talk about the origin of math. You changed the topic. Fine. Its done. I'll go along with the new topic. Let's move on, please.

If you do not think the title and OP made it clear I wanted to specifically discuss human evolution, can you let me know how I could have written differently so you would understand what I intended?

When you handed me a lemon, I made lemonade. Do you like that poem I wrote about your new subject?

Well, I did read both what you wrote and the other link, and they are both bunk, proving nothing, assuming a lot. If you think God is subject to logic and math and reality itself, then we have nothing to talk about because that is not God. I've had enough of this for now.