Human Evolution

[AV1611VET]

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

No.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

Which church? Which denominations? Even if you limit it to Christianity, Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally

 

[AV1611VET]

Which church? Which denominations? Even if you limit it to Christianity, Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally

I'll change that.

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

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

What?

I had asserted two things:

A) The ultimate cause of the universe might have a mind.
B) The ultimate cause of the universe might not have a mind.
​

You responded with this:

1. A or C.
2. Not C.
3. Therefore A.
4. Therefore not B.​

Sorry, not valid. Please try again.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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




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.



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".



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'.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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".

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.

Full stop.

Rewind.

Let's back up and talk about how we got here. You ignored the OP and out of the blue asked me an unrelated question, "Where did nature come from?" I thought you were asking about the cause of the cause of the Big Bang, so I referred you to my website where I address that question: Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free . Your response indicated you weren't really interested in the cause of nature. Rather, you stated that "all reality comes from and depends on him, including math and logic." So you seemed to be shifting to a discussion of where math and logic come from.

Then you went way out in the woods, trying to argue that mathematics and logic can only come from God. Your argument is completely losing. You can see for yourself by clicking on https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/20966 . Basic principles of logic and mathematics simply exist in all possible worlds, and do not need a God to make it so.

A simple example is the law of noncontradiction. If A is true, then it is not possible that not A is true. Its a simple logic statement, and it is true in all possible worlds, regardless of whether a God exists. So no, God did not invent that law of logic.

Likewise, with mathematical quantities, certain laws of mathematical quantities must exist in any possible world. In all possible worlds 2 + 2 <> 53567, regardless of whether a God exists in that world.

I made several attempts to explain that to you, but each time you respond with twice as many bad arguments as the arguments I refuted. So, I can see it would be a waste of my time to continue. All that would prove is that constantly doubling a finite quantity eventually make a big quantity (a fact that is true in all possible worlds, by the way).

In your last response, you complain endlessly that I am discussing mathematics and logic. Darn right! Who hijacked this thread anyway? You did. Who insisted that we had to talk about the origin of mathematics and logic? You did. Fine. I obliged you. Now you complain endlessly that I am discussing the origin of mathematics and logic. LOL! Are you serious?

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Even if I were a Christian, I'd still be asking this question: How do I know when someone is acting on the word of God?

 

[SelfSim]

Likewise, with mathematical quantities, certain laws of mathematical quantities must exist in any possible world.

.. except belief based 'worlds'. Where, by 'belief' there, I mean:

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

(Just sayin' ...)

 

[SelfSim]

Even if I were a Christian, I'd still be asking this question: How do I know when someone is acting on the word of God?

The words mysteriously appear in blue?

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

Or should be, anyway...

 

[Mark Quayle]

argue with the dictionary people

The dictionary refers to USE of a word. Not fact of what the word represents.

 

[doubtingmerle]

.. except belief based 'worlds'. Where, by 'belief' there, I mean:

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

(Just sayin' ...)

How would that work, even in a fairy tale? Describe an imaginary world where 2 angels holding 2 beers each is exactly the same thing as two angels holding a total of 53567 beers.

 

[SelfSim]

How would that work, even in a fairy tale? Describe an imaginary world where 2 angels holding 2 beers each is exactly the same thing as two angels holding a total of 53567 beers.

The describer there is demonstrably doing that from our world and the description is therefore, a belief. Because a belief departs from the rules of logic, the description from within that world, is already illogical.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The describer there is demonstrably doing that from our world and the description is therefore, a belief. Because a belief departs from the rules of logic, the description from within that world, is already illogical.

How would a describer that is in a world where 2 beers plus 2 beers equals 53,567 beers describe how that fact can exist in his world? I contend that this is logically impossible.

 

[Estrid]

What?

I had asserted two things:

A) The ultimate cause of the universe might have a mind.
B) The ultimate cause of the universe might not have a mind.
​

You responded with this:

1. A or C.
2. Not C.
3. Therefore A.
4. Therefore not B.​

Sorry, not valid. Please try again.

Or dont

 

[SelfSim]

How would a describer that is in a world where 2 beers plus 2 beers equals 53,567 beers describe how that fact can exist in his world? I contend that this is logically impossible.

Facts in his world may well be illogical from our viewpoint.
However, from our world's viewpoint, the describer is observably doing their describing from our world. That description passes the test of what a belief is, therefore illogic would be consistent in his worldview. This doesn't mean that logic in his world is inconsistent with it either .. because the context was belief in the first place.

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).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Facts in his world may well be illogical from our viewpoint.

Absolutely. A different world could have totally different physics and a totally different history, and hence totally different facts.

But a different world can not possibly exist where a quantity of 53567 beers is exactly the same thing as a quantity of 4 beers.

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).

The law of noncontradition applies everywhere, even if there is no mind around and nobody ever observes it.

In any galaxy in our universe, 2 plus 2 equals 4, regardless if there is anybody that can observe that galaxy.

2 plus 2 equaled 4 long before people figured out how to express that equation.

In any possible world, two plus two equals four.

Two plus two equals four.

 

[SelfSim]

.. The law of noncontradition applies everywhere, even if there is no mind around and nobody ever observes it.

In any galaxy in our universe, 2 plus 2 equals 4, regardless if there is anybody that can observe that galaxy.

2 plus 2 equaled 4 long before people figured out how to express that equation.

In any possible world, two plus two equals four.

Two plus two equals four.

Hmm .. and how do you know all this(?)
(Obviously a rhetorical question, because it would be you knowing all that and doing the observing in that universe .. which would, of course, then be a contradiction to the claim).

 

[Mark Quayle]

What?

I had asserted two things:

A) The ultimate cause of the universe might have a mind.
B) The ultimate cause of the universe might not have a mind.
​

You responded with this:

1. A or C.
2. Not C.
3. Therefore A.
4. Therefore not B.​

Sorry, not valid. Please try again.

You say:
A) First Cause might have a mind.
B) first cause might not have a mind.

I go with A), and I claim, First Cause has a mind.
Here's one reason why:

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.

Therefore, First Cause has a mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Even if I were a Christian, I'd still be asking this question: How do I know when someone is acting on the word of God?

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

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You say:
A) First Cause might have a mind.
B) first cause might not have a mind.

I go with A), and I claim, First Cause has a mind.
Here's one reason why:

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.

Therefore, First Cause has a mind.

Posit b is an unsupported assertion, not an implication.