Human Evolution

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
5,392
1,733
✟142,627.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
None taken! :)
Gotta laugh sometimes and send oneself up a little, eh?

On a more serious level though, it helps to occasionally recognise that we're all humans who perceive things slightly differently.
It would be helpful if the various claims made on reality made 'round these parts would also, somehow, encompass those dissimilarities, yet still include them alongside our ideas about how all humans think in similar ways about the world around us (ie: compared with how we think other species/taxa/'kinds' might do that, that is ;) ).
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
6,940
2,354
38
Hong Kong
✟88,422.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Evolution is not completely random.

What's "obious" to Aussie is not the same as what's a fact.
What is obvious is the combo of ignorance and strawman.
ToE is no more about the origin of life than auto mechanics is aboutthe origin of oil.
Anyone who STILL cant learn that little and OBVIOUS thing has
nothing sensible to contribute to any discussion of the subject.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2018
10,219
4,593
66
Pennsylvania
✟555,593.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
So AV1611VET's source is wrong? It says God himself is limited such that he cannot possibly do logically impossible things.

It says God cannot make two-sided triangles. Do you think that God could have invented two-sided triangles? I say that two-sided triangles are impossible, so therefore God cannot do that.

Back to the claim that 2 + 2 could equal 10 if God had not decreed otherwise.

Consider the following:
1) Two plus two: xx xx
2) Four: xxxx
3) Ten: xxxxxxxxxx​

I say that it is logically impossible for God, for any God to invent mathematics such that line 1 and line 3 truly have the same number of x's. That is logically impossible. Sure, he could say they have the same number of x's, but if he says that, he would be wrong.

Anybody who says that lines 1 and 3 have the same number of x's is wrong. And if God invented math such that his math said they had the same number of x's, then God would be wrong. God cannot invent math such that his invented math can truthfully say that lines 1 and 3 have the same number of x's. God cannot do that.
On and on and on. Let me try again. To say that there is something God cannot do, is to imply that he might at some point wish to do such a thing, and it implies that our words arranged just so, throw some real meaning onto a logically self-contradictory thing. Sorry, but it's plain silly.

God is not like us; it is not that he is limited, like us, nor is it to say that he can do a logically self-contradicting thing, but that both are plainly bogus, human considerations.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,506
2,256
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟396,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
nor is it to say that he can do a logically self-contradicting thing

Exactly. God cannot do self-contradictory things. You cannot do self-contradictory things. I cannot do self-contradictory thngs. AV1611VET cannot do self-contradictory things. Neither can Estrid, or anybody else here. It is simply impossible.

God cannot create 2 sided triangles. He cannot make 2+2=53,567. He cannot make married bachelors. He cannot be a lying being that never lies. He cannot be always honest while sometimes lying. Nobody can do those things. It is just the simple nature of reality that these things are so, and God could do nothing to change it.

2+2=4. That's just how it is. We didn't need God to invent that. It is just the nature of reality. God could not have possibly invented the relationship that 2+2=53,567.

Mathematics is simply the expression of what intrinsically is. We do not need anybody to invent it. We just need people to discover the laws that intrinsically exist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,506
2,256
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟396,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
  • We don't know ..
  • The universe, the Big Bang, cosmic inflation and quantum effects are all models developed by scientists doing their best to explain how to think of things coming into existence, all of which are based on what we do know.
  • We won't know more until they come up with a better tested model.
I'll leave it up to you to decide on whether that answer is substantially different from yours.
No, that is not substantially the same as mine. I told you where are thought the universe came from, the Big Bang. You will not tell us if you think the universe came from the Big Bang. Why not?

We have very good evidence that there was a Big Bang. You have not made the slightest effort to tell us whether you think the universe was caused by the Big Bang.

I am curious how a Humanist can have no answer when asked if he thinks the universe came from the Big Bang.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,506
2,256
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟396,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Because I have no interest in giving my complete trust to, nor can I submit myself to, a mere superhuman.
You say this in response to, "But how do you know that God might be something different from how you define him?"

Ah, so that is how you know that God is not something different from how you define it? Sounds like wishful thinkin to me. Just because you have an interest in God being a certain way does not prove God is that way.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,506
2,256
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟396,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If you can somehow prove that God is subject to anything from outside himself, i.e. anything that exists independently of his own causation, then I will admit he is not, after all, first cause, and I will tell you plainly I am an atheist. Such a thing/being is not God.
OK, then I guess you are an atheist. For you have said repeatedly that God cannot do things that are self-contradictory. You have admitted over and over that there are some things that limit God. He cannot do things that are self-contradictory. He cannot make 2 sided triangles. He cannot make married bachelors. He cannot lie and never lie. There are a lot of things that your God cannot do.

Your God is subject to the restriction that prevents anybody from doing self-contradictory things.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,506
2,256
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟396,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
There are reasons showing that first cause is necessarily with intent
So far you have not listed one such reason. What reason do you have for believing the first cause of the universe had intent?
1) First cause without a mind is mere mechanical fact, which is subject to principles from outside itself, thus, not first cause.
Flapdoodle. There can be a sum total of whatever it is that is the root explanation of the universe that is more than just mechanical fact.
First cause with a mind but subject to fact from outside itself is not first cause.
And yet your God is restricted from making 2+2=53,567. Even if God wanted to make 2+2=53,567, your God could not do that. Therefore, by your definition, your God is not first cause.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
5,392
1,733
✟142,627.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
No, that is not substantially the same as mine.
Good .. we're making progress then.
doubtingmerle said:
I told you where are thought the universe came from, the Big Bang. You will not tell us if you think the universe came from the Big Bang. Why not?

We have very good evidence that there was a Big Bang. You have not made the slightest effort to tell us whether you think the universe was caused by the Big Bang.
The 'Big Bang' commonly refers to the currently (mainstream) prevailing Cosmological model which has been specifically developed to allow study of our fundamental questions about the origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate of the universe.

Your question however, conflates that type of model with 'the universe', (the latter of which is also a model .. of a different type).
doubtingmerle said:
I am curious how a Humanist can have no answer when asked if he thinks the universe came from the Big Bang.
I've already provided my answer and also mentioned to you that my focus is from the scientific viewpoint and is not just some other belief-based religious opinion.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
5,392
1,733
✟142,627.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... Nobody can do those things. It is just the simple nature of reality that these things are so, and God could do nothing to change it.

2+2=4. That's just how it is. We didn't need God to invent that. It is just the nature of reality. God could not have possibly invented the relationship that 2+2=53,567.

Mathematics is simply the expression of what intrinsically is. We do not need anybody to invent it. We just need people to discover the laws that intrinsically exist.
Logic, (and thence mathematics), is 'the simple nature' of human minds.
'Reality' is whatever we decide it means.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2018
10,219
4,593
66
Pennsylvania
✟555,593.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Yes, that is what the evidence shows. There are multiple lines of evidence that indicate that spacetime itself was inflating rapidly for the first fraction of a second of the early universe.

And our current understanding of physics says that inflation must have been going on long before our universe began, and must have extended far beyond our universe. In fact, once that inflation began, physicists say it likely would continue forever and be constantly increasing exponentially.

I am not a physicist. But I linked to a documentary where leading physicists say this. I link to it again at the bottom of this post.

Correct. We don't know.

But "I don't know" is not the same as "I don't have a clue" or "I will never know". Again, see the video I linked to.


Those aren't my words, but yes, of course, science is continually being updated as we make new discoveries.

How many times have I said on this thread, "I don't know" regarding the ultimate reason for existence? Many, many times. How many more times do you want me to say, "I don't know"?

If you think I have made a statement that is "so adamant about [my] understanding" of this, please echo back that statement. If I agree that statement was too strongly worded, I will correct it to reflect my agnosticism.

Very good.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2018
10,219
4,593
66
Pennsylvania
✟555,593.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Logic, (and thence mathematics), is 'the simple nature' of human minds.
'Reality' is whatever we decide it means.
What is real is not subject to our concepts nor language.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: doubtingmerle
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
5,392
1,733
✟142,627.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
What is real is not subject to our concepts nor language.
Then what are we supposed to think you mean whenever you type the phrase 'is real'?

If its not 'subject to our concepts or language', then why do you specifically, deliberately, use our concepts and language to tell us what is and isn't real?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,506
2,256
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟396,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
'Reality' is whatever we decide it means.
I disagree. Objective reality exists. I cannot just decide whatever I want reality to mean and call that reality.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,506
2,256
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟396,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Then what are we supposed to think you mean whenever you type the phrase 'is real'?

If its not 'subject to our concepts or language', then why do you specifically, deliberately, use our concepts and language to tell us what is and isn't real?
Because that is the way humans communicate--with language.

Objective reality exists. There are real things that are following real laws of nature.

You and I (and AV1611VET and others) observe that reality. Being humans, we like to talk about what we observe. The primary means of doing that is by using language, by using words.

And yes, language is limited. But humans find a way to use it and to communicate with others.

All the words in the dictionary are defined with other words. And all those words are defined by still other words that are defined by still other words. But, no matter where you start, you always loop back around to find that the definition of words end up in an endless loop, such as A is defined with B, that is defined with C, that is defined with A, ad infinitum.

But in spite of its limits, we still make language work.

You cannot get from "Our language cannot express everything precisely" to "therefore reality does not exist."
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,506
2,256
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟396,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The 'Big Bang' commonly refers to the currently (mainstream) prevailing Cosmological model which has been specifically developed to allow study of our fundamental questions about the origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate of the universe.
No sir or mam, the Big Bang was not simply developed to allow study of these things. We have been studying the origin of the universe for centuries. That study has led all of mainstream science to conclude that our observable universe began with an event commonly referred to as the Big Bang.

I asked you a specific question:

Do you or do you not agree that the universe almost surely began with the Big Bang?​

I notice that you will not answer this specific question. Rather, you drone on about the need for study. Why study, if we know that, no matter what is found, we will just pass it off and ask for more study? Your refusal to answer tells me a lot about what is going on here. Please answer.

For good measure, let me ask you a different question:

Do you or do you not agree that humans evolved from other animals?​

I really want to know where you are coming from. Because, from every thing I see, your posts are against humanism and the scientific view of origins. If I am mistaken, please let me know what you think about these things. Instead, you post things that seem to be opposed to mainstream science and refuse to answer simple questions about what you actually think.

Your question however, conflates that type of model with 'the universe', (the latter of which is also a model .. of a different type).
Huh? You say this in direct response to this quote, which lists only one question. And yet you somehow claim that the question in this quote conflates a model with the universe:

I told you where are thought the universe came from, the Big Bang. You will not tell us if you think the universe came from the Big Bang. Why not?​

We have very good evidence that there was a Big Bang. You have not made the slightest effort to tell us whether you think the universe was caused by the Big Bang.​

There is only one question there--"Why not?" And I would like an answer. Why will you not tell us if you think the universe came from the Big Bang?

I've already provided my answer...

If you answered, what was your answer? Do you or do you not agree that our universe almost surely began with the Big Bang?

...and also mentioned to you that my focus is from the scientific viewpoint and is not just some other belief-based religious opinion.

And once again you appear to be attacking Humanists for belief-based religious opinion. It is the same type of attack you have used multiple times. This totally misrepresents what humanism is about. I am really curious why your posts seem to have nothing but disdain for humanism, and yet you identify as a Humanist.
 
Upvote 0