Human Evolution

[AV1611VET]

He warned you not to think, else you might become an atheist?

As Robert G. Ingersoll put it, "If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?"

Cute.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Cute.

Glad you liked it.

That expression comes in so handy, I made it be my tagline.

 

[Estrid]

Glad you liked it.

That expression comes in so handy, I made it be my tagline.

Some alas don't have the brains to even
realize they lack the capacity to think.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
If God is God, First Cause and Omnipotent, yes, God made that. He is not subject to it —it is, (to put it crassly), his invention, as is all of reality. But don't worry, he will not change.

Reality is what it is, because God is real. Reality is his 'invention'.

I am sorry, but the quantity two plus two cannot possibly equal the quantity 53,567. That is logically impossible. No God can make those two quantities be equal.

Of course it is logically impossible. I did not say otherwise.

Your quote above was in response to, "And you do agree with me that the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 represents a fact that just is? It could not possibly be otherwise in any universe." And I stand by that.

And so do I.

But you assert that no, 2+2=4 is simply his invention because that is what he decided. He could have decided otherwise.

Well, no. I did not say he could have decided otherwise. I called it 'invention' for lack of a better descriptive term. But he did not 'invent' it for some capricious reason. His reasons are always good and useful. Furthermore, he 'invented' it out of his very expressed nature. Why even would he invent otherwise? It is not a question of 'could' or not, when dealing with God. He need not consider the consequences or implications of a thing before doing it, and he need not consider the options.

My rather obvious (I thought) point is that he is not like us, bound by logic and existence. Logic and existence, along with love and so many other things, emanate from him. He is not subject to them as if they 'just are' here from before God did anything else. They are not self-existent. God is.

In no possible world is two angels on the head of a pin holding two beer mugs each the same thing as two angels on a head of a pin holding a total of 53,567. Not even an omnipotent God can do things that are logically impossible.

I agree completely and did not say otherwise.

If your God can do things that are logically impossible, can he be completely honest with you while lying to you at the same time?

I did not say, nor did I hint, that he can do things that are logically impossible. But yes he can be completely forthright to you, yet mislead you, because of your hardness or heart, or your dependence on other people's methods.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which does not answer my question. You might have misunderstood the question. Let's reword it a little:

Why is it logical to postulate that perhaps it just is that a first cause with a mind exists, and it could not be otherwise; but it is not logical to postulate that perhaps it just is that a first cause without a mind exists, and it could not be otherwise?
​

I contend that the root cause of existence possibly did not have a mind, and possibly did. Both options seem logical to me.

If no mind, then mere mechanical fact, and therefore, subject to laws or principles from outside itself. Thus, not first cause.

 

[Bradskii]

But yes he can be completely forthright to you, yet mislead you, because of your hardness or heart, or your dependence on other people's methods.

Lots of alarm bells going off there, Mark. That sounds like a card that any given Christian could play when anyone proposes something with which they disagree.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If no mind, then mere mechanical fact, and therefore, subject to laws or principles from outside itself. Thus, not first cause.

Huh? The very question is whether the first cause had a mind. You state that the first cause could not have had no mind because it could not have had no mind. That is one big circle, my friend. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.

Your argument looks like this.

1. I assert that something without a mind cannot be the root cause of the universe.
2. Therefore, something without a mind cannot be the root cause of the universe.

When I see things like this, I just shake my head in sorrow.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Mark,

Once again, why is it that, regardless of what the thread is about, people insist that we need to talk about the origin of the universe or the origin of math instead?

Of course it is logically impossible. I did not say otherwise.

We found a point of agreement. It is logically impossible for 2 plus 2 to equal 53,567.

Well, no. I did not say he could have decided otherwise. I called it 'invention' for lack of a better descriptive term.

OK, so it is true that 2 + 2 < 53567. God himself could not have decided otherwise.

So why do you say God invented math?

2 + 2 < 53,567 has to be true, and there is nothing God could have done to change that fact. Therefore, this is not his invention.

But he did not 'invent' it for some capricious reason. His reasons are always good and useful.

I am not asking about his reasons.

I am asking if it is a logical fact that 2 + 2 < 53,567, regardless of whether God exists.

Why even would

he invent otherwise?

He did not have the choice.

We have agreed that it is logically impossible that 2 + 2 < 53,567. And even you admit that God cannot do things that are logically impossible.

It is not a question of 'could' or not, when dealing with God.

Are there some things that God cannot do?

Can he lie to you and at the same time not be lying to you?

My rather obvious (I thought) point is that he is not like us, bound by logic and existence.

So God could have ignored logic, and made 2 + 2 = 53,567? Or is that something he could not do?

Logic and existence, along with love and so many other things, emanate from him.

False.

2+ 2 < 53567 in all possible worlds. That is true, regardless of whether God emanate it.

God is.

So far you have offered zero evidence for this assertion.

I agree completely and did not say otherwise.

You say this in response to, "Not even an omnipotent God can do things that are logically impossible."

OK so we have:

1. It is logically impossible that 2 + 2 = 53,567.
2. God cannot do things that are logically impossible.
3. Therefore God could not possibly have invented that 2 + 2 will equal 53,567.
4. Therefore, it is false that God invented 2 + 2 does not equal 53567.

I did not say, nor did I hint, that he can do things that are logically impossible.

OK. So your God is limited. There are things that are logically impossible and God cannot do those things.

So, no, God cannot be the source of logic if logical necessity overrides God.

But yes he can be completely forthright to you, yet mislead you

You ignored the question. Let's try the question a different way.

Can God be completely honest with you, Mark Quayle, while at the same time not be completely honest with you?

If your answer is, "no", then there are things that God cannot do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Lots of alarm bells going off there, Mark. That sounds like a card that any given Christian could play when anyone proposes something with which they disagree.

I suppose you have a point there; I think I agree with you —I have seen it used that way. Nevertheless, it is so. Christianity, or more specifically, the Bible, teaches that God's Word always accomplishes something that God intended for it to accomplish, both generally and specifically. When people hear the Word of God, they always react, sometimes negatively, sometimes positively. The Word of God being true, then, and God knowing all things, if he tells someone the truth, knowing that that person will reject it, he has purposely told the truth to negative effect.

So, if that person rejects the Word of God because of their spiritual blindness, they will continue to reject it, further blinding themselves.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Huh? The very question is whether the first cause had a mind. You state that the first cause could not have had no mind because it could not have had no mind. That is one big circle, my friend. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.

Your argument looks like this.

1. I assert that something without a mind cannot be the root cause of the universe.
2. Therefore, something without a mind cannot be the root cause of the universe.

When I see things like this, I just shake my head in sorrow.

Lol, maybe you would be less sorrowful if you paid closer attention. Let me try to explain by use of an example.

1. Forks cannot be a spoons.
2. a. Spoons have no tines; b. forks do
3. So forks cannot be spoons.

So:
1. First Cause has a mind.
2. a. The only two 'possible' forms for First Cause are: Possessing of a mind, and mere mechanical fact; b. 'mechanical fact' implies being governed by principles from outside itself; c. First Cause cannot be governed by principles from outside itself.
3. Therefore, First Cause has a mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark,

Once again, why is it that, regardless of what the thread is about, people insist that we need to talk about the origin of the universe or the origin of math instead?

Maybe you mean, "...Mark keeps going off on a tangent, always about the origin or the universe or origin of math."

OK, so it is true that 2 + 2 < 53567. God himself could not have decided otherwise.

So why do you say God invented math?

2 + 2 < 53,567 has to be true, and there is nothing God could have done to change that fact. Therefore, this is not his invention.

Because, like all humanity wants to do, you look at this backwards. You see an unchangeable principle, that seems to you to be of its own derivation ("it just is"), but you can't prove it is of its own derivation, without negating first cause.

You go out of your way to show that there are things First Cause cannot do, yet you have done nothing to even show that a self-contradictory notion even is "a thing", i.e. a cause with effects. You go from there to imply this self-contradictory notion is a principle governing even First Cause, making even supposed 'first cause' an effect, and you even imply that this self-contradictory notion is not itself subject to external cause or principle.

He did not have the choice.

We have agreed that it is logically impossible that 2 + 2 < 53,567. And even you admit that God cannot do things that are logically impossible.

What is logically self-contradictory is not in itself properly "a thing". The law of non-contradiction demonstrates that a self-contradictory notion is not "a thing".

Are there some things that God cannot do?

Can he lie to you and at the same time not be lying to you?

If you mean, "Can he deceive you by telling you the truth?", yes, most certainly he can. Yet even that is a play on the facts, in that whom he thus deceives, are also deceiving themselves.

There are many things that God will not do. He will not, for example, contradict himself. He will be faithful to complete what he has begun. He will not change. He will not yield his glory to another. Etc etc. These do not limit God. They are, for lack of a better way for me to put it, 'of him' and not 'to him'.

So God could have ignored logic, and made 2 + 2 = 53,567? Or is that something he could not do?

You continue with this charade. The logically self-contradictory governs nothing. It does not limit God. Hello!

Let me try this: It is not because it is good to be good that God is good. Good-ness is what it is because God is good. He does not need to consider a supposed choice set before him, and then choose to do good. He does good because he is good. God does not answer to a principle we know of as "Existence". Existence is what it is because God exists. Reality is itself not able to govern God's existence. Reality proceeds from God, and is sustained by God.

Thus also: Logic is what it is BECAUSE God is logical.

False.

2+ 2 < 53567 in all possible worlds. That is true, regardless of whether God emanate it.

Yet he does emanate it, or he is not God. God is subject, (as a bow to human terminology), only to himself, and not to any external principle.

So far you have offered zero evidence for this assertion.

The evidence is the coffee cup on your desk, the keyboard in front of you, the floor under you, and all other effects. If you deny first cause, you assert magic.

You say this in response to, "Not even an omnipotent God can do things that are logically impossible."

OK so we have:

1. It is logically impossible that 2 + 2 = 53,567.
2. God cannot do things that are logically impossible.
3. Therefore God could not possibly have invented that 2 + 2 will equal 53,567.
4. Therefore, it is false that God invented 2 + 2 does not equal 53567.

Again and again, ad nauseum, you assert that a self-contradictory notion is a governing cause.

Amazingly, not only do you consider us as possessing intellectual capacity to handle what by itself (though obviously self-contradictory) is a governing cause, and itself ungoverned, yet we, because of our great intellect, can manipulate it in our minds, but somehow God is always (and only) limited by it.

OK. So your God is limited. There are things that are logically impossible and God cannot do those things.

So, no, God cannot be the source of logic if logical necessity overrides God.

Logical necessity does not override God. You have not shown this. You've only shown a silly charade of supposedly logical progression, completely ignoring the fact that you are giving real status to a non-existent supposition.

"What is, is." What exists, has being. But what is self-contradictory does not have being. It does not "is".

You ignored the question. Let's try the question a different way.

Can God be completely honest with you, Mark Quayle, while at the same time not be completely honest with you?

If your answer is, "no", then there are things that God cannot do.

Falsely proposed. There are things God will not do.

IF First Cause exists, all truth emanates from his point of view, and is expressed by him —not from our point of view, nor expressible by us.

I hope the day will come when you start to see how badly you play with words, and how God can so wisely play our game, using our terminology, yet do so in his OWN way, telling the truth we cannot understand, causing some to turn toward him and others to turn away, if only for that one instance. GOD is in charge, or he is not God.

 

[Pardon Maoi]

explanations in and of themselves are not necessarily true, nor necessarily false, explanations are used to clarify whatever is being discussed.

Definition of worldview

: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (ie evolution or intelligent design) - two different specific standpoints.

What is meant by world view?

A worldview is a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action. Worldview is expressed in ethics, religion, philosophy, scientific beliefs and so on

There are many worldviews .... evolutionism or intelligent design are a couple of them.

None of that talking in circles changes the fact that evolution is a scientific theory, not a "worldview".

 

[eleos1954]

None of that talking in circles changes the fact that evolution is a scientific theory, not a "worldview".

argue with the dictionary people

 

[Estrid]

argue with the dictionary people

According to the dictionary a frog is a hoppy amphibian,
a bayonet thingy or part of a violin bow.
Equivocation games are seldom amusing and never edifying.

What reason do youhave for this insistance on evolution or theory of evolution (which is it?) Is a worldview?
Attempting some way of making that field of
science just a choice among other equally or more
valid ways to regard the world?

 

[Estrid]

None of that talking in circles changes the fact that evolution is a scientific theory, not a "worldview".

Don't mix up evolution and theory of evolution.
The existence of evolution is an observed fact.
The theory of evolution is a, you know, theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of that talking in circles changes the fact that evolution is a scientific theory, not a "worldview".

It will be though, when we become a one-world government under the Antichrist.

Right now, the Church is keeping evolution in check; but when the Rapture occurs and the Church is gone, things are going to change for the worse.

 

[Estrid]

argue with the dictionary people

It would be instructive to all, you included, if you told us
which " dictionary people" you refer to, and by what dictionary
you find either evolution or the theory thereof definedas a world view.

Failing that, as surely you will, a cogent explanation of how.
either of those quite different terms (evolution and ToE)
fits the definition of worldview.

To save you the trouble of pointing out the obvious and
irrelevant, we agree that UNDERSTANDING ToE, or for that matter, geology,
physics, psycholoy, meteorology, art, music, cars, or how to comb ones own hair does AFFECT ones
general outlook on life. That is hardly profound or worth mentioning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Aside from the technicalities and all, what reason do you have for this insistence on evolution or theory of evolution (which is it?) is a worldview?

If it isn't already, it's just around the corner.

The tares are growing.

 

[Pardon Maoi]

It will be though, when we become a one-world government under the Antichrist.

Right now, the Church is keeping evolution in check; but when the Rapture occurs and the Church is gone, things are going to change for the worse.

Huh? Are you one of those YECs who responds with drivel because they can't address the actual subject at hand?

 

[Pardon Maoi]

argue with the dictionary people

Semantic arguments in a scientific discussion mean you've already lost.

Again, evolution is a scientific theory, not a "worldview". I realize YECs are desperately trying to find a way to attack evolution since you can't address the science, but no. Magic words like "worldview" don't address the science.