What's the right way to say "whatever the beginning *was*, it wasn't a pretext for isolated change"?

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

That's what I am saying!

Why do we talk about the beginning, as if that is some sort of insight?

I mean its all well and good if you are at the traffic lights and the lights begin with red, that means you have to wait.

But why would you then say "ah! traffic lights, that means red!" - that seems to be an oversimplification of a much more complicated process.

Meanwhile, Evolutionists do exactly that (and it is infuriating); why do they think we (the faithful) contend with them over concepts like "irreducible complexity"?

But my red light is somebody else's green light. Think about that!

 

[Tolworth John]

Nature is not obligated to line up with the stories presented in your holy book. Evolution is just a description of our observations about the natural world.

No evolution is an interpretation based on a presupposition of facts.

 

[BeyondET]

to get to a stem, got to start with a seed.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No evolution is an interpretation based on a presupposition of facts.

Would you like to point out some of these presuppositions so that we can honestly demonstrate that they are actually conclusions based on evidence or are you happy with just bare assertions?

 

[Tolworth John]

Would you like to point out some of these presuppositions so that we can honestly demonstrate that they are actually conclusions based on evidence or are you happy with just bare assertions?

That the material is all that exists, so there is no supernatural.

 

[Gottservant]

Would you like to point out some of these presuppositions so that we can honestly demonstrate that they are actually conclusions based on evidence or are you happy with just bare assertions?

evolution doesn't happen to individuals
adaptation follows mutation
evolution can happen to a species once and for no reason not again
something that evolves consistently is not more evolved (butterfly)
having evolved does not make communication between species easier
destruction of information does not provoke evolution more
over-evolving does not sicken
there is no taste in evolution

evolution is persistent
evolution is adaptive on its own
evolution is subjective
evolution is neither seasonal nor not seasonal

This is the record of presuppositions I have come across to date.

 

[Shemjaza]

evolution doesn't happen to individuals
adaptation follows mutation
evolution can happen to a species once and for no reason not again
something that evolves consistently is not more evolved (butterfly)
having evolved does not make communication between species easier
destruction of information does not provoke evolution more
over-evolving does not sicken
there is no taste in evolution

evolution is persistent
evolution is adaptive on its own
evolution is subjective
evolution is neither seasonal nor not seasonal

This is the record of presuppositions I have come across to date.

All false.

 

[Shemjaza]

That the material is all that exists, so there is no supernatural.

Not so.

It's just that the supernatural is assumed to exist, where the material that is demonstrable is.

 

[Tolworth John]

Not so.

It's just that the supernatural is assumed to exist, where the material that is demonstrable is.

really, so maths, logic and morality are all materiali things!

The immaterial exists something you have no ecplanation for.

then there is the big question what caused the big bang.
Nothing material caused it, but you say there is no immaterial oooh that is a problem?

 

[Shemjaza]

really, so maths, logic and morality are all materiali things!

No, they aren't material things, but they also don't really exist in the same way matter and energy do.

They are conceptual and axiomatic.

As a similar example a rock hurtling through space is "fast", but there isn't a single particle of "fast-ium" in it, it's a description of behavior.

The immaterial exists something you have no ecplanation for.

What you are calling immaterial can be a description of states and behaviors, not necessarily a different supernatural state of being.

then there is the big question what caused the big bang.
Nothing material caused it, but you say there is no immaterial oooh that is a problem?

The big bang is a description of the expansion and development of the very early universe and not the origin of the mater/energy "stuff" that became the universe.

But regardless, when something is unknown just making up untestable answers with no explanatory power isn't justified or useful.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

really, so maths, logic and morality are all materiali things!

Well, they always have material representation, even in the brains that manipulate them.

The immaterial exists something you have no ecplanation for.

So you believe, but can you substantiate that?

then there is the big question what caused the big bang.
Nothing material caused it, but you say there is no immaterial oooh that is a problem?

We don't know what caused the big bang, but there are plenty of physical hypotheses. Claims that 'nothing material caused it' are just so much hot air.

 

[SelfSim]

No, they aren't material things, but they also don't really exist in the same way matter and energy do.

They are conceptual and axiomatic.

As a similar example a rock hurtling through space is "fast", but there isn't a single particle of "fast-ium" in it, it's a description of behavior.
...
What you are calling immaterial can be a description of states and behaviors, not necessarily a different supernatural state of being.
...
The big bang is a description of the expansion and development of the very early universe and not the origin of the mater/energy "stuff" that became the universe.

But regardless, when something is unknown just making up untestable answers with no explanatory power isn't justified or useful.

In other words: matter, energy, a rock, fast, states, behaviors, Big Bang, expansion, development, universe and exists, are all testable models.

Material, material things and the immaterial, are still models but they are not defined in testable ways .. they are untestable and thus they are beliefs.

Its models all the way down.

I predict you'll encounter inconsistencies when trying to explain: 'some things not existing in the same way matter and energy do', without first introducing the funadamental concept of everything we conceive, (including the 'immaterial'), once described using language, become models of which there are only two types: testable and untestable.
There's solid consistency starting from such a position.

 

[Shemjaza]

In other words: matter, energy, a rock, fast, states, behaviors, Big Bang, expansion, development, universe and exists, are all testable models.

Material, material things and the immaterial, are still models but they are not defined in testable ways .. they are untestable and thus they are beliefs.

Its models all the way down.

I predict you'll encounter inconsistencies when trying to explain: 'some things not existing in the same way matter and energy do', without first introducing the funadamental concept of everything we conceive, (including the 'immaterial'), once described using language, become models of which there are only two types: testable and untestable.
There's solid consistency starting from such a position.

Given that you acknowledge that matter and energy are testable... how is "material" not testable?

This isn't a matter of different models, it's a matter of using different terms depending on context.

 

[SelfSim]

Given that you acknowledge that matter and energy are testable... how is "material" not testable?
This isn't a matter of different models, it's a matter of using different terms depending on context.

Already answered:
'Material, material things and the immaterial, are still models but they are not defined in testable ways'.

Different people mean different things by a word. To find out what they mean, one must follow the process they are using to give it meaning. If that process is different, the meaning is different. If that process is science, a scientific meaning results. To see the scientific meaning, look at how the word is used in science. We say things like "electrons are real", or "atoms are real." We even have "virtual particles" to tell you when we are talking about the ones that we don't mean are "real".

Thus far in this sub-conversation, I haven't seen any scientific process derived meaning for 'material'. Until that shows up, I'm taking it as being some kind of philosophical meaning based on beliefs. This is important, especially when claims are being implied (sarcastically) such as: 'maths and logic are material things?' Material there, is just the wrong concept/word to apply to math and logic, so any testable definition of 'material', was clearly not intended.

 

[Shemjaza]

Already answered:
'Material, material things and the immaterial, are still models but they are not defined in testable ways'.

Different people mean different things by a word. To find out what they mean, one must follow the process they are using to give it meaning. If that process is different, the meaning is different. If that process is science, a scientific meaning results. To see the scientific meaning, look at how the word is used in science. We say things like "electrons are real", or "atoms are real." We even have "virtual particles" to tell you when we are talking about the ones that we don't mean are "real".

Thus far in this sub-conversation, I haven't seen any scientific process derived meaning for 'material'. Until that shows up, I'm taking it as being some kind of philosophical meaning based on beliefs. This is important, especially when claims are being implied (sarcastically) such as: 'maths and logic are material things?' Material there, is just the wrong concept/word to apply to math and logic, so any testable definition of 'material', was clearly not intended.

Virtual particles are real, just transitory.

Material is simply an element of the detectable phenomenal universe, ie matter and energy.

An atom is real a photon is real. And they are both material things.

 

[Belk]

That the material is all that exists, so there is no supernatural.

That is incorrect. Science only supposes that the supernatural can not be tested in a repeatable fashion. Are you claiming they are incorrect?

 

[SelfSim]

That is incorrect. Science only supposes that the supernatural can not be tested in a repeatable fashion. Are you claiming they are incorrect?

'The supernatural' currently exists as an untestable model and its meaning is arrived at by way of belief.
Until someone can cite an objective test, it'll stay that way.

 

[Tolworth John]

That is incorrect. Science only supposes that the supernatural can not be tested in a repeatable fashion. Are you claiming they are incorrect?

I am saying that because of this preconceived idea the possibility that the supernatural exists is not even considered.

 

[NxNW]

I am saying that because of this preconceived idea the possibility that the supernatural exists is not even considered.

Is there any evidence that the supernatural has interacted with reality?

 

[Belk]

I am saying that because of this preconceived idea the possibility that the supernatural exists is not even considered.

Science is the study of the natural world. What are you suggesting they should do to "consider" something outside the scope of their discipline?