Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟29,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Trusting in things that are demonstrated via experience is question-begging?

Well, you've got quite an epistemological pickle then.



If you can recognize errors you can indeed learn from them.

But, in order to decipher truth from error you are going to need some sort of demonstration and thus some experience.

So, you're going to be in quite a bit of an epistemological pickle if you can't rely on your experiences to find truth.

All of your ideas rely on your experiences, so, if you can't find them to be trustworthy you have no possibility of a workable epistemology.



And to reiterate to you. You can't KNOW your brain is intelligently designed without using your brain and thus trusting it.

I would suggest, given the pure circularity of your argument, and your willingness to throw out direct experience, that your argument demonstrates that your brain isn't that good at coming up with reasons to trust your brain.

I think you should trust that instinct and stop globbering up the world with your sophism.



It's actually a very good reason to dismiss your ideas...

Universal skepticism is quite a bit better than universal nihilism with the idea of supporting a pet idea such as you are doing here.



Every statement can indeed contain a perhaps and it effects nothing except your degree of certainty of any given idea.

Certainty isn't the point of knoledge, application is.

The foundation of knoledge is experience.

The point of knoledge is use.
Not every worldview can justify trust in our power to know. Under atheism trusting in things that are demonstrated by brains not intelligently designed, not to mention brains fallible and finite in knowledge, is indeed question-begging, circular reasoning from possibly deceptive experience to possibly erroneous conclusion. (Under atheism, experience is not merely possibly deceptive but actually deceptive, but that’s another argument.) It is atheism’s epistemological pickle, then, that we have clearly established, being demonstrated sufficiently by the answer to the question, Would you trust the calculations of a computer that was not intelligently designed? We know the answer to that question by extrapolating from experience, and others, theists and non-theists alike, have reached the same conclusion (post #74). It is precisely my point that if you can’t find your experiences to be trustworthy, you have no possibility of a workable epistemology. This sums up well atheism’s pickle. So I agree with you that experience is fundamental. It partakes of self-evident truth, the recognition of which is the only way out of reasoning in a circle. Earlier in the thread we reached the same conclusion with Descartes, that knowledge is possible only if we have a perfectly intelligent and morally perfect Designer. Now we can add to that a Divinely-given ability in us to recognize self-evident truth, and our epistemology has a very firm foundation.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Not every worldview can justify trust in our power to know. Under atheism trusting in things that are demonstrated by brains not intelligently designed, not to mention brains fallible and finite in knowledge, is indeed question-begging, circular reasoning from possibly deceptive experience to possibly erroneous conclusion.

Having a specific world view doesn't make justification easier on this issue because you need to know you can trust your brain regardless.

That your world view contains a belief, that your brain is trustworthy because you have a belief in a creator of that brain that is trustworthy, starts with the very same point of trusting your brain.

What we "know" on this issue is an idea that is justified first by our experience, regardless of our world view. We find our brains trustworthy via experiencing how they work in reality.

If this is question begging, you are offering no solution for it.

(Under atheism, experience is not merely possibly deceptive but actually deceptive, but that’s another argument.)

Theism doesn't free you from the idea that your brain might be deceiving you, as your brain is quite free to be deceiving you about that belief in theism...

Again, you can't simply edit out the "I need to trust what my brain is telling me" idea, and you can't gloss over it by inserting another belief that removes such doubt.

The doubt about that other belief would still remain because it was inserted circularly to remove the doubt about the first.

Where does this get us?

It is atheism’s epistemological pickle, then, that we have clearly established, being demonstrated sufficiently by the answer to the question, Would you trust the calculations of a computer that was not intelligently designed? We know the answer to that question by extrapolating from experience, and others, theists and non-theists alike, have reached the same conclusion (post #74). It is precisely my point that if you can’t find your experiences to be trustworthy, you have no possibility of a workable epistemology.

Brains aren't computers, but if they were your premise here would still be quite flawed.

In programming you can use something called a genetic algorithm to allow the program to find solutions that you wouldn't have thought of.

This is allowing the computation process to find solutions that weren't step-wise hard designed into the process but instead found via trial and error much like evolution.

So yes, we can actually use computers that use the evolutionary process to optimize and find solutions we can indeed trust in.

A system like evolutionary natural selection that uses trial and error can and does find solutions to problems that you can trust.

This sums up well atheism’s pickle. So I agree with you that experience is fundamental. It partakes of self-evident truth, the recognition of which is the only way out of reasoning in a circle.

Some truths aren't at all as self evident as some people think.

Your assertion that it is impossible to trust in a system without a designer is one of them.

Because if the system is in fact, not designed, you already do, just for reasons that are flatly untrue.

The facts don't magically change with your world view.

So, the argument that you think your epistemology fits together better than an atheists isn't all that interesting.

Earlier in the thread we reached the same conclusion with Descartes, that knowledge is possible only if we have a perfectly intelligent and morally perfect Designer. Now we can add to that a Divinely-given ability in us to recognize self-evident truth, and our epistemology has a very firm foundation.

Positing a divine being that you don't know exists doesn't improve your ability to know, or your justification of what you know.

A foundation is only good if it actually exists, and you would have to justify that belief first without circularly using it to justify why you can trust your brain.

Your argument doesn't and can't offer a solution to the problem you accuse atheists of having.

My epistemology works just fine though thanks, I use experience to justify beliefs and discard them when they don't work.

Inserting unjustified beliefs divine beings doesn't make the process work any better at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟29,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Having a specific world view doesn't make justification easier on this issue because you need to know you can trust your brain regardless.

That your world view contains a belief, that your brain is trustworthy because you have a belief in a creator of that brain that is trustworthy, starts with the very same point of trusting your brain.

What we "know" on this issue is an idea that is justified first by our experience, regardless of our world view. We find our brains trustworthy via experiencing how they work in reality.

If this is question begging, you are offering no solution for it.



Theism doesn't free you from the idea that your brain might be deceiving you, as your brain is quite free to be deceiving you about that belief in theism...

Again, you can't simply edit out the "I need to trust what my brain is telling me" idea, and you can't gloss over it by inserting another belief that removes such doubt.

The doubt about that other belief would still remain because it was inserted circularly to remove the doubt about the first.

Where does this get us?



Brains aren't computers, but if they were your premise here would still be quite flawed.

In programming you can use something called a genetic algorithm to allow the program to find solutions that you wouldn't have thought of.

This is allowing the computation process to find solutions that weren't step-wise hard designed into the process but instead found via trial and error much like evolution.

So yes, we can actually use computers that use the evolutionary process to optimize and find solutions we can indeed trust in.

A system like evolutionary natural selection that uses trial and error can and does find solutions to problems that you can trust.



Some truths aren't at all as self evident as some people think.

Your assertion that it is impossible to trust in a system without a designer is one of them.

Because if the system is in fact, not designed, you already do, just for reasons that are flatly untrue.

The facts don't magically change with your world view.

So, the argument that you think your epistemology fits together better than an atheists isn't all that interesting.



Positing a divine being that you don't know exists doesn't improve your ability to know, or your justification of what you know.

A foundation is only good if it actually exists, and you would have to justify that belief first without circularly using it to justify why you can trust your brain.

Your argument doesn't and can't offer a solution to the problem you accuse atheists of having.

My epistemology works just fine though thanks, I use experience to justify beliefs and discard them when they don't work.

Inserting unjustified beliefs divine beings doesn't make the process work any better at all.
If we are reduced to the position that we must trust our brains because we must, then it is hard to imagine a more circular position. A trustworthy brain may be one of those “psychological expectations” that Prof. Bowne referred to (post #74). But, of course, needing a trustworthy brain does not guarantee that our need is met. You also wrote that the brain can deceive. But once it is admitted that the physical brain is capable of deceiving us, there is no way of knowing where the deception stops or if it stops at all, and atheism is once more left without a foundation for knowledge.

Again, the only way out of the “I must trust my brain because I must” circle is by means of self-evident truth and a mind with a divinely-given ability to recognize self-evident truth. My theism involves self-evident truth and experience, “the foundation of knowledge,” so I am happily out of the circle, sure that we have a perfectly intelligent and morally perfect Designer who has made truth accessible to the sincere seeker. The mere fact that we can know anything implies His existence.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If we are reduced to the position that we must trust our brains because we must, then it is hard to imagine a more circular position. A trustworthy brain may be one of those “psychological expectations” that Prof. Bowne referred to (post #74). But, of course, needing a trustworthy brain does not guarantee that our need is met. You also wrote that the brain can deceive. But once it is admitted that the physical brain is capable of deceiving us, there is no way of knowing where the deception stops or if it stops at all, and atheism is once more left without a foundation for knowledge.

There is no getting around the idea that you have to be able to fundamentally trust your brain and your experiences to be genuine, or able to be cross check them in some way if you want to claim knoledge.

Again, the only way out of the “I must trust my brain because I must” circle is by means of self-evident truth and a mind with a divinely-given ability to recognize self-evident truth. My theism involves self-evident truth and experience, “the foundation of knowledge,” so I am happily out of the circle, sure that we have a perfectly intelligent and morally perfect Designer who has made truth accessible to the sincere seeker. The mere fact that we can know anything implies His existence.

Truths can NOT be self evident to an untrustworthy brain, as it must occur to you that the idea is self evident through your brain which is the subject the self evident truth, so this doesn't remove you from the circle. The idea that you can trust your brain comes from your brain and your experience, and this will always be circular no matter how self evident. The evidence that you can trust your experiences must come from experience itself, and if that is ultimately untrustworthy you have no recourse.

You have chosen to trust your brain due to the necessity and experience of trusting in it (a full requirement for any epistemological claims) just as I and everyone else have, and then cast aspersions on others who do the same.

So, if your argument can be equally applied to statement A as ~A it makes no distinction. So your argument is both circular and a non sequitur, and can not support your conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟29,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There is no getting around the idea that you have to be able to fundamentally trust your brain and your experiences to be genuine, or able to be cross check them in some way if you want to claim knoledge.



Truths can NOT be self evident to an untrustworthy brain, as it must occur to you that the idea is self evident through your brain which is the subject the self evident truth, so this doesn't remove you from the circle. The idea that you can trust your brain comes from your brain and your experience, and this will always be circular no matter how self evident. The evidence that you can trust your experiences must come from experience itself, and if that is ultimately untrustworthy you have no recourse.

You have chosen to trust your brain due to the necessity and experience of trusting in it (a full requirement for any epistemological claims) just as I and everyone else have, and then cast aspersions on others who do the same.

So, if your argument can be equally applied to statement A as ~A it makes no distinction. So your argument is both circular and a non sequitur, and can not support your conclusion.
You are using what is not a basal axiom, much less a self-evident truth, as if it were a basal axiom. What you have argued amounts to a double-hypothesis: a trustworthy brain is needed for all knowledge, and we possess a brain that is trustworthy as long as it is not deceiving us. Passing over the contradiction involved in affirming a brain that is both trustworthy and potentially deceitful, I point out that your double-hypothesis is not a basal axiom. You have set forth merely what are conditions for possible knowledge under an arbitrary and still more fundamental assumption of atheistic materialism.

By contrast, a self-evident truth is a kind of a basal axiom whose truth the mind (not brain) recognizes immediately. Such immediate knowledge is basal and pre-logical. Its acceptance does not first depend on assumptions about the brain or anything else logically consequent. And the mind will insist that the self-evident, and whatever is deduced therefrom, is true.

But as we have seen, knowledge under atheistic materialism not only reduces to a circle, but to a tight circle. “We must because we must.” Given the logical invalidity of circular reasoning, this robs all knowledge of justification, including even FB's modest assertion of knowledge good enough for survival. That the pursuit of knowledge under atheism proves hopeless should come as no surprise, given the general hopelessness of the worldview. But there is still hope outside of atheism.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You are using what is not a basal axiom, much less a self-evident truth, as if it were a basal axiom. What you have argued amounts to a double-hypothesis: a trustworthy brain is needed for all knowledge, and we possess a brain that is trustworthy as long as it is not deceiving us. Passing over the contradiction involved in affirming a brain that is both trustworthy and potentially deceitful, I point out that your double-hypothesis is not a basal axiom. You have set forth merely what are conditions for possible knowledge under an arbitrary and still more fundamental assumption of atheistic materialism.

By contrast, a self-evident truth is a kind of a basal axiom whose truth the mind (not brain) recognizes immediately. Such immediate knowledge is basal and pre-logical. Its acceptance does not first depend on assumptions about the brain or anything else logically consequent. And the mind will insist that the self-evident, and whatever is deduced therefrom, is true.

But as we have seen, knowledge under atheistic materialism not only reduces to a circle, but to a tight circle. “We must because we must.” Given the logical invalidity of circular reasoning, this robs all knowledge of justification, including even FB's modest assertion of knowledge good enough for survival. That the pursuit of knowledge under atheism proves hopeless should come as no surprise, given the general hopelessness of the worldview. But there is still hope outside of atheism.

Your choice to hide behind semantics doesn't help your argument.

You have to trust the process by which your mind exists which you can not have any beliefs about without trusting the trustworthiness of the experiences of that mind.

This is by no means self evident, you have simply decided to gloss over the "why" of how you are allowed to trust your ideas and declare it self evident. Further, you wish to deny such a luxury to others by requiring them to justify the details of how their mind works and giving yourself a get out of explanations free card by not bothering. This circular mistake is compounded by the idea that you would try to deny peoples proper experiences in reality, with their own minds and their own brains as a fully acceptable means of exploring reality.

This makes your argument hollow and ineffective.

But that is to be expected from anyone who can't see their own positions for what they are. You have decided to levy extreme doubt upon the materialist position BECAUSE we understand it better and exempt from doubt your most cherished beliefs because they are shrouded in mystery.

The extreme irony of this position that you think you are more epistemological validated for doing so is a pretty good, if very long winded joke that only the philosophically inclined are likely to chortle at.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟29,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Your choice to hide behind semantics doesn't help your argument.

You have to trust the process by which your mind exists which you can not have any beliefs about without trusting the trustworthiness of the experiences of that mind.

This is by no means self evident, you have simply decided to gloss over the "why" of how you are allowed to trust your ideas and declare it self evident. Further, you wish to deny such a luxury to others by requiring them to justify the details of how their mind works and giving yourself a get out of explanations free card by not bothering. This circular mistake is compounded by the idea that you would try to deny peoples proper experiences in reality, with their own minds and their own brains as a fully acceptable means of exploring reality.

This makes your argument hollow and ineffective.

But that is to be expected from anyone who can't see their own positions for what they are. You have decided to levy extreme doubt upon the materialist position BECAUSE we understand it better and exempt from doubt your most cherished beliefs because they are shrouded in mystery.

The extreme irony of this position that you think you are more epistemological validated for doing so is a pretty good, if very long winded joke that only the philosophically inclined are likely to chortle at.
Not semantics, but logical sequence. Self-evident truth is necessarily first and basal. It does not derive its validity secondhand from assumptions about the cognitive process. Rather, it establishes the validity of that process.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Not semantics, but logical sequence. Self-evident truth is necessarily first and basal. It does not derive its validity secondhand from assumptions about the cognitive process. Rather, it establishes the validity of that process.

There is nothing self evident about your truth.

You have to demonstrate why a mind is trustworthy and you have done nothing of the sort.

The idea that you can trust minds due to self evident truths but you can't trust cognition or brains is indeed just semantics and your personal arbitrary preference.

It is about as philosophically sound as an epistemological justification as the tissue which goes in a toilet after removing excrement.
 
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟29,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There is nothing self evident about your truth.

You have to demonstrate why a mind is trustworthy and you have done nothing of the sort.

The idea that you can trust minds due to self evident truths but you can't trust cognition or brains is indeed just semantics and your personal arbitrary preference.

It is about as philosophically sound as an epistemological justification as the tissue which goes in a toilet after removing excrement.
Harsh, bro. But you raise an interesting issue. That which is self-evident and basal cannot be demonstrated, otherwise it would not be basal. If it is self-evident, the mind knows it is true immediately, and proof is both unnecessary and superfluous. Actually, I agree with you that trust in our power to know is basal, only the idea that our brains are trustworthy is itself not properly basal. In any case, for something that is self-evident and basal we can try to give reasons and justifications after the fact. We know some things, and we know we know some things. We start with that and look for a theory of knowledge that is compatible with our experience. If we have a perfectly intelligent and morally perfect Designer, then the process of cognition itself rests on a firm foundation. Otherwise, if we assume atheistic materialism, then, understandably, the fact that our “meat computer” (Jerry Coyne) was a product of not merely poor design but no design at all would undermine trust in our power to know, especially if the brain can deceive us too. Hence such statements adduced in post #74. Thus the discussion ends where it started.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Harsh, bro. But you raise an interesting issue. That which is self-evident and basal cannot be demonstrated, otherwise it would not be basal. If it is self-evident, the mind knows it is true immediately, and proof is both unnecessary and superfluous. Actually, I agree with you that trust in our power to know is basal, only the idea that our brains are trustworthy is itself not properly basal. In any case, for something that is self-evident and basal we can try to give reasons and justifications after the fact. We know some things, and we know we know some things. We start with that and look for a theory of knowledge that is compatible with our experience. If we have a perfectly intelligent and morally perfect Designer, then the process of cognition itself rests on a firm foundation. Otherwise, if we assume atheistic materialism, then, understandably, the fact that our “meat computer” (Jerry Coyne) was a product of not merely poor design but no design at all would undermine trust in our power to know, especially if the brain can deceive us too. Hence such statements adduced in post #74. Thus the discussion ends where it started.

The simple problem here is that a "perfectly intelligent and morally perfect designer" is as far away from our experience as anything gets.

Whereas having some experience born trust in our ability to process the world at a basic level is something we live our entire lives steeped in.

You are supposing that we need that first supposition to get to the second idea, and you can't even fathom the idea of the first supposition without the second and a few eons of serious thought.

It doesn't just magically fix itself. The endpoint of your philosophy can not be necessary to take the first step.

Your truth can never be more basic, or more self evident than the experience which derived it, which it in turn tries to justify.

No matter how much yarn you wish to spin up in this logical knot of yours, it doesn't become "self evident", otherwise it would be as "self evident" to the first people that could think.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
... If we have a perfectly intelligent and morally perfect Designer, then the process of cognition itself rests on a firm foundation.
That's a very big 'if' when we have so much empirical evidence that cognition is flawed and unreliable.

If you're interested in the evidence for this, and would like examples you can try for yourself, I strongly recommend "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's thought to be constructed there by random variation and selection.

Yes it is true that this is "thought to be" but only by dogmatized Darwinians (mostly also atheist) but as revealed in Post 13 as well as the work of Barbara McClintock and James Shapiro (and a host of others I can provide if you would like) we now KNOW this is quite impossible and no really sincere Biologist (except maybe the propagandist Dawkins) believes this any more.

We know that such a sophisticated "purpose filled" quarternary code could not have arisen by trial and error randomicity! (Explore The Third Way evolution site for references)
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yes it is true that this is "thought to be" but only by dogmatized Darwinians (mostly also atheist) but as revealed in Post 13 as well as the work of Barbara McClintock and James Shapiro (and a host of others I can provide if you would like) we now KNOW this is quite impossible and no really sincere Biologist (except maybe the propagandist Dawkins) believes this any more.

We know that such a sophisticated "purpose filled" quarternary code could not have arisen by trial and error randomicity! (Explore The Third Way evolution site for references)
LOL! So you exaggerate the controversy over the Sequence Hypothesis and in the process smear two well-respected mainstream evolutionary biologists, one of whom has explicitly denounced ID, to "prove" that nobody believes in the ToE any more except hard-core atheists like Dawkins? Priceless. What next?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
... no really sincere Biologist (except maybe the propagandist Dawkins) believes this any more.
Ouch! a classic 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

We know that such a sophisticated "purpose filled" quarternary code could not have arisen by trial and error randomicity! (Explore The Third Way evolution site for references)
It's not 'purpose filled' and we don't know any such thing. In fact, we know it is possible - not just from DNA sequencing, but via simulations - you can try it for yourself with Mesquite.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
LOL! So you exaggerate the controversy over the Sequence Hypothesis and in the process smear two well-respected mainstream evolutionary biologists, one of whom has explicitly denounced ID, to "prove" that nobody believes in the ToE any more except hard-core atheists like Dawkins? Priceless. What next?

I did not smear any excerpt Darwin's newest bulldog...in fact I honored McClintock and Shapiro for questioning the status quo..and it had nothing to do with "ID theorists" which I know they reject, it had to do with information in the DNA...discoveries that are contrary to the "hypothesis" that claims the DNA sequences (not even denying the Sequence Hypothesis) accumulated via random mutation over eons of time. There are many other factors involved and some of these instructions and sequences are the result of informational input from other motivational factors IN the cell and FROM the environment (epigenetic influences for example) which possibly effect the DNA sequences and how and why some express and others do not.

I asked and you gave us the "thought to be" and I am merely pointing out that does not equal IS...as far as information science is concerned random mutations are real but IMO in no wise produce greater and greater purposeful complexities that could cause lower order beings to become higher order beings.

One case example was indicated in post 13 where Tabitha M Powledge of the National Institute of Health said ;

Scientists have known for a long time that the program does NOT generate branches randomly...Since there is a standard design for the human lung, that design MUST BE in our DNA instruction manual.”

There is purpose and intent in the biochemical code. A purpose and intent already present as early as the Embryonic stage. There is noting random about this in fact randomicity would cause all sorts of freakish distortions or defects or diseases and not a functional human lung.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0