Curious About An Internet Ad

[durangodawood]

Persistence of the tribe is not essential. If you want to play atheist's advocate, do it right: nothing is essential. As I said, the tribe, just like a single celled organism, has to care before it will act caringly. IMO the Christian explanation is the best - God is the giver of life, and God is love. Getting love from molecules is absurd.

The members of a social species group already have the instinct to survive and reproduce hard wired into them. This is not a "problem" at that level.

For sure I have puzzled at how the instinct to survive first arose in very early forms of life. But I am not ready to leap to far-out solutions for that problem. We shouldnt expect to know everything at this point in our understanding. I'm essentially conservative in this regard.

I agree. "Law" is just a word for what things consistently and uniformly do. But it's interesting that there's no reason there should be consistency and uniformity, yet there is.

By the same token theres also no reason there should be chaos and complete irregularity.

I think the eternal matter proposition also has the disadvantage of requiring a whole other kind of non-evidenced world, that being one that does the impossible and defies entropy. Have a look at Wiki's Ultimate Fate of the Universe article. You've got Big Freeze, Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Bounce, Big Slurp (I get the feeling that whatever happens, it's going to be big ). The Crunch and the Bounce, the ones which could allow for an eternal universe are the ones most refuted by actual evidence. But hey, if you want to be a science denying cosmetician cosmologist, that's on you.

I'm not talking about just this universe. Im thinking of some larger eternal but material setting that it could emerge from. Absolutely this is non-evidenced, just like the divine conjecture. But it doesnt also pile on entire different kinds of reality that we have zero evidence for anywhere. It stays with the basic material paradigm which we know exists.

The material conjecture does have the disadvantage of being less thrilling, less glorious, and offers less hope to us humans who are typically very attached to our "me". Getting to hang on to the "me" makes the divine conjecture pretty appealing, I must say.

 

[Chesterton]

The members of a social species group already have the instinct to survive and reproduce hard wired into them. This is not a "problem" at that level.

This is the second time you've used the term "hard wired", which is a computing term I think. You've also said nature "needed" things. I realize that it's very hard to talk about natural selection without injecting anthropomorphic and teleological ideas, but that's just another reason why I believe what I believe.

For sure I have puzzled at how the instinct to survive first arose in very early forms of life. But I am not ready to leap to far-out solutions for that problem. We shouldnt expect to know everything at this point in our understanding. I'm essentially conservative in this regard.

I can't believe I'm going to reference another '70's comedy record. Robin Williams titled a record "reality...what a concept". Reality is far-out. I wouldn't expect the solutions to it to be not far-out. To quote the atheist J.B.S. Haldane: "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

By the same token theres also no reason there should be chaos and complete irregularity.

Well but then we would not be here to know it.

The Greek word "logos" is too complicated to translate well into English, and it traditionally gets translated as "Word", but part of it means "reason". The Greek philosophers, despite their differences, for centuries agreed that there was some coherent principle, or "reason" underlying the universe. Then, a guy named John, who had hung around with Jesus Christ, wrote one of the most remarkable bits of literature ever written:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.​

Likewise, the Greeks had many gods, and there were many stories and temples and statues about them, but there was one altar to the "unknown god" (Agnostos Theos), which logically would be the Existent One, the one responsible for everything else. Paul the apostle was at Mars Hill and spoke to the well-educated philosophers and declared to them that the unknown god was Christ. Some dismissed Paul, some laughed at him, others believed him. Not sure what my point is here, other than it's up to each of us to look at the evidence and decide.

I'm not talking about just this universe. Im thinking of some larger eternal but material setting that it could emerge from. Absolutely this is non-evidenced, just like the divine conjecture. But it doesnt also pile on entire different kinds of reality that we have zero evidence for anywhere.

Not exactly true. We do have evidence in the form of human testimony of their experience with the divine. In the field of law, from ancient times to the present, testimony is considered evidence. Whether it's reliable is up for you and I to decide.

I find it compelling that Christians will die horrible deaths rather than renounce what they've come to believe. Muslims have taqiyya, which allows them to lie in order to, among other things, save their own skins. If there's an atheist martyr who's died for his belief, I haven't heard of him.

It stays with the basic material paradigm which we know exists.

But that's like saying the story of Cinderella stays with the basic paradigm of the story of Cinderella. Materialism is a story, like every other story. Plus, as I mentioned, I think the problem of entropy makes it impossible.

The material conjecture does have the disadvantage of being less thrilling, less glorious, and offers less hope to us humans who are typically very attached to our "me". Getting to hang on to the "me" makes the divine conjecture pretty appealing, I must say.

Can you elaborate? Why is continuing to exist more thrilling and glorious? When I was an agnostic I really didn't mind the idea of going to sleep forever. I'm a lazy bum, and I enjoy going to sleep about once every 24 hours. And if I never wake up, there would be no "me" to know it.

 

[durangodawood]

This is the second time you've used the term "hard wired", which is a computing term I think. You've also said nature "needed" things. I realize that it's very hard to talk about natural selection without injecting anthropomorphic and teleological ideas, but that's just another reason why I believe what I believe.

Do you mean when I said this: Heavier elements just needed H and He and gravity to get stars going, which made these elements, which prior to that didnt exist anywhere in the universe....? No teleology intended. By needed I just mean "was a necessary condition for."

"Hard wired" is a perfectly decent metaphor for "biologically encoded", like an instinct - as opposed to culturally conditioned.

I can't believe I'm going to reference another '70's comedy record. Robin Williams titled a record "reality...what a concept". Reality is far-out. I wouldn't expect the solutions to it to be not far-out. To quote the atheist J.B.S. Haldane: "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Wait - youve been advertising all along that your position is the most reasonable. Now youre chucking that out the window and singing the praises of weirdness and even absurdity? Welcome to my team! - where we do not demand reality beyond the edges of human experience to be reasonable. (My arguments about what explanation is in fact most reasonable notwithstanding.... I dont think reality necessarily is the most reasonable thing. I just contest that your preferred reality is.)

Well but then we would not be here to know it.

True. But that doesnt compel any particular conclusion.

The Greek word "logos" is too complicated to translate well into English, and it traditionally gets translated as "Word", but part of it means "reason". The Greek philosophers, despite their differences, for centuries agreed that there was some coherent principle, or "reason" underlying the universe. Then, a guy named John, who had hung around with Jesus Christ, wrote one of the most remarkable bits of literature ever written:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.​

Likewise, the Greeks had many gods, and there were many stories and temples and statues about them, but there was one altar to the "unknown god" (Agnostos Theos), which logically would be the Existent One, the one responsible for everything else. Paul the apostle was at Mars Hill and spoke to the well-educated philosophers and declared to them that the unknown god was Christ. Some dismissed Paul, some laughed at him, others believed him. Not sure what my point is here, other than it's up to each of us to look at the evidence and decide.

Not exactly true. We do have evidence in the form of human testimony of their experience with the divine. In the field of law, from ancient times to the present, testimony is considered evidence. Whether it's reliable is up for you and I to decide.

I am actually pretty sympathetic to the literature of religious mystics generally. They definitely had some real experience of utmost value. I dont go so far as to literalize the language they use to talk about it. I think they are using familiar words and concepts to obliquely direct us to things that cant be directly pointed at or spoken of.

I find it compelling that Christians will die horrible deaths rather than renounce what they've come to believe. Muslims have taqiyya, which allows them to lie in order to, among other things, save their own skins.

Thats very kind. It seems horrible to insist a person must resist the most extreme earthly duress in order to save their very soul.

If there's an atheist martyr who's died for his belief, I haven't heard of him.

There not enough positive content in just "atheism" to compel martyrdom for atheism. But Id be very surprised if various atheists havent given their lives for various reasons. Religious conviction isnt the only thing that motivates this.

But that's like saying the story of Cinderella stays with the basic paradigm of the story of Cinderella. Materialism is a story, like every other story.

Yes, but its the story that adds the least other additional unknown stuff to the objective evidence.

Plus, as I mentioned, I think the problem of entropy makes it impossible.

Within our universe, yes. But clearly something set up a low entropy initial condition. I'm proposing theres some material paradigm in which universes are "born" so to speak.

Can you elaborate? Why is continuing to exist more thrilling and glorious? When I was an agnostic I really didn't mind the idea of going to sleep forever. I'm a lazy bum, and I enjoy going to sleep about once every 24 hours. And if I never wake up, there would be no "me" to know it.

Its not just me. The Christian promise of eternal life has been one of its great selling points. Its a feature that gets airtime and not just brushed off as an incidental. Why? Because most people are very attached to keeping hold of the self - especially if we can dispense with the foibles of aging, disease, etc.

As to exactly why we (mostly) want this I'm less certain. There's something neat about being a person rather than a nothing. Part of me just wants to see what happens next in this page turner.

 

[Chesterton]

Do you mean when I said this: Heavier elements just needed H and He and gravity to get stars going, which made these elements, which prior to that didnt exist anywhere in the universe....? No teleology intended. By needed I just mean "was a necessary condition for."

"Hard wired" is a perfectly decent metaphor for "biologically encoded", like an instinct - as opposed to culturally conditioned.

I think we previously agreed that "law" means just what things do, and so ultimately is not informative about why they do what they do. The same is true of the word "instinct". C.S. Lewis noted that when we say animals do things by instinct, the word is just a placeholder for saying that we have no idea why they do what they do. But at the risk of sounding snarky, I've never heard anyone claim that hydrogen and helium have instincts.

Wait - youve been advertising all along that your position is the most reasonable. Now youre chucking that out the window and singing the praises of weirdness and even absurdity? Welcome to my team! - where we do not demand reality beyond the edges of human experience to be reasonable. (My arguments about what explanation is in fact most reasonable notwithstanding.... I dont think reality necessarily is the most reasonable thing. I just contest that your preferred reality is.)

Alright, fair enough. Yes I want to sing the praises of weirdness and absurdity, and also contradiction and paradox, not because I like those things, but because that's how reality presents itself to us. There's an author I met a few years ago credited with coining the phrase "Make Christianity weird again". I find some of the blatant contradictions in Christianity very beautiful. In John's revelation, speaking of Christ, it is said "Do not weep! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and its seven seals.” "Then I saw a Lamb as if it had been slain..."

True. But that doesnt compel any particular conclusion.

Maybe it doesn't compel a conclusion, but it certainly suggests one, to my mind.

Thats very kind. It seems horrible to insist a person must resist the most extreme earthly duress in order to save their very soul.

Yes you could say it's horrible but that doesn't make it untrue.

There not enough positive content in just "atheism" to compel martyrdom for atheism. But Id be very surprised if various atheists havent given their lives for various reasons. Religious conviction isnt the only thing that motivates this.

I agree there is a dearth of "positive content" in atheism. You might be able to Google up an atheist who's died for his lack of belief, but like I said, I haven't heard of him.

Yes, but its the story that adds the least other additional unknown stuff to the objective evidence.

As I've said, it actually contradicts some objective evidence of laws and matter.

Within our universe, yes. But clearly something set up a low entropy initial condition. I'm proposing theres some material paradigm in which universes are "born" so to speak.

Our universe? As if there are others? Why are you allowed to take other non-evidenced realms seriously while at the same considering mine illegitimate? Look this up: the word "universe" always meant "everything there is". Where did the idea of "multiverse" originate? With the ancient Greeks? No. With the ancient Chinese? No. The idea is first expressed in a 1940 DC comic book. At least my sacred scriptures don't have ads for Sea Monkeys and X-Ray glasses on the back page.

Its not just me. The Christian promise of eternal life has been one of its great selling points. Its a feature that gets airtime and not just brushed off as an incidental. Why? Because most people are very attached to keeping hold of the self - especially if we can dispense with the foibles of aging, disease, etc.

But Christianity also has one of the worst selling points ever - eternal torment in hell. If I were involved in inventing and selling Christianity I would have said "Yeah, let's leave that part out."

As to exactly why we (mostly) want this I'm less certain. There's something neat about being a person rather than a nothing. Part of me just wants to see what happens next in this page turner.

This "page turner", lol. Reminds me of a Christopher Hitchens interview shortly before his death that he knew was forthcoming. He said life was like a party and he was very bummed out that he'd be leaving the party before it was over. Also reminded of the Louis C.K. joke: "People ask what happens after you die. A lot of things happen after you die, they just don't involve you". But I don't mean to make light of death. Death is a big deal. But birth is too.

 

[durangodawood]

I think we previously agreed that "law" means just what things do, and so ultimately is not informative about why they do what they do. The same is true of the word "instinct". C.S. Lewis noted that when we say animals do things by instinct, the word is just a placeholder for saying that we have no idea why they do what they do.

That is completely wrong for biology and animal behavior despite what noted biology and genetics expert CS Lewis claimed way back yonder.

Alright, fair enough. Yes I want to sing the praises of weirdness and absurdity, and also contradiction and paradox, not because I like those things, but because that's how reality presents itself to us. There's an author I met a few years ago credited with coining the phrase "Make Christianity weird again". I find some of the blatant contradictions in Christianity very beautiful. In John's revelation, speaking of Christ, it is said "Do not weep! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and its seven seals.” "Then I saw a Lamb as if it had been slain..."

Absolutely. When I hear too much about how Christianity is the most reasonable or rational position one could take, I wonder what was all the fuss about faith if this is the least faith-necessary inclination you could hold about these big picture matters?

As I've said, it actually contradicts some objective evidence of laws and matter.

It doesnt. the 2nd law applies over and within time. We're speculating about origins from outside of our universe's time frame.

Our universe? As if there are others? Why are you allowed to take other non-evidenced realms seriously while at the same considering mine illegitimate? Look this up: the word "universe" always meant "everything there is". Where did the idea of "multiverse" originate? With the ancient Greeks? No. With the ancient Chinese? No. The idea is first expressed in a 1940 DC comic book. At least my sacred scriptures don't have ads for Sea Monkeys and X-Ray glasses on the back page.

How many times to I have to repeat: this is a conjecture about the origin of universes. It doesn't rely on direct evidence any more than the divine realm conjecture does. On that ground they are even. (But I should add that actual physicists have proposed things like this because they explain certain things and dont contradict the laws of nature as we know them - in the knowledge that they await evidence.)

Where the 2 conjectures diverge severely is that divine realm needs to bring a whole utterly other type of reality into the mix for which we have no objective evidence at all. (I am sympathetic to the subjective evidence, tho.)

Generally the bigger the box of "new unseen stuff" you have to lift, the less reasonable it is. Its like youre in Antarctica and find a dent in your snow crawler and someone says "a horse hit it". And no one has ever seen a horse in Antarctica. But then someone else says "a unicorn hit it". Thats a bit harder to get your head around even tho the amount of direct evidence for either is the same.

But Christianity also has one of the worst selling points ever - eternal torment in hell. If I were involved in inventing and selling Christianity I would have said "Yeah, let's leave that part out."

No thats one of the most powerful selling points. The promise of avoiding the worst downside imaginable? Its the stick to go with aforementioned carrot, and, to me, its one of the stratagems that reeks of high pressure sales contrivance and puts me off the whole thing.

This "page turner", lol. Reminds me of a Christopher Hitchens interview shortly before his death that he knew was forthcoming. He said life was like a party and he was very bummed out that he'd be leaving the party before it was over. Also reminded of the Louis C.K. joke: "People ask what happens after you die. A lot of things happen after you die, they just don't involve you". But I don't mean to make light of death. Death is a big deal. But birth is too.

Ha. Nice.

 

[partinobodycular]

"Law" is just a word for what things consistently and uniformly do. But it's interesting that there's no reason there should be consistency and uniformity, yet there is.

I find this to be a rather odd statement coming from a Christian. If there's no logical reason why reality should be ordered and coherent then how do you explain God? You're simply invoking something that's ordered and coherent in order to explain why things are ordered and coherent. The logic behind that puzzles me.

 

[Chesterton]

That is completely wrong for biology and animal behavior despite what noted biology and genetics expert CS Lewis claimed way back yonder.

You said "Hard wired" is a perfectly decent metaphor for "biologically encoded", like an instinct... Do you not see that "encoded" implies an encoder? You just substituted one anthropomorphic and teleological metaphor for another. Scientific atheists will often accuse people like me of having an anthropomorphic view of reality, but they seem just as guilty of that.

And if Lewis is completely wrong then you should be able to tell me completely how birds know how to build nests.

Absolutely. When I hear too much about how Christianity is the most reasonable or rational position one could take, I wonder what was all the fuss about faith if this is the least faith-necessary inclination you could hold about these big picture matters?

Faith is important because there are many competing ideas, and because humans are prone to moods. I have days when I think "what if I'm wrong about everything?" I suppose staunch but honest atheists have days when they also think "what if I'm wrong about everything?" Once you're convinced that your chosen idea is rational and true, it requires some effort to not be swayed by moods, and by fashions, by specious reasoning, etc.

It doesnt. the 2nd law applies over and within time. We're speculating about origins from outside of our universe's time frame.

The evidence indicates that time was created at the Big Bang. Speculating about another time frame is fantasy.

I suspect you might come back with something like "What about your eternal divine realm? Isn't that fantasy?" To which I'd reply that if you're the one who wants to stick with science and hard facts, then stick to your guns and stick with them.

(But I should add that actual physicists have proposed things like this because they explain certain things...)

What things do they explain?

Where the 2 conjectures diverge severely is that divine realm needs to bring a whole utterly other type of reality into the mix for which we have no objective evidence at all. (I am sympathetic to the subjective evidence, tho.)

Generally the bigger the box of "new unseen stuff" you have to lift, the less reasonable it is. Its like youre in Antarctica and find a dent in your snow crawler and someone says "a horse hit it". And no one has ever seen a horse in Antarctica. But then someone else says "a unicorn hit it". Thats a bit harder to get your head around even tho the amount of direct evidence for either is the same.

Boy, this is deep, and hard to address in a short post. First, in the history of science, science itself has brought "whole utterly other types of reality into the mix". And I'm talking about actual "hard" science, not the philosophical multiverse type stuff.

Second, does Christianity speak of a "whole utterly other type of reality"? It speaks of another type of reality, but not one which is wholly utterly another type. To speak of the Trinity we use biological metaphors like "Son" and "Father", while no Christian will profess that they are biologically related in the way that a human father and son are related. We speak of a King and a Kingdom, but Christianity does not say there is an actual physical throne, because God is not physical. Trying to explain another type of reality could be like, how do you describe the color blue to someone born blind? You can't.There aren't any metaphors for it.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the truth underlying reality is like the color blue to a blind man, it would be wholly un-communicable to us. But if the truth were communicable to us, it would have to look a lot like the Christian story. It would not be "utterly other". And if you're an atheist who chooses to think there's no Communicator and nothing to communicate, okay, whatever, I disagree.

No thats one of the most powerful selling points. The promise of avoiding the worst downside imaginable? Its the stick to go with aforementioned carrot, and, to me, its one of the stratagems that reeks of high pressure sales contrivance and puts me off the whole thing.

Well I get your point. I'd never really thought of it that way, I guess because I've never thought of the early Christians as salesmen. They had nothing to gain, and everything to lose by preaching their new truth.

 

[Chesterton]

I find this to be a rather odd statement coming from a Christian. If there's no logical reason why reality should be ordered and coherent then how do you explain God? You're simply invoking something that's ordered and coherent in order to explain why things are ordered and coherent. The logic behind that puzzles me.

I think I've stated in this thread that I believe in the logos, the Divine Reason. Sometimes we speak arguendo. Durangodawood is very fair with me, and I try to be fair with him.

 

[partinobodycular]

Durangodawood is very fair with me, and I try to be fair with him.

Great, my favorite kind of discussion.

I think I've stated in this thread that I believe in the logos, the Divine Reason

I assume that you believe that this logos is endowed with free will. But doesn't that invalidate the philosophical argument that the logos/God is the first cause, because if it has the ability to choose one thing over another then something must cause it to make that choice?

I'll buy the premise of Divine Reason, but if you're going to grant it free will then I'll have to question its status as the first cause.

 

[sjastro]

The evidence indicates that time was created at the Big Bang. Speculating about another time frame is fantasy.......

...............Boy, this is deep, and hard to address in a short post. First, in the history of science, science itself has brought "whole utterly other types of reality into the mix". And I'm talking about actual "hard" science, not the philosophical multiverse type stuff.

Science changes our concepts of reality when theories are supported by experiments and observations.
At the start of the 20th century the universe was our Milky Way galaxy and space was simply a mathematical construction to define the location of objects.
The fundamental unit of matter was the atom which was indivisible.

A century later the universe is expanding and composed of trillions of galaxies while space-time is a vacuum state of the lowest energy level in which virtual particle/antiparticle pairs pop into and out of existence.
Quarks and leptons are the fundamental particles not atoms.

The concept of the Big Bang has also changed in the last few decades.
Rather than occurring at t=0 as a creation event, it is now an evolution event at around time t =10⁻³⁰ s as described in this post.
It means time and space were not created by a Big Bang but were already in existence and takes the multiverse idea out of the philosophical realm as multiple "bubble like" universes can also be created in a theory known as Chaotic Inflation.
The problem with multiverses is that each bubble universe lies outside the particle horizon of every other universe making them unobservable.
It is possible however there may have been collisions between bubble universes, one of which may have occurred with our universe in the distant past resulting in a distinct feature on the CMB (cosmic radiation background).

 

[Chesterton]

I assume that you believe that this logos is endowed with free will. But doesn't that invalidate the philosophical argument that the logos/God is the first cause, because if it has the ability to choose one thing over another then something must cause it to make that choice?

I'll buy the premise of Divine Reason, but if you're going to grant it free will then I'll have to question its status as the first cause.

It seems the opposite to me. If something didn't have the ability to choose, then it's choice would be caused, and so wouldn't really be a choice.

 

[Chesterton]

Science changes our concepts of reality when theories are supported by experiments and observations.

You begin this post by saying this, then you conclude your other post you linked to by saying this: "Unfortunately external universes are causally disconnected from our own and are unobservable."

In theory, unicorns and mermaids are possible, unfortunately they are unobservable.

 

[sjastro]

You begin this post by saying this, then you conclude your other post you linked to by saying this: "Unfortunately external universes are causally disconnected from our own and are unobservable."

In theory, unicorns and mermaids are possible, unfortunately they are unobservable.

This is a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the science.
“Observation” and “observable” have distinctly different meanings.
An external universe which is “unobservable” means photons emitted from the external universe will never reach an observer in our universe due to the particle horizon.
Evidence of a colliding bubble universe with our universe is an “observation” in the form of higher than expected temperature variations in the CMB.

Before blowing your trumpet in claiming I have contradicted myself, I suggest you learn the science first and not rely on strawman and argument from incredulity fallacies.

 

[durangodawood]

You said "Hard wired" is a perfectly decent metaphor for "biologically encoded", like an instinct... Do you not see that "encoded" implies an encoder? You just substituted one anthropomorphic and teleological metaphor for another. Scientific atheists will often accuse people like me of having an anthropomorphic view of reality, but they seem just as guilty of that.

Encoded implies an encoding mechanism. It does not necessarily imply an intending consciousness.

And if Lewis is completely wrong then you should be able to tell me completely how birds know how to build nests.

I dont know all the science myself. I just follow it from a distance as an interested layman. And theres a lot more happening than "we have no idea".

The evidence indicates that time was created at the Big Bang. Speculating about another time frame is fantasy.

I suspect you might come back with something like "What about your eternal divine realm? Isn't that fantasy?" To which I'd reply that if you're the one who wants to stick with science and hard facts, then stick to your guns and stick with them.

I feel like Ive explained this 5 times already. I am fine with proposing sheer conjecture to explain things we dont understand yet. The point I'm making is that some conjectures are less reasonable than others because they require you to assent to many more novel, unobserved propositions.

What things do they explain?

Like this for instance: Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia I'm sure not going to argue whether its right or wrong. Just that its in the scientific discussion because - my only claim about this - it had some explanatory value.

Boy, this is deep, and hard to address in a short post. First, in the history of science, science itself has brought "whole utterly other types of reality into the mix". And I'm talking about actual "hard" science, not the philosophical multiverse type stuff.

Yes, science did that when the physical evidence justified it.

Second, does Christianity speak of a "whole utterly other type of reality"? It speaks of another type of reality, but not one which is wholly utterly another type. To speak of the Trinity we use biological metaphors like "Son" and "Father", while no Christian will profess that they are biologically related in the way that a human father and son are related. We speak of a King and a Kingdom, but Christianity does not say there is an actual physical throne, because God is not physical. Trying to explain another type of reality could be like, how do you describe the color blue to someone born blind? You can't.There aren't any metaphors for it.

I get the sense that the metaphors are not at all primary, and just the best way to speak to people about something that is essentially unspeakable. What is God? What is the kingdom? They better be a lot more than the stuff we see and know in front of our faces.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the truth underlying reality is like the color blue to a blind man, it would be wholly un-communicable to us. But if the truth were communicable to us, it would have to look a lot like the Christian story. It would not be "utterly other". And if you're an atheist who chooses to think there's no Communicator and nothing to communicate, okay, whatever, I disagree.

It does seem utterly other to the pov that sees only demonstrable evidence. Thats the point of view from which we can reason coherently with others. I'm all for subjective testimony. But it only really affects others via empathy or intuition, and not reason. I'll say it a 6th time: the point Ive been contesting is basically: what sort of explanations for "origins" should be considered more reasonable. Not which ones are actually right.

Well I get your point. I'd never really thought of it that way, I guess because I've never thought of the early Christians as salesmen. They had nothing to gain, and everything to lose by preaching their new truth.

The Church had a lot of worldly power to gain, and they are "early" enough for me. And wealth too. They certainly seem to have been very interested in those things.

 

[Chesterton]

This is a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the science.
“Observation” and “observable” have distinctly different meanings.
An external universe which is “unobservable” means photons emitted from the external universe will never reach an observer in our universe due to the particle horizon.
Evidence of a colliding bubble universe with our universe is an “observation” in the form of higher than expected temperature variations in the CMB.

Before blowing your trumpet in claiming I have contradicted myself, I suggest you learn the science first and not rely on strawman and argument from incredulity fallacies.

Okay, forgive me, I'm just an ignorant layman. I tend to get my science from things that are popular and well-accepted over time. Newton got famous. Einstein got famous and was in all the papers. As soon as proof of a bubble universe colliding with ours makes the six o'clock news, then I'll take your idea seriously.

 

[Chesterton]

Encoded implies an encoding mechanism. It does not necessarily imply an intending consciousness.

"Code" requires conscious intent. I don't see how that's even arguable.

I feel like Ive explained this 5 times already. I am fine with proposing sheer conjecture to explain things we dont understand yet. The point I'm making is that some conjectures are less reasonable than others because they require you to assent to many more novel, unobserved propositions.

Like this for instance: Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia I'm sure not going to argue whether its right or wrong. Just that its in the scientific discussion because - my only claim about this - it had some explanatory value.

You say some conjectures are less reasonable because they require many more novel, unobserved propositions, then you bring up "many worlds", which does exactly that.

It does seem utterly other to the pov that sees only demonstrable evidence. Thats the point of view from which we can reason coherently with others. I'm all for subjective testimony. But it only really affects others via empathy or intuition, and not reason. I'll say it a 6th time: the point Ive been contesting is basically: what sort of explanations for "origins" should be considered more reasonable. Not which ones are actually right.

I apologize if I've missed your point or sidestepped your point, I didn't mean to. All the demonstrable evidence supports Christianity. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. From history to archaeology to Newton's laws and Einstein's theories, to what we've learned of DNA and genetics...some people debate whether science and religion are compatible. I think science is Christianity's best friend. Some very intelligent, well-educated scientists these days claim we are living in a simulation, which begs the question "what's being simulated?" There is a possible answer in the book of Genesis - God created man in His image...

The Church had a lot of worldly power to gain, and they are "early" enough for me. And wealth too. They certainly seem to have been very interested in those things.

Dude, learn some history. Christianity was started by a tiny group of Jews who were persecuted by their fellow Jews and by the Roman pagans. Christianity was criminal for over its first 300 years. The early Christians had nothing to gain except horrible deaths. If you think Christianity was a get-rich-quick scheme, then go try it in Saudi Arabia today, where it's basically illegal. You won't get rich, you won't get any power, you'll likely get your head chopped off.

 

[partinobodycular]

Dude, learn some history. Christianity was started by a tiny group of Jews who were persecuted by their fellow Jews and by the Roman pagans. Christianity was criminal for over its first 300 years. The early Christians had nothing to gain except horrible deaths.

I think that you're the one who really needs to brush up on your early church history, although to be fair yours is the accepted narrative. It's just that for the most part, it's not true.

"The Myth of Persecution": Early Christians weren't persecuted

 

[Gene2memE]

You said "Hard wired" is a perfectly decent metaphor for "biologically encoded", like an instinct... Do you not see that "encoded" implies an encoder?

It really doesn't.

And if Lewis is completely wrong then you should be able to tell me completely how birds know how to build nests.

Instincts are pulled from the gestalt of the make up of an animal. That includes genetic and epigenetic expression, phenotype, social behaviours and environmental factors.

In birds, studies have found that nest building is partially influenced by gene expression and gene patterning, which in turn influence both phenotype and brain and hormonal activity. Which in turn influences social behaviours, which then influnce nest building behaviours.

So, there's certainly a genetic component. Not so much any individual gene, but rather an entire genetic 'architecture', which has a push-pull with other gene expressions. For instance, difference in various phenotypic traits between members of individual bird species have been show to be either weakly or highly correlated with their nest building behaviors. These traits have been shown to be heritable between generations. They can also be selectively bred into or out of a popultion.

Similarly, memory and learning have been show to have some influences on some nest building behaviors, although this swings wildly between bird species. Situation and environment have some influence on bird nest building behavior, as does availablity of breeding mates, social learning (both from the same and different species), experiential learning, imprinting, and a range of other factors.

With some species, you can raise them on their own (never interacting with other birds) and they'll build nests. Some species will build them consistently (preferring the same materials and making the same shapes to roughly the same 'specifications') while other species will change their nests based on trial and error, or the construction materials presented to them.

It's a complicated web of interactions. Next building is also a complex activity. So, there's no simple answer "this is how birds know how to build nests". It's more like, "we know nest building behaviour is affected, to a greater or lesser degree, by these complex interactions".

 

[ozso]

I've never had to wear eyeglasses but about two weeks ago I started needing to sometimes wear glasses to read fine print. Yesterday I was watching a YouTube video and I got an advertisement for eyeglasses. It was a little creepy because I'd never received an ad about glasses before, and I had not searched for anything related to glasses or optometry, or visited any retail sites or read any articles about glasses. But then I remembered that three days prior to getting the ad, I typed the word "eyeglasses" in a post in this forum.

I don't know how it works, but is it possible for a bot to crawl a forum like this one, and associate information found with a poster, and know when the poster visits YouTube, for example? I should add that although I visit YouTube occasionally, I've never signed in there, nor with any other part of the Googleverse.

Was this just a coincidence? Am I just being paranoid?

Forums like these are crawling with advertisement bots. Probably the company that ad belongs to had a bot in here that picked up on what you typed.

 

[durangodawood]

It really doesn't.



Instincts are pulled from the gestalt of the make up of an animal. That includes genetic and epigenetic expression, phenotype, social behaviours and environmental factors.

In birds, studies have found that nest building is partially influenced by gene expression and gene patterning, which in turn influence both phenotype and brain and hormonal activity. Which in turn influences social behaviours, which then influnce nest building behaviours.

So, there's certainly a genetic component. Not so much any individual gene, but rather an entire genetic 'architecture', which has a push-pull with other gene expressions. For instance, difference in various phenotypic traits between members of individual bird species have been show to be either weakly or highly correlated with their nest building behaviors. These traits have been shown to be heritable between generations. They can also be selectively bred into or out of a popultion.

Similarly, memory and learning have been show to have some influences on some nest building behaviors, although this swings wildly between bird species. Situation and environment have some influence on bird nest building behavior, as does availablity of breeding mates, social learning (both from the same and different species), experiential learning, imprinting, and a range of other factors.

With some species, you can raise them on their own (never interacting with other birds) and they'll build nests. Some species will build them consistently (preferring the same materials and making the same shapes to roughly the same 'specifications') while other species will change their nests based on trial and error, or the construction materials presented to them.

It's a complicated web of interactions. Next building is also a complex activity. So, there's no simple answer "this is how birds know how to build nests". It's more like, "we know nest building behaviour is affected, to a greater or lesser degree, by these complex interactions".

As you note. the exact mechanism of how nest building knowledge is transmitted is not fully understood.

As I noted, we know much more than "we have no idea" how birds know how to do this.