The phenomenon and the explanation

[Ophiolite]

How nice.

Telling them they're stooping to miming an "obscenely arrogant" anthem in the name of humility.

I suppose next you're going to tell me that's not a cross on their flag? it's a Johari window?

Please don't be more ridiculous than normal. Like all patriotic acts, if it is taken to seriously it spills over into the darkness of nationalism. At an international football match it's simply about encouraging a sense of belonging, building morale and generally having a good time. No one pays much attention to the words, except perhaps a royalist like me, who sees it as a way of showing respect for someone I admire.

You need to invest some time in studying symbology and how the significance of symbols metamorphoses over time.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Telling them they're stooping to miming an "obscenely arrogant" anthem in the name of humility.

Asking for benevolence is "obscenely arrogant"? Perhaps you need to look a lot closer to home for arrogance - land of the free and home of the brave. Pfft.

 

[dlamberth]

The evolution of life has been guided by forces external to it. Changing climates wiping out these and offering opportunity for others and such. But human life, because of the introduction of intellect is not subject to external forces. Human life adapts to external forces.and masters them. Human evolution is internal. Human life isn't perfecting the sensitive powers but the powers of it's intellect. Which is itself not produced by the powers of nature. Perfecting the powers of the human soul leads to the next evolutionary leap demonstrated by those who were translated body and soul to immortal life and then made complete by the resurrection of Jesus to eternal life body and soul.

Are you suggesting that Humanity has reached a place where it is now directing it's own evolution?

 

[Mark Quayle]

When I've looked into some of the claims you mention I've found the argument for the contradictions more convincing than the arguments against. I'm reasonably comfortable with my objectivity and if you want to present the strongest refutation of any single contradiction I will give it due attention.

Not all of them, I hope, you find more convincing than the arguments against! Take the one concerning Judas dying by hanging vs dying by falling and his guts bursting open. You see no reasonable way both could happen?

As to the First Cause- Cosmological Argument I generally consider matters of Origin to be way above my pay grade. I leave that to the many millions on the planet who are smarter than me. I am inclined to say that your affection for the "law of causation" is quaint, but worry that sounds patronising - not my intent.

If you can handle the convolutions of Darwinism, I should think the simple logic of the Cosmological Argument easy! The so-called refutations that I have studied are either, in the final analysis simply illogical (referring to those that present a supposed alternative to first cause, or a supposed first cause possessed of illogically non-first-cause-ish characteristics), or they are refutations of the formal philosophical statements, and at that, usually simply semantics. (Actually, some of those I tend to agree with, though I'm not always sure what is meant by what I am reading, as I'm not trained in Philosophy.)

I've not yet been shown an effective alternative method. I'd delight in having one. I've read many claims, but no one has come up with the goods.

During childhood, instinct works pretty well. Love works wonderfully well, some times. And then, there's habit, though, granted, that is often, if not usually, based on repeated empirical findings and their conclusions, but it is not entirely logical in form.

That may well be the case. Does that trouble you? If so, why?

No! It is one of my happiest logical claims!

Yes, that might be the case. It's worked out moderatly well for me. Hopefully for you too.

It seems that if it is true, I like how it was done! But both this and the other, (that only one thing ever happens), don't seem to change anything except to get people upset, perhaps.

Being married taught me that intelligence is not always, (in fact, maybe not usually), logical —not to mention that logic is not always intelligible. It also taught me that good sense had better have a good sense of humor, or one might go mad with logic.

When I argue I might appear to take myself seriously, because it seems to acquire and keep the upper hand more easily, but I think intelligence should know better than to take oneself too seriously.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not all of them, I hope, you find more convincing than the arguments against! Take the one concerning Judas dying by hanging vs dying by falling and his guts bursting open. You see no reasonable way both could happen?

I'm not familiar with that one. I wouldn't consider it significant. Surely the significant thing is that he died. That is what I would be focused on. The different accounts would exist because they are different accounts. That's a problem for literalists, but not - I imagine - for most Christians.

However, clearly it is a contradiction. Falling down and having your guts burst open sounds far-fetched. If you provided evidence that it can happen I'd consider it more plausible. But now you want to combine that by dying through hanging. How do you see that working?

I should think the simple logic of the Cosmological Argument easy!

I find it simplistic. And illogical. And there are alternatives. The universe may be eternal. Time may not have existed prior to the Big Bang. And doubtless there are others.
I mentioned I thought matters of origin are above my pay grade. I think definitive conclusions are above everyone's pay grade at present. Those smarter than I are suited to speculate, but to reach definitive conclusions is presumptuous.

During childhood, instinct works pretty well. Love works wonderfully well, some times. And then, there's habit, though, granted, that is often, if not usually, based on repeated empirical findings and their conclusions, but it is not entirely logical in form.

You need to explain to me how instincts provide me with facts.
You need to explain to me how a burst of endorphins provides me with facts.
You need to explain to me how repeating actions and learning from them in a quasi-scientific manner is not a good example of how I say we best acquire facts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not familiar with that one. I wouldn't consider it significant. Surely the significant thing is that he died. That is what I would be focused on. The different accounts would exist because they are different accounts. That's a problem for literalists, but not - I imagine - for most Christians.

However, clearly it is a contradiction. Falling down and having your guts burst open sounds far-fetched. If you provided evidence that it can happen I'd consider it more plausible. But now you want to combine that by dying through hanging. How do you see that working?

Neither of the two accounts say that he died, as I remember. Point is, for those so biased, they see contradiction. For those otherwise biased, they see ways to resolve it.

I can see it two ways —one being that he hung himself unsuccessfully, and fell from a pretty good height and splatted and died. The other, which makes a little more sense, is that he hung himself and died, and later, bloated, fell and....

I find it simplistic. And illogical. And there are alternatives. The universe may be eternal. Time may not have existed prior to the Big Bang. And doubtless there are others.
I mentioned I thought matters of origin are above my pay grade. I think definitive conclusions are above everyone's pay grade at present. Those smarter than I are suited to speculate, but to reach definitive conclusions is presumptuous.

Well, no, there aren't alternatives. An eternal universe is the same as infinite regression of cause —simple begging the question for the sake of avoiding the obvious. According to Google, 'abhorrent to reason', if I remember the terminology right. First Cause is not of itself (as such) a definitive conclusion, implying only first degree and overlapping, conclusions, such as Omnipotence. And Time not existing before the Big Bang only makes the notion of First Cause all the more compelling.

You need to explain to me how instincts provide me with facts.
You need to explain to me how a burst of endorphins provides me with facts.
You need to explain to me how repeating actions and learning from them in a quasi-scientific manner is not a good example of how I say we best acquire facts.

These all "inform your decisions"! Not a bad play on words, if I say so myself.

I didn't say it provides you with facts. Since when is belief only intellectually arrived at? And no don't ask your wife.

 

[Ophiolite]

I didn't say it provides you with facts. Since when is belief only intellectually arrived at? And no don't ask your wife.

I shall try to remember to respond to your other point tomorrow, as for me it already is tomorrow.

I should just do a concise version of the next and just copy and past it. I don't believe anything. I think belief is dumb. I am contemptuous of belief. Belief cannot be arrived intellectually without lying to yonesself. I provisionally accept explanations that are supported by evidence and are clearly superior, at present, to alternative explanations. If there is no satisfactory explanation, or no clear
"winner" I am not troubled by the uncertainty. I might amuse myself by speculating about possible explanations, but I certainly don't believe any of them.

Oh, and you very clearly implied that they provided facts. This was the sequence.

While I find it admirable for those who have no other anchor for their opinions, that they should want falsifiable evidence before accepting a thing, the notion that falsifiable evidence is the only trustworthy source of fact —particularly for those less organized mentally, or less educated— comes across as a little bit arrogant too.

You assert, explicitly, that " the notion that falsifiable evidence is the only trustworthy source of fact - comes across as a little bit arrogant too", clearly implying that there are other effective means.

I've not yet been shown an effective alternative method. I'd delight in having one. I've read many claims, but no one has come up with the goods.

I ask you to provide examples.

During childhood, instinct works pretty well. Love works wonderfully well, some times. And then, there's habit, though, granted, that is often, if not usually, based on repeated empirical findings and their conclusions, but it is not entirely logical in form.

You respond with this.

You need to explain to me how instincts provide me with facts.
You need to explain to me how a burst of endorphins provides me with facts.
You need to explain to me how repeating actions and learning from them in a quasi-scientific manner is not a good example of how I say we best acquire facts.

I ask you how this provides facts and now you tell me that they don't. So, do you want to try again, or retract your claim that there are effective alternative methods for gathering facts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I shall try to remember to respond to your other point tomorrow, as for me it already is tomorrow.

I should just do a concise version of the next and just copy and past it. I don't believe anything. I think belief is dumb. I am contemptuous of belief. Belief cannot be arrived intellectually without lying to yonesself. I provisionally accept explanations that are supported by evidence and are clearly superior, at present, to alternative explanations. If there is no satisfactory explanation, or no clear "winner" I am not troubled by the uncertainty. I might amuse myself by speculating about possible explanations, but I certainly don't believe any of them.

Oh, and you very clearly implied that they provided facts. This was the sequence.

You state a belief. If it is only an opinion that you believe nothing, you should says so; it only seems fair.

You assert, explicitly, that " the notion that falsifiable evidence is the only trustworthy source of fact - comes across as a little bit arrogant too", clearly implying that there are other effective means. I ask you to provide examples. I ask you how this provides facts and now you tell me that they don't. So, do you want to try again, or retract your claim that there are effective alternative methods for gathering facts.

Forgive me for not completing a line of reasoning to show how it is so.

Here's an example: 25 years ago, I could easily enough see that First Cause was necessary, and even give a logical argument to show it. But I knew intuitively, maybe even instinctively, that there were certain corollary facts that were so, perhaps what I could call attributes, but I didn't know how to do more than assert they were so. Now that I do know how to do so, I can see the facts were there as facts, all along.

I hope I don't need to show how infant instinct (not to mention maternal instincts) provide useful facts.

It seems you took me to mean that such unfalsifiable sources provide empirical facts for the purpose of intellectual use as empirical data. Some may, others not.

Do you hold that there is no such thing as excellence in the arts? Is morality merely an imposed framework? Are some things intrinsically more worthy of praise than other things?

 

[SelfSim]

You state a belief. If it is only an opinion that you believe nothing, you should says so; it only seems fair.

Provisionally accepting that 'I don't believe anything', is a good starting point for questioning whether or not some undistinguished belief may have crept in, and might be behind one's position on some topic. In addition, one also needs to adopt a good working distinction of 'a belief' and use that as the basis for testing for the possible presence of one.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Provisionally accepting that 'I don't believe anything', is a good starting point for questioning whether or not some undistinguished belief may have crept in, and might be behind one's position on some topic. In addition, one also needs to adopt a good working distinction of 'a belief' and use that as the basis for testing for the possible presence of one.

You got a point. Very good. I was picking at his words.

 

[DamianWarS]

Things fall. Isaac Newton and his falling apple. That used to be the basic understanding of the phenomenon of gravity and then Newton's explanation of gravity. He didn't understand WHY gravity functioned but he understood HOW it functioned well enough to codify it in equations so that we could capture its effects. So we had a functioning theory of gravity. Then Einstein published the Theory of Relativity and upended the whole thing by redefining what gravity actually was. It wasn't a force but the effect of living in a universe where space-time was curved and matter followed the curve that was created by mass.

Still with me?

So what does this have to do with evolution? I regularly see people proclaiming that the Theory of Evolution is false. If it is then that doesn't change the fact that life evolved. They are two completely separate things. Life evolving is the phenomenon that we have observed and are explaining with the Theory of Evolution. (Things fall, theory of gravity. When you change the theory things still fell.) So by all means, question the Theory of Evolution if you are able. I have no issue with lively discussion. But that doesn't change the basic data that caused us to need it in the first place.

What I believe most creationists are saying and don't know how to say is that they don't accept the basic observational data that life evolves. They don't accept the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of data points that show how life evolves. They don't accept the multiple lines of scientific inquiry that all show evolution taking place. So they say things like, "It's just a theory." That does not matter.

The theory is the explanation for why and how it took place. Not that it took place.

Atheists use a similar argument against theists suggesting because the belief in God is so varied this actually works to discredit the belief rather than affirming it. but this is a forest through the trees way of approaching it and I'll suggest it is the same issue that you bring up as well. if the ToE is wrong it doesn't stop or change how things came about so attacking the theory at some point... misses the point. These things still happened regardless of how well we understand them. The same applies to God and just because there are varied "versions" of God doesn't actually change anything about God himself (even if they are all wrong) because God pre-exists belief in him and not the other way around.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Are you suggesting that Humanity has reached a place where it is now directing it's own evolution?

yup

 

[Ophiolite]

You state a belief. If it is only an opinion that you believe nothing, you should says so; it only seems fair.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Which belief do you think I have stated? I cannot get my head around the notion that an emphatic statement that I believe nothing and abhor the concept of belief could be somehow seen as an opinion.

I hope I don't need to show how infant instinct (not to mention maternal instincts) provide useful facts.

You do need to show me, for as I think I pointed out earlier the instincts provide no facts. It is the experience that arises from behaviour promoted by the instincts that provide the facts. Are you asserting that these are the same thing?

It seems you took me to mean that such unfalsifiable sources provide empirical facts for the purpose of intellectual use as empirical data. Some may, others not.

Yes, that is what I understood, because that is what you said. If that is not what you meant then I'll take that as a retraction of your claim and simply note you have yet to provide an example of a methodology that offers an alternative method to science to providing facts to any significant degree. You seemed so confident these exist, yet here we are several exchanges later and there are none in sight.

Do you hold that there is no such thing as excellence in the arts? Is morality merely an imposed framework? Are some things intrinsically more worthy of praise than other things?

In order for me to give a relevant answer, you need to tell me how these questions are relevant to the discussion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That doesn't make any sense to me. Which belief do you think I have stated? I cannot get my head around the notion that an emphatic statement that I believe nothing and abhor the concept of belief could be somehow seen as an opinion.

Your principle, that you believe nothing, to me sounds like something you believe. The fact that it is mere opinion does not mean you don't believe it. But no worries —in the end it works out the same. Self-sim pointed out that I am being particular where there is no need to be. What you mean by your principle is a good and worthy thing.

You do need to show me, for as I think I pointed out earlier the instincts provide no facts. It is the experience that arises from behaviour promoted by the instincts that provide the facts. Are you asserting that these are the same thing?

And so thus, the instincts provide facts that the intellect uses. But besides this, the instincts provide immediate facts: suckling produces a result, crying brings attention etc.

Yes, that is what I understood, because that is what you said. If that is not what you meant then I'll take that as a retraction of your claim and simply note you have yet to provide an example of a methodology that offers an alternative method to science to providing facts to any significant degree. You seemed so confident these exist, yet here we are several exchanges later and there are none in sight.

Haha! nice! Take my clarification as a retraction! Win-win! Thanks, at least, for offering this back-down: that this alternative method to science provides facts to a small degree. (See, I can do the same thing.)

In order for me to give a relevant answer, you need to tell me how these questions are relevant to the discussion.

These are unfalsifiable. Yet, they not only provide facts, they provide whole areas of fact! (eg. type 1: That picture is indeed excellent. The artist is skilled. The artist is insightful. This is good. That is bad. He was inspired. That guy is a bad actor. He has only his own interests at heart. If God exists, as Omnipotent, he is indeed more worthy of praise than any mere creature. Facts via intuition) (eg. type 2: Math is unfalsifiable. But its mathematical equations and formulae are falsifiable. Same goes for logic.)

 

[Ophiolite]

Your principle, that you believe nothing, to me sounds like something you believe. The fact that it is mere opinion does not mean you don't believe it. But no worries —in the end it works out the same. Self-sim pointed out that I am being particular where there is no need to be. What you mean by your principle is a good and worthy thing.

And so thus, the instincts provide facts that the intellect uses. But besides this, the instincts provide immediate facts: suckling produces a result, crying brings attention etc.



Haha! nice! Take my clarification as a retraction! Win-win! Thanks, at least, for offering this back-down: that this alternative method to science provides facts to a small degree. (See, I can do the same thing.)



These are unfalsifiable. Yet, they not only provide facts, they provide whole areas of fact! (eg. type 1: That picture is indeed excellent. The artist is skilled. The artist is insightful. This is good. That is bad. He was inspired. That guy is a bad actor. He has only his own interests at heart. If God exists, as Omnipotent, he is indeed more worthy of praise than any mere creature. Facts via intuition) (eg. type 2: Math is unfalsifiable. But its mathematical equations and formulae are falsifiable. Same goes for logic.)

It's logic Jim, but not as we know it.

Our lexicology differs, our logic differs; which might be interpreted as 'you don't understand what words mean, you are also illogical'. Your post makes no sense to me, yet falls just short of being nonsense, or perhaps overshoots it into the realm of fantasy. I shall have to reflect on it and study some of your others posts to determine whether there is any point in even responding further.
Please don't be unseemly by falsely claiming you have somehow won the day. I hope you are better than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not all of them, I hope, you find more convincing than the arguments against! Take the one concerning Judas dying by hanging vs dying by falling and his guts bursting open. You see no reasonable way both could happen?

This is a typical "refutation" of contradictions. A highly nonplausible excuses that relies on jumping through hoops is not an example of a refutation. The contradiction is still there. It seems that you are simply trying to excuse the contradictions in the Bible by claiming that it was extremely poorly written. That seems to go against the idea that it is the "word of God'

If you can handle the convolutions of Darwinism, I should think the simple logic of the Cosmological Argument easy! The so-called refutations that I have studied are either, in the final analysis simply illogical (referring to those that present a supposed alternative to first cause, or a supposed first cause possessed of illogically non-first-cause-ish characteristics), or they are refutations of the formal philosophical statements, and at that, usually simply semantics. (Actually, some of those I tend to agree with, though I'm not always sure what is meant by what I am reading, as I'm not trained in Philosophy.)

The refutation of that argument is that there is no "Law of causation". In fact on a quantum level that is shown to not exist. That argument relies upon a poor understanding of physics. What physicists will tell you is that there is a certain point where our known "laws of physics" no longer work. That does not mean that there is any breaking of physical laws. The laws of physics are merely human attempts to describe the universe that we live in. Eventually we do run into a barrier caused by our lack of knowledge. That barrier has been broken several times and each time the "wall" is moved back. But this wall never implies a God. Anyone that is convinced by the Cosmological argument simply does not understand the physics that it tries to rely on. Sean Carroll in a debate with William Lane Craig should have put an end to that argument. But if one does not understand how one has failed one will simply continue repeating what are now falsehoods.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is a typical "refutation" of contradictions. A highly nonplausible excuses that relies on jumping through hoops is not an example of a refutation. The contradiction is still there. It seems that you are simply trying to excuse the contradictions in the Bible by claiming that it was extremely poorly written. That seems to go against the idea that it is the "word of God'

The refutation of that argument is that there is no "Law of causation". In fact on a quantum level that is shown to not exist. That argument relies upon a poor understanding of physics. What physicists will tell you is that there is a certain point where our known "laws of physics" no longer work. That does not mean that there is any breaking of physical laws. The laws of physics are merely human attempts to describe the universe that we live in. Eventually we do run into a barrier caused by our lack of knowledge. That barrier has been broken several times and each time the "wall" is moved back. But this wall never implies a God. Anyone that is convinced by the Cosmological argument simply does not understand the physics that it tries to rely on. Sean Carroll in a debate with William Lane Craig should have put an end to that argument. But if one does not understand how one has failed one will simply continue repeating what are now falsehoods.

It wasn't a falsehood before, but now it is? Huh??

Somehow, using the law of causation throughout scientific investigation, to achieve "[causation] no longer works", doesn't work for me.

Did Hawking ever convince Einstein that cause-and-effect "no longer works"?

If I was to believe you that it no longer works, I'd have to say then quantum physics is simply begging the question. Are you the one who told me that cause-and-effect is necessarily time-dependent?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It wasn't a falsehood before, but now it is? Huh??

Somehow, using the law of causation throughout scientific investigation, to achieve "[causation] no longer works", doesn't work for me.

Did Hawking ever convince Einstein that cause-and-effect "no longer works"?

If I was to believe you that it no longer works, I'd have to say then quantum physics is simply begging the question. Are you the one who told me that cause-and-effect is necessarily time-dependent?

Before it was only an error. When a mistake is explained and a person repeats it calling that claim a falsehood is an understatement.

And no sadly Hawking does not have a time machine so he was never able to convince Einstein of anything. Of course I don't think the you will find Einstein supporting your supposed "law" either.

And there is no "law of causation" in the sciences. Tell us, who discovered this law? When was it discovered? What exactly does it say? You will not be able to answer those questions with proper sources because there is no such law.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's logic Jim, but not as we know it.

Our lexicology differs, our logic differs; which might be interpreted as 'you don't understand what words mean, you are also illogical'. Your post makes no sense to me, yet falls just short of being nonsense, or perhaps overshoots it into the realm of fantasy. I shall have to reflect on it and study some of your others posts to determine whether there is any point in even responding further.
Please don't be unseemly by falsely claiming you have somehow won the day. I hope you are better than that.

haha ok. No, although, I hadn't expected to win the day. It's kind of funny to me how often people (not just me) think they 'won the day' when their opponent thinks THEY won!

I speak often in generalities, as doing particulars asks for examples I don't have right off hand. I do wish I knew how to show that the philosophical doesn't always imply metaphysical, or at least, supernatural, in such things. Unfalsifiable things seem hard for some people to think about.

Today I answered one guy who I'm thinking will be surprised to find that laws of physics indeed are governing principles and not simply our descriptions of how things work, no matter how poorly or incompletely we describe or understand them. No doubt from one POV it is just begging the question to say they govern. I suppose that is a useful way to see them, but that fellow goes so far as to say that there is no law of causality. I would be curious how well all cosmologists agree if they were all put together to answer some of the statements I've heard over the last few years —I'm curious how fast the conversation would turn philosophical.

One fellow I've talked with quite a bit says that the law of conservation of energy, being just as pervasive as the law of causality, shows that an eternal universe is just as reasonable as first cause. He seems to think that the words, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed", of themselves mean that Creation cannot have happened.

 

[Ophiolite]

I suppose that is a useful way to see them, but that fellow goes so far as to say that there is no law of causality.

He is correct and your misplaced confidence that he is mistaken is painful to see. Perhaps you should revisit the nature, significance and value of scientific laws.