Human Evolution

Bungle_Bear said:

Posit b is an unsupported assertion, not an implication.

Click to expand...

Yep. I agree.

'Being governed by .. {whatever..}', presupposes an unevidenced 'top-down' model which, itself, excludes the behaviours of the so-called 'mechanical fact' from demonstrating its own causality.

(.. Oh, and what caused that top-down model to exist there too, eh?)

doubtingmerle said:

The first cause might not have even had a mind.

Click to expand...

A mind is a terrible thing to comprehend, isn't it?

Only smart kids don't want a Mind running they show, do they?

doubtingmerle said:

If a mind is truly running the show, smart kids would want to know the mind that is running the show. But if a mind is not running the show, smart kids don't choose to make one up. And if they don't know, then smart kids say, "I don't know."

And smart kids don't assume that, if there is a mind behind the universe, then that mind must have written the Authorized King James Version.

Click to expand...

Smart woul include not believing anything said
by a person who told them that.
Not without verifying it from more reliable sources.

doubtingmerle said:

And smart kids don't assume that, if there is a mind behind the universe, then that mind must have written the Authorized King James Version.

Click to expand...

We call those smart kids "mission fields."

Estrid said:

Smart woul include not believing anything said by a person who told them that.

Not without verifying it from more reliable sources.

Click to expand...

And if it was verified by a "more reliable source," would that "more reliable source" want to know how the "less reliable source" knew that without having the "proper" equipment to properly verify it?

doubtingmerle said:

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​

Click to expand...

Justify this statement:

Oct 31 = Dec 25

doubtingmerle said:

I know. That's why I'm here.

Click to expand...

To act as a roadblock? or to encourage them?

doubtingmerle said:

If you are trying to accurately find the will of God, some of us don't think the KJV is proper equipment.

Click to expand...

You're not a smart kid though, are you?

doubtingmerle said:

Yes, octal 31 equals decimal 25.

Quantities like 2, 4, and 10 are real things. These quantities necessarily exist in any possible world that has that many quantifiable things, regardless of whether there is a God there. And these quantities necessarily relate to one another based on fixed mathematical rules, regardless of whether a God is there.

But numbers? Numbers are manmade inventions to help us understand quantities. Our math is a manmade invention to help our species of ape (see the OP!) understand things our brain was not evolved to handle efficiently. We learned to use languages, and later learned the specialized languages of logic and math, which make it possible for apes in the city to comprehend the fixed laws of quantities. Number systems such as octal are manmade. Quantities are fixed facts.

Click to expand...

Yes ... and all that logic might work in the physical universe ... but taken as a whole (i.e., accounting for the spiritual universe as well) 1 + 1 + 1 can equal 1 (the Godhead).

Science and mathematics are myopic.

doubtingmerle said:

Nah, I'm a wise guy.

Click to expand...

Homo sapiens?

What did Paul say about professing oneself to be Homo sapiens?

doubtingmerle said:

To wave my hands and shout at the smart kids driving their cars full speed through the fog toward the missing bridge, "The bridge is out!"

Click to expand...

So a roadblock then?

doubtingmerle said:

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 The Ontology of Logic • Richard Carrier . 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?

Click to expand...

At the end of your OP, you said:
"None of that (your descriptions of natural events and progressions) requires direct intervention of God. It is simply the working of nature, driving one evolutionary line in a unique direction after a number of prior adaptions had given that genus a unique survival strategy. No miracle was required." My remark, "Where did nature come from?" was in direct answer to your claim that no direct intervention of God was required. It was not a change of subject. I did not "ignore the OP", and the question was not "out of the blue". And so far, you have not answered that question.

I read what the link took me to, and it was not particularly enlightening —basically more of the same as the OP.

You say, "Your response indicated you weren't really interested in the cause of nature."
Perhaps I didn't agree with your thesis. But my whole reason for asking the question, "where did nature come from" obviously shows I'm interested in the cause of nature, or I wouldn't have asked it. And when I said, "all reality comes from and depends on him, including math and logic." I wasn't changing the subject further. I was supporting my claim against yours. Yours was no doubt logical enough, if one can ignore the logical necessity of first cause. But if there is first cause, then all reality comes from and depends on him (or, it). You propose disbelief in God (first cause), in that natural progression occurs naturally without him, even as merely first cause. I disagree and demonstrate logically why I disagree.

You say, "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." In my last response I complain endlessly that you attribute actual status or value to a logically self-contradictory notion —and not only that, but that you give it governing powers over self-existent first cause! In my first paragraph in this current post, I show that I did NOT change the subject of the OP, thus I did NOT hijack your thread. Do you misrepresent all your opponents this way?

This thread intended, or so it seemed to me, to discuss nature as not logically needing God to cause it. That is what we are discussing, wrangling up definitions and implications of God, nature, causation etc. So what is really the problem? Did you want everyone to accept your OP's premise and to continue to discuss supporting data behind your narrative "Nature's Progression", sans the 'possibility' of first cause, only?

More to respond to your claims concerning the "just is" of logical laws and their implications, and the notion of 'other possible worlds' in another post to come. Eventually. (Right now I don't much see the point, if your last post here is representative of things to come.)