The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Michael OBrien · 26-11-2015 01:15PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

But not descriptions of supernature. Could that which is supra nature operate beyond the bounds of that which is confined by nature?

I don't know what 'supra natural' means. It is just a word tossed around, but I have no example of anything supra natural or even a clear description that is in my view coherent.
From my viewpoint, things labelled supernatural or supra natural in the theistic manner used by the religious, covers things that are purely speculative and have no falsification generally. Usually claims like these are masked in conspiracies and lack testability and thus require something like blind faith to believe in.

This excludes non theistic supernatural things which simply mean natural things that are uncommonly incredibly impressive like massive volcanic eruptions or earthquakes or such. The 'super' part simply means unusual in some way.

Safehands · 26-11-2015 06:54PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The notion that they are mythical would ultimately find it's root in a belief system. You may arrive at that belief based on an assessment of the evidence before you but a belief is all it is. If other evidence is presented to alter that belief then alter it will.

Mythical figures don't necessarily have roots in a belief system at all. Normally, they originate from stories, which become legends. Robin Hood, Cú Chulainn, William Tell, King Arthur Etc. These were not real figures but they were folk heros. Noah is just one of these.
You say that I may arrive at my belief based on an assessment of the evidence before me. Of course. That's called using my head. If I assess the evidence and come to a conclusion that it is probably just a story, with no foundation in fact or history, I will see it as a good story, but it is just that, a story. I don't try to pretend it is real. By doing this I am showing that I am a relatively intellegent, decerning human being. If I don't do this, and I pretend it is real, even though all the evidence tells me otherwise, then I am being a creationist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

only difference between us is the evidence we have at our disposal which causes us to draw the conclusions we draw.

No, we have the same evidence at our disposal. You just choose to analyse it differently. I want real evidence, you don't need it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

in mind, that the problems you have accepting as evidence that which doesn't fit into the framework you hold as to what constitutes valid evidence is too a product of a belief system. You are probably an empiricist, for example. But empiricism is a belief system.

I agree, it is a belief in facts and evidence, as opposed to..........?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have no idea of or need for a definitive explanation for how it all came about physically. It's not something I find all that relevant.

Of course you do! you are forever trying to debunk evolution and people who believe in it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

a flood or a man living to 900 years. Since it doesn't confound the spiritual puzzle and since I've no doubt current scientific understanding can, in principle, be overturned wholesale, I've no reason to suppose 900 years of age a myth.

Of course you have a reason to suppose it is a myth. You choose not to think of it as a myth. You have no reason to suppose it is not a myth!
How can current scientific understanding be overturned wholesale? Don't just make sweeping statements without backing them up with something like "facts".

antiskeptic · 27-11-2015 11:55AM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Sorry but you cannot call such mutations beneficial if they are not immediately detrimental since they are not guaranteed to be that.

Nothing is guaranteed to be anything at a point in time.

Is it not the case that mutations which are seen to confer advantage are seen to be so after the fact, once the advantage manifests?

That we can stitch together a plausible story as to how the advantage arose and perhaps develop on is a post-hoc addition: "the mutation causing light sensitive cells conferred advantage because such creatures had more strings in their quiver than ones that didn't..".

Survivability is the ultimate and only objective test.

If so, is it not the case that all mutations arising in generation A which carry forward to generation B must be considered of equal status at the point of being transmitted to the next generation: be it club foot or light sensitive spot. We don't know how that mutation will pan out down the line, since nothing is guaranteed for any of them.

We don't need to know that in any ultimate sense. Evolution has no goals or agendas, so mutations don't NEED to fall into either camp, some do, some may, it does not matter as it is not a goal.

By 'ultimate' I mean: "the more we can fit a mutation (or combination of mutations) into a framework which gives a plausible reason as to why it/they confers advantage the more it leans towards being classified as a beneficial one.

I understand the process itself has no goals.

Sexual selection is a result in mutations and the selection by preference of sexual partners. This is non-random.

With the preference being the product of randomness also. A coin toss is a random process. It will produce a predictable 50/50 split over time but that's something forced on the coin by the nature of the random process. There is no preference or selection outside that produced by the random process.

There has to be some way for a hen to judge the fitness of its mates, a tail is one way,

Judge? The judgement is the product of a mechanism which has been assembled by random events. Random / forced by the random process predictability this way and the bird would judge this way, random that way and the bird would judge that way.

None of this is random, despite the mutations for the tail (and every other component in the process) being so.

I've inserted something in brackets above which I think fitting.

The state of evolution we find ourselves today is like our standing part-way along a particular spoke of a bicycle wheel. The randomness which brought us here (and any predictability forced by the nature of the randomness) could have led things down any other number of spokes.

Which means the hens "choice" could have been entirely and predictably other. Which means your "choice" could have been entirely and predictably other. How do you reconcile the fact that your choices and perceptions could have been entirely and predictably other?

Is there not an inherent pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps here: you, the product of a random process supposing yourself as somehow standing outside the random process which produced you so as to talk of choice as if it had some absolute, not-an-utter-product-of-a random-process value?

That is a fallacy of composition (The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).).
Just because mutations are random, does not mean all effects on those mutations are random. Environments are predictable.

In the same way a coin toss is predictable. Predictability as a subset of randomness doesn't assist you that I can see. If certain components force randomness in particular directions, say by the consistency of gravity, then you've still a problem. Your brain and it's thoughts are a composition of being forced to be the way they are + random processes.

How does one figure this a foundation for concluding anything objective?

'Random' means unpredictable. If something is predictable, it CANNOT be random.

Coin tossing?

How are wombs random? or the environment ENTIRELY random?

I think I've honed in on the core issue. I don't see anything in the process which hasn't at it's foundation, randomness or forced direction (such as a coin toss converging on 50/50). The coin has no choice in the matter: it turning heads is only the product of randomness / forced predictability.

And the same is true of your brain.

I am beginning to think you think if something is not intelligently chosen it is random. This is a mistake. A small rock may roll down a hill due to it being shaken by some random vibration, however the path it took down the hill is decidedly NOT random.

It is, if the obstacles/contours that determine its path have been put in place randomly-at-root. It's this notion, random at root which needs to be acknowledged since all stems from it. There is no point in ignoring it, focusing on the predictability forced upon it's product and then saying randomness has nothing to do with it.

You can stand on a moving bus with blacked out windows and suppose yourself at rest. But ultimately, you're moving at 30mph. Similarly, you might suppose the rock path predictable, because only from the inside of a blacked out. Ultimately and absolutely, it's not, it's path is the product of randomness.

IF you are referring to the scientific axioms

I was thinking, for instance, about the very problem we're discussing at the moment. Science doesn't, nor does it have to in order to do science, deal with it.

'My position' is that we have survived long enough to evolve to our current stage of being by being able to navigate this reality well enough to out compete everything that sought to eat us.

A rock has done equally well without having a thought in it's head. The problem isn't so much our having survived (since that is all we can say about evolution: what survives, survives) but how it is we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to suppose our brains being at all reliable, given the processes that produced it

Since we can test that hypothesis via cross correlation with other humans and observation of non humans interacting with the world (all species with similar senses react similar to us in regard to reality) and build mechanical devices that further enhance and improve our limited senses, our confidence in the basic axioms are warranted.

..subject to the randomness and predictable forces which produced this ability. You can, as an act of faith, suppose that such forces are capable of producing objective order but I'm interested in how you suppose that to have actually occurred*

You need to define clearly your definition of randomness and make sure it is one that is not unique to you or just creationists but recognised generally as having merit. You need to avoid the fallacies I mentioned too in this post.

Hopefully both done. I'm not sure what Creationist think, but generally (at least at discussion forum level or some of those bonkers Americans) don't find what they hold to be the case compellingly put.

I hope that my post helps you have a better understanding of the issue.

It does. Hopefully mine here does too.

antiskeptic · 27-11-2015 11:59AM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I don't know what 'supra natural' means. It is just a word tossed around, but I have no example of anything supra natural or even a clear description that is in my view coherent.

You don't have to have in order to suppose that something could stand above and not being subject to, the laws of nature.

From my viewpoint, things labelled supernatural or supra natural in the theistic manner used by the religious, covers things that are purely speculative and have no falsification generally. Usually claims like these are masked in conspiracies and lack testability and thus require something like blind faith to believe in.

Your viewpoint (which holds the notion of falsification as an intrinsic element) is an empiricists one. Empiricism is a belief system which relies no more on blind faith than does mine. It's just that the faith is personally held (for good reason, according to the believer) and non-falsifiable. In that we share the same boat.

antiskeptic · 27-11-2015 12:13PM

Safehands wrote: »

You say that I may arrive at my belief based on an assessment of the evidence before me. Of course. That's called using my head. If I assess the evidence and come to a conclusion that it is probably just a story, with no foundation in fact or history, I will see it as a good story, but it is just that, a story. I don't try to pretend it is real. By doing this I am showing that I am a relatively intellegent, decerning human being. If I don't do this, and I pretend it is real, even though all the evidence tells me otherwise, then I am being a creationist.

The point was that yours is a belief system. A system resting finally on faith. You assess the information (let's call it information, because the word 'evidence' has tends to be commandeered by the empiricists rules) with the tools you've concluded are the soundest ones available to you. And then draw the conclusions you do.

Others do likewise with the tools they conclude are the most appropriate and conclude otherwise.

It would be an arrogance to suppose that another's tools aren't as good as yours or that they are lazy or stupid or misled. It could just be that the lack lies in you. Just could be.

No, we have the same evidence at our disposal.

Eh.. I don't think you're quite right there. You don't have to believe me when I say I've other information and other tools. But stating I haven't goes too far.

There's little point in demanding that I demonstrate this information/tools using the rules applicable to the tools (empiricism) you use either. Empiricism isn't demonstrably the only or ultimate tool, afterall.

(Cue a list of all the wonderful things empiricism has achieved and all the wars caused by Religion

)

I agree, it is a belief in facts and evidence..

...as the only way anything can be known and evaluated and rendered objective. Which requires a whole heap of faith to hold. And is dogmatic, waayy beyond it's abilities to actually demonstrate its primacy to be the case. Don't you find it strange that a system which relies so much on falsification as an element in it's application can't actually demonstrate it's core claims in such a way as to allow them to be falsified?

Of course you do! you are forever trying to debunk evolution and people who believe in it.

Naturalism is what I try to debunk. However it raises it's head. The only person I try to debunk on a personal level (iirc) is Richard Dawkins. But he truly is a clown so I don't feel too bad about that.

Of course you have a reason to suppose it is a myth.

Not if it doesn't confound the puzzle-building. I choose not to think of it as a myth because I have no reason to do so. What your really only demanding is that all be considered a myth: water in to wine, resurrection from the dead. That I become an atheist

Which would be to fly in the face of the evid...information.

How can current scientific understanding be overturned wholesale? Don't just make sweeping statements without backing them up with something like "facts".

Would anyone with a good degree of humility about the tentative nature of science like to comment?

Safehands · 28-11-2015 03:10PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point was that yours is a belief system. A system resting finally on faith. You assess the information (let's call it information, because the word 'evidence' has tends to be commandeered by the empiricists rules) with the tools you've concluded are the soundest ones available to you. And then draw the conclusions you do.

Really Anti, you are not living in the real world. Mine is a belief in reality, not faith. I see a mountain and I say "that is a mountain". You can say it is something entirely different, but it's still a mountain.

The rest of your reply, well..... I've no idea what you are talking about. Some may say it's nonsense, I think it is the rambling of an unusual mind.

PopePalpatine · 28-11-2015 03:47PM

Safehands wrote: »

The rest of your reply, well..... I've no idea what you are talking about. Some may say it's nonsense, I think it is the rambling of an unusual mind.

The term "Gish gallop" comes to mind.

J C · 28-11-2015 09:24PM

Safehands wrote: »

Really Anti, you are not living in the real world. Mine is a belief in reality, not faith. I see a mountain and I say "that is a mountain". You can say it is something entirely different, but it's still a mountain.

The rest of your reply, well..... I've no idea what you are talking about. Some may say it's nonsense, I think it is the rambling of an unusual mind.

I think when we all see a mountain we all call it a mountain ... and when we see a Human Being we recognise them as such ... it's how mountains and Human Beings came to be that we disagree on.

J C · 28-11-2015 09:30PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The term "Gish gallop" comes to mind.

Ah yes ... the famous 'gallops' over Evolutionism that gave 'game set and match' to the late great Dr Dwane T Gish in every debate he ever had with Evolutionists!!

Thanks for reminding me ... of an eminent Creation Scientist, now safe with his Creator.

Safehands · 29-11-2015 02:14AM

J C wrote: »

I think when we all see a mountain we all call it a mountain ... and when we see a Human Being we recognise them as such ... it's how mountains and Human Beings came to be that we disagree on.

Nah, its more than that. Evidence is evidence in most people's vernacular, not in anti's world though.

antiskeptic · 29-11-2015 11:45AM

Safehands wrote: »

Really Anti, you are not living in the real world. Mine is a belief in reality, not faith. I see a mountain and I say "that is a mountain". You can say it is something entirely different, but it's still a mountain.

The rest of your reply, well..... I've no idea what you are talking about. Some may say it's nonsense, I think it is the rambling of an unusual mind.

Do you not know what empiricism is and that you are one? Your points about evidence and the mechanisms by which it is evaluated are sourced in that philosophy. You can't circumvent its limitations with the above simple, vacuous statements.

I'd suggest better understanding the confines of your own worldview before embarking on a critique of alternatives. Emporers new clothes springs to mind!👑

antiskeptic · 29-11-2015 11:53AM

J C wrote: »

I think when we all see a mountain we all call it a mountain ... and when we see a Human Being we recognise them as such ... it's how mountains and Human Beings came to be that we disagree on.

I think its when some perceive God and others don't that conflict arises. The empiricists dismiss such perception out of hand - not unreasonably, given a) they must confine themselves to empirical boundaries and b) wouldn't be empiricists if they could perceive/engage non-empirically.

But they (must) suppose that God-perceptions lie with mis-perception in others, not inability to percieve with themselves. And there is no way for them to adequately shift the stalemate which arises. Which renders the dogmatism of their philosophy hollow. And I mean hollow for themselves, from their own perspective, as well as us. They are left with a void in their argument, which is filled with blind-faith presumption. Blind faith presumption cannot be satisfactory for them

Whereas we can explain, to our own satisfaction, their lack of perception and don't operate on blind faith.

antiskeptic · 29-11-2015 12:53PM

Safehands wrote: »

Nah, its more than that. Evidence is evidence in most people's vernacular, not in anti's world though.

Which is why I used the word information. In order to assist you past the blinkers of an empiricists notion of evidence. Evidence is understood by empiricists in a particular way. And is commandeered by them by their philosophy.

Without being able to explain why (other than with circular arguments or claims as to the wonderful things empirical method has done) their philosophy has this right.

Safehands · 30-11-2015 01:01AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you not know what empiricism is and that you are one? Your points about evidence and the mechanisms by which it is evaluated are sourced in that philosophy. You can't circumvent its limitations with the above simple, vacuous statements.

I'd suggest better understanding the confines of your own worldview before embarking on a critique of alternatives. Emporers new clothes springs to mind!👑

How terribly superior of you Anti!
You have no difficulty supposing that a man can live for 900 years. Why not 9000 years? I would love for you to explain to the great unwashed, how your mind, superior as it is, can envisage such a scenario. You don't require evidence for these manifistations of the supernatural to exist among us. I never really regarded myself as an empiricist, but to be honest, I never really gave titles any thought, so regarding myself as the holder of such a grand title was neither here nor there.
You have brought it up and I thank you for that. Thinking is a very worthwhile excercise. In my opinion one of the greatest questions one can ask is "What If?"
Some of the most wonderful inventions and discoveries surely started with someone asking that question. I have no difficulty with someone asking "What if a man could live for 900 years?" It's a great gift to give a child, the habit of questioning everything. What if birds could swim and fish could fly or what if Dinosaurs never died out? Let their minds run riot with such questions. We can speculate or hypothesise, but at the end of the day, there comes a time when scientists and mathematicians put an end to or confirm such speculation. I generally tend to go along with their findings. However, if you or anyone else can come up with a hypothesis that they have rejected and you show, or even present a reasonable argument that they may be wrong, then I will be 100% on your side. But to just say that a man lived for 900 years and present us with "why not", as an argument, then I afraid I can admire your eccentricity, but can never be in agreement with you.
If that makes me an empiricist in your opinion, then I can live quite happily with that title.

antiskeptic · 30-11-2015 02:16PM

Safehands wrote: »

How terribly superior of you Anti!
You have no difficulty supposing that a man can live for 900 years. Why not 9000 years? I would love for you to explain to the great unwashed, how your mind, superior as it is, can envisage such a scenario.

I have no difficulty envisaging the potential for things not to confined to be the way they operate now. That principle should be held by all rational people. There is nothing superior about that. It's all very reasonable.

Thereafter, it's a question of whether you are satisfied that things weren't confined to be as they are now (or in my case, not knowing whether they were or not but not seeing the problem if they weren't, since it doesn't confound the puzzle)

You don't require evidence for these manifestations of the supernatural to exist among us

Oh but I do - although I've used the word 'information' instead of the word 'evidence' since that word has a certain resonance and gets, as I've already stated, commandeered by empiricists. Evidence comes to mean empirical evidence.

I wouldn't believe in God's existence if I had no information which led me to suppose that. I couldn't have blind faith (i.e. believe God exists because I was taught that by a priest as a child)

I never really regarded myself as an empiricist, but to be honest, I never really gave titles any thought, so regarding myself as the holder of such a grand title was neither here nor there.

If you restrict all knowing to that which can be demonstrated-to-all then you are an empiricist. The point though, is that everyone operates according to a philosophy or philosophies (rationalism is another common one) and no philosophy can establish itself as absolutely (or even more likely) true. They appear reasonable and fitting and are then assumed to have absolute properties. Recognizing that raises problems for you and poke holes in the foundations of your certainty-statements. But they are, nevertheless, problems for you.

You have brought it up and I thank you for that. Thinking is a very worthwhile excercise. In my opinion one of the greatest questions one can ask is "What If?"

]

As someone wrote (and I paraphrase). "What if God?" This, because the answer to that, affirmative or not carries with it more consequences for every man, woman and child who has ever lived than the answer to any other "What if" that can be raised.

We can speculate or hypothesise, but at the end of the day, there comes a time when scientists and mathematicians put an end to or confirm such speculation.

An opinion they may well give - but only up to the limit by which the philosophies undergirding these activities can answer these questions in definitive fashion. True scientists know the boundaries of their commentary. It's when certain philosophies (such as empiricism) take true science and add their own (unprovable) claims to science that the wheels fall off

I generally tend to go along with their findings. However, if you or anyone else can come up with a hypothesis that they have rejected and you show, or even present a reasonable argument that they may be wrong, then I will be 100% on your side. But to just say that a man lived for 900 years and present us with "why not", as an argument, then I afraid I can admire your eccentricity, but can never be in agreement with you.

The thing is, I'm navigating a different terrain than the one scientists are navigating where a different language is spoken and the structure being examined and explored isn't only a physical one. There are parallels between my activity and the activity of scientists: the aim is to examine and test and understand and cross reference what is understood with what new pieces come into the puzzle so as to get a better understanding and picture of the whole. Understanding evolves and moves forward. But the tools are different, suitable for the terrain being explored.

It's not central to the puzzle I'm interested in, whether man lived 900 years or not. That he did doesn't confound the puzzle and so there is no reason to concern myself with whether he did or didn't. The puzzle works fine if he did so why not - I'm not asking you to believe it?

What Science (tentatively - for science is always tentative) might have to say on the matter is neither here nor there. Maybe they'll hold their current view (assuming they have one that puts a limit on the age of man). Maybe they won't if the evidence ever points otherwise.

Safehands · 01-12-2015 12:41AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you restrict all knowing to that which can be demonstrated-to-all then you are an empiricist. The point though, is that everyone operates according to a philosophy or philosophies (rationalism is another common one) and no philosophy can establish itself as absolutely (or even more likely) true. They appear reasonable and fitting and are then assumed to have absolute properties. Recognizing that raises problems for you and poke holes in the foundations of your certainty-statements. But they are, nevertheless, problems for you.

An opinion they may well give - but only up to the limit by which the philosophies undergirding these activities can answer these questions in definitive fashion. True scientists know the boundaries of their commentary. It's when certain philosophies (such as empiricism) take true science and add their own (unprovable) claims to science that the wheels fall off

The thing is, I'm navigating a different terrain than the one scientists are navigating where a different language is spoken and the structure being examined and explored isn't only a physical one.

I love imagining certain scenarios. In the real world, until we find out differently, we are governed by the laws of physics. Nobody has ever been able to scientifically state that there are other laws in operation which govern the way we think about the universe. I believe that there possibly are other laws governing different dimensions which operate beyond our known laws of physics.
We can only imagine what they are, so when you say you are navigating different terrain where different languages are spoken, I assume that these are not languages currently used on Earth, or terrain that we can look at. These are in your mind, otherwise we would know about them, wouldn't we? It seems to me that you are operating within your own imagination, which obviously does not conform with empirical evidence. Someday, some or all of these current thoughts, theories or imaginings you experience may become real (please don't analyse the word "real").
If you call the laws of physics "a philosophy" then I can tell you that they consist of a philosophy which can be tested. That makes them as real as is possible in the world we live in. Some day other laws, which may make our current laws obsolete, may gradually or suddenly be revealed. When that happens those new laws will be able to be tested in a scientific way.
Here's the thing Anti, if these new, currently unknown laws, are to be shown to exist, it will be scientific people who reveal them. Sitting in your bedroom thinking about them and navigating in a non scientific way, will not reveal them to the world. If you have an idea, and you seem to have many, then work on them in a way which will demonstrate to all of us that they have merit. Don't just philosophise and talk in a way which most people don't understand.

antiskeptic · 01-12-2015 01:26AM

Safehands wrote: »

In the real world, until we find out differently, we are governed by the laws of physics.

Starter problems:

1) What's real is what exists in any way, shape or form, whether or not we can detect it.

2) A royal 'we'. You are entitled to consider yourself governed only by the laws of physics - you are entitled to think that I am governed only by the laws of physics. But you are basing your consideration on your belief that this is the case.

Nobody has ever been able to scientifically state that there are other laws in operation which govern the way we think about the universe.

And? Science is the standard held only by folk who suppose science supreme. For those who have good reason to suppose otherwise there is no problem if the scientific test can't be passed.

I believe that there possibly are other laws governing different dimensions which operate beyond our known laws of physics.
We can only imagine what they are,

The royal 'we' again I must point out. So far we have the declaration that if science doesn't approve and you and others of similar view don't approve then it can't be so. Surely you can see the problem with that?

so when you say you are navigating different terrain where different languages are spoken, I assume that these are not languages currently used on Earth, or terrain that we can look at.

By language I don't mean vocal language but language as a way of interaction and expression. Like maths is a language which expresses and explains.

If you call the laws of physics "a philosophy" then I can tell you that they consist of a philosophy which can be tested.

The laws of physics aren't a philosophy. A philosophy is something that takes the laws / the science that examines the effects of those laws ... and runs beyond their capabilities to explain. Like the statement "science is the ultimate measure". That statement can't be explained scientifically (i.e science can't demonstrate itself supreme scientifically. It's the philosophers who attempt to do that, by using philosopical arguments.

When that happens those new laws will be able to be tested in a scientific way.

Not if those laws don't lend themselves to scientific analysis.

I think the point to be reiterated (at this point) is that you may believe what you believe about the primacy (now and future) of science. But your belief is not demonstrably true. Which is typical of all philosophies (and religions).

You can argue this way and that and outline the reasons for your belief (and you won't be able to do that scientifically) but that's all. Same as me.

Safehands · 01-12-2015 03:10PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Science is the standard held only by folk who suppose science supreme.

That is a nonsensical statement.

antiskeptic wrote: »

those who have good reason to suppose otherwise there is no problem if the scientific test can't be passed.

"Good reason to suppose otherwise," What good reason?

antiskeptic wrote: »

royal 'we' again I must point out. So far we have the declaration that if science doesn't approve and you and others of similar view don't approve then it can't be so. Surely you can see the problem with that?

It really depends what you are talking about. Ghosts, poltergeist, ouija boards, UFO's, Déjà vu....God? These have been around for centuries. Science doesn't dismiss them, it just looks for evidence to examine whether there is merit in claims of their existence.

I can see that there is no real point in debating with you because you are likely to say "debate, what debate? does debate exist?" and then "exist, who exists? noone exists"

Good Lord! oh no, I can hear "good? what's good?"

Does God exist? Did God create the world? What's the world? does it exist? Do I exist? Does Boards.ie exist or is it just a figment of our collective imaginations?
Does imagination exist? Maybe! Does Maybe exist? Maybe!

antiskeptic · 01-12-2015 03:40PM

Safehands wrote: »

That is a nonsensical statement. [/quote]

Not well expressed, I agree. Let me try again:

That something isn't demonstrable scientifically says nothing at all about it's existence or no. And says nothing about the likelyhood of it's existence or no.

The problem can be in the limitations of science. It's inability to examine all reality.

"Good reason to suppose otherwise," What good reason?

Whatever good reason is produced by the overarching philosophy you apply. Ultimately, it's down to each individual to decide whether the philosophy they adhere to provides satisfactory answers for them.

It really depends what you are talking about. Ghosts, poltergeist, ouija boards, UFO's, Déjà vu....God? These have been around for centuries. Science doesn't dismiss them, it just looks for evidence to examine whether there is merit in claims of their existence.

But it can't begin comment on the merit or otherwise of something it lacks the ability to evaluate due to it's own limitations.

How does science decide whether it has the ability to measure all reality?

(The philosophy of empiricism stating from the outset that all reality is material (and thus subject to the probing of science is neither science nor scientific)

Safehands · 01-12-2015 06:58PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

"It really depends what you are talking about. Ghosts, poltergeist, ouija boards, UFO's, Déjà vu....God? These have been around for centuries. Science doesn't dismiss them, it just looks for evidence to examine whether there is merit in claims of their existence."
But it can't begin comment on the merit or otherwise of something it lacks the ability to evaluate due to it's own limitations.

Perhaps it is because these things don't exist, so there is nothing there to examine. Its own limitations are confined to evaluating entities that exist. It can't evaluate non existant things. Do you accept that possibility?

antiskeptic · 01-12-2015 08:33PM

Safehands wrote: »

Perhaps it is because these things don't exist, so there is nothing there to examine. Its own limitations are confined to evaluating entities that exist. It can't evaluate non existant things. Do you accept that possibility?

Not any more. Based on information outside the realm of science

Do you accept the fact that science can only deal with that which falls within its remit and has nothing to say about that which would stand outside it's remit. In other words, your silence on the matter of that which might stand outside for want of any way of establishing it one way or the other

It's called agnosticism.

J C · 01-12-2015 08:36PM

Safehands wrote: »

Perhaps it is because these things don't exist, so there is nothing there to examine. Its own limitations are confined to evaluating entities that exist. It can't evaluate non existant things. Do you accept that possibility?

When you find physical evidence of the appliance of hyper-intelligence in the Creation of life ... then you can scientifically conclude that a hyper-intelligence of God-like capacity existed and created life.
Would such a hyper-intelligence be interested in His Creation ?
Quite possibly.
As intelligence is a virtual phenomenon that acts on the physical world, it can only be detected via the physical results of it's actions and it cannot be observed physically itself.
So saying things like 'I don't see intelligence' is just as meaningless as saying 'I don't see God' and it doesn't invalidate the existence of intelligence or God.
Indeed scientific proof for the existence of an intelligent God is found in artefacts created by His intelligence, such as living creatures, for example.

Safehands · 02-12-2015 03:11PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps it is because these things don't exist, so there is nothing there to examine. Its own limitations are confined to evaluating entities that exist. It can't evaluate non existant things. Do you accept that possibility?
Not any more. Based on information outside the realm of science

Wel, well, Anti. The man who says anything is possible does not accept the possibility that some things that science can't verify, don't exist. Interesting!

The most likely explanation for science not addressing certain, so called supernatural occurrances, is because these don't actually exist. It is extemely easy to make claims like you do. These claims don't have to have any basis in any reality, fact or anything or anywhere else, except what exists in your mind. They can't be proved, verified or tested. They are just wild statements wound up in a load of gobbledegook maquerading as some form of high brow existentialism or absurdism.

antiskeptic · 02-12-2015 04:02PM

Safehands wrote: »

The man who says anything is possible does not accept the possibility that some things that science can't verify, don't exist.

I wouldn't say he has to accept that anything is possible. He doesn't have to accept the possibility that square circles exist.

The man who accepts the possibility that something exists beyond science can simultaneously accept the possibility that there may be nothing beyond science.

He simply says he doesn't know either way. Agnosticism

The most likely explanation for science not addressing certain, so called supernatural occurrances, is because these don't actually exist.

How is likelyhood (of the non-existence of the supernatural (as opposed to the other option, science being unable to observe beyond the material)) be ..

..proved, verified or tested.

For without a means of establishing likelyhood, you're into the realm of ..

...wild statements

Safehands · 02-12-2015 07:56PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't say he has to accept that anything is possible.

Anti, do you believe in Jupiter, who was king of the Gods, or Juno, Queen of the Gods?

antiskeptic · 02-12-2015 09:17PM

Safehands wrote: »

Anti, do you believe in Jupiter, who was king of the Gods, or Juno, Queen of the Gods?

Can we stay on track?

An argument heading towards one of incredulity will continue in a straight line unless acted upon by an exterior force. You need to apply that force

Safehands · 03-12-2015 12:23AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can we stay on track?

An argument heading towards one of incredulity will continue in a straight line unless acted upon by an exterior force. You need to apply that force

The point is that Jupiter was a God who many believed in. Whole civilisations in fact. Can you prove to me that those people were wrong? Lets forget about science and the evidence for Jupiter's existence, shall we? If the Greeks and the Romans, some of the greatest civilisations who ever lived, genuinely believed that Jupiter was the king of the Gods, who are we to say they were wrong? Could he have been involved in the creation of the world as we know it?
What about modern day Pastafarianiasm? Can you really say with any authority that they are wrong?
When you enter the world of a dismissal of science then anything is possible. It's ironic that you talk about incredulity when discussing people's genuinely held beliefs just because you have absolutely no faith in them.

Safehands · 03-12-2015 01:03AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can we stay on track?
An argument heading towards one of incredulity will continue in a straight line unless acted upon by an exterior force. You need to apply that force

Incredulity? Come on Anti, you started it with statements like this one:

antiskeptic wrote: »

quote:
"since I've no doubt current scientific understanding can, in principle, be overturned wholesale, I've no reason to suppose 900 years of age a myth."

Seems to me that if we dismiss science, then anyone with an idea about how it all started has GOT to be listened to, no matter how outlandish their notions. The only way to dismiss the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to offer rational arguments as to why they are quite outrageous. Can you do that without reverting to science?

Michael OBrien · 03-12-2015 06:32PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't have to have in order to suppose that something could stand above and not being subject to, the laws of nature.

Wait a second, so you don't need to even define your words now?
Also anyone is free to suppose anything they like, that does not make what they suppose real or even credible. I can suppose fairies exist, and that they cannot be disproven because they are magical and outside of the rules of nature.
How does that move along any conversation however or help decide if something actually exists at all.

I am an empiricist to the extent that when facing a choice between accepting a claim or not (if 'choice' is really accurate), evidence for it or against it existing is something I look for. I don't just guess or consider if I want it to exist that justifies it existing.

I don't read all your posts to other posters so what is your problem with empiricism.

Also you cannot have something that is 'outside of the rules of nature' and be in nature without running into at least two problems. Either you are saying the rules of nature are false, a serious claim that needs to be supported (but certainly possible as our understanding of nature matures constantly) or you are falling into a special pleading fallacy, where the rules (or laws) are suspended to allow your proposed entity or condition to exist, because otherwise it would be illogical or impossible.

As far as not being part of nature itself rather than simply outside of how nature normally works (so by default outside of our understanding of reality) well that also needs to be supported otherwise it could fall under the special pleading fallacy.
The pathway to how someone 'knows' this entity is outside the laws of nature also needs analysis as the person providing this claim is subject to those laws normally as is everyone else. Special knowledge, that seeks special privilege (as in being accepted by faith) is highly unreliable.

Michael OBrien · 03-12-2015 07:15PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nothing is guaranteed to be anything at a point in time.

Is it not the case that mutations which are seen to confer advantage are seen to be so after the fact, once the advantage manifests?

That we can stitch together a plausible story as to how the advantage arose and perhaps develop on is a post-hoc addition: "the mutation causing light sensitive cells conferred advantage because such creatures had more strings in their quiver than ones that didn't..".

Survivability is the ultimate and only objective test.

If so, is it not the case that all mutations arising in generation A which carry forward to generation B must be considered of equal status at the point of being transmitted to the next generation: be it club foot or light sensitive spot. We don't know how that mutation will pan out down the line, since nothing is guaranteed for any of them.

Your response here about stitching together a plausible story’ seems to indicate that it has no support, that it is just an interpretation that is just as plausible as anything else. This would be false as the ‘story’ has to be consistent with the data (which evolution overwhelming is) and provide predictive possibilities that further our ability to understand the phenomena (again the theory of evolution has shown for over a century that it gives accurate predictions time and again, and as it is refined, when new data comes along, that those predictions become more frequent, not less.)
Survivability is indeed a test for how successful an organism is in its environment, not however how successful every mutation that is carried on is. This would fall into the fallacy of division (the opposite to the fallacy of composition (A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.)

antiskeptic wrote: »

By 'ultimate' I mean: "the more we can fit a mutation (or combination of mutations) into a framework which gives a plausible reason as to why it/they confers advantage the more it leans towards being classified as a beneficial one.

I understand the process itself has no goals.

Ah, Perhaps my use of 'subjective' before caused a misunderstanding. When I say that the nature of mutations that go through the natural selection process is subjective, I was not inferring the judgement is ours, or that because we call it beneficial or detremental, that is why it is so.

I mean the result is subjective to the environment the organism finds itself in at any given time. If a group of fish find themselves washed into a cave in a flood and are stuck in near total darkness in a deep underground lake, the conditions have changed and thus the mutations' merits are not fixed at any time. Eyes are obviously objectively advantageous in some circumstances and obviously objectively disadvantageous (as in my example) in others.
The mutation itself or chain of them had no say in this or had no inherent properties that would indicate its future merits.

As generations pass, the fish in the deep lake lose their eyesight and become completely blind where their eyes slowly become largely useless to the ongoing survival of that group, which may be a new species of that genus of fish if they remain isolated long enough from their parent group.

I am glad to hear you accept that the evolutionary process has no goals. Its a common mistake people make.

antiskeptic wrote: »

With the preference being the product of randomness also. A coin toss is a random process. It will produce a predictable 50/50 split over time but that's something forced on the coin by the nature of the random process. There is no preference or selection outside that produced by the random process.

A poor analogy and a coin toss is not truly random, only apparently so.
It does on average work out approximately 50/50 over time, that is true.
How does that affect the sexual preferences of a peahen?
It is not a 'coin toss' that a sexual partner preference is for healthy rather than sick. The alternative would fail to complete so the population would always go towards healthy unless it went extinct. That is decidedly non random. The fact that the tail was the factor MAY be a random trait, based on the limited factors available to choose from, but once it was chosen, the resulting refinement is decidedly non random as natural selection would constantly present ever finer degrees of tail display on the peacock to choose from, thus again making it non random.

Again, just because there are random elements does not make EVERYTHING random, some is, some is not. That is why Natural selection works to provide predictable results. IF it was entirely random, science could not use evolutionary theory at all.

Here is an example. Fishermen have for years thrown back small fish they catch and kept the big fish, believing this helps keep the fish population prosperous, but they found that they were catching smaller and smaller fish over time, making their catches less profitable.
A scientist (I cannot recall his name off hand) used evolutionary theory to demonstrate that the initial attitude of throwing back the smaller fish was the problem, as it drove the fish population to have less big fish to pass on the genes and the benefit of being big was now an overall disadvange as they were far more often eaten by us. The smaller fish now had an evolutionary advantage in being smaller, thus bred more and had more offspring.
As this spread throughout the fishing populations (of multiple genus) the overall fish kept getting smaller over the decades.
This has resulted in a change in attitude and a reassessment on how to reinvigorate the fish population.

As you can see, this is NOT random, it occurred in multiple genus as well as species of fish, due to the natural selection of humans (who were not intelligently trying to cause this anymore than a lion plans on making antelope faster by failing to catch the fastest of them more often than the slower ones.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Judge? The judgement is the product of a mechanism which has been assembled by random events. Random / forced by the random process predictability this way and the bird would judge this way, random that way and the bird would judge that way.

you just keep throwing out 'random' constantly. Random is a label for things we have yet to fully map or understand. If we (humans) cannot predict some outcome we call it random.
I am not sure what 'forced' means in this concept. As I said before mutations are white noise, but natural selection is what makes something from it. Natural selection is the opposite of random. However it works with what is available at a given time, so the avenues are not guaranteed, but they are not random and once a course of mutations start being refined, their refinement is not random, as the environment controls the selection pressures.
A venomous snake's venom has been traced to a random mutation of the toxicity of saliva, one mutation doubled the strength of a snakes saliva and that random event lead to a refinement that gave ongoing advantage to the snake as a predator.
If that had not occurred, the snake might have had to rely on another mutation to help it survive, like being able to crush its victims, like some non venomous snakes do, or hunt prey that can be swallowed whole, as others do, etc. Once the options are available, natural selection does the rest.
Some prey develop immunities to venom, so an arms race occurs as mutations become more refined on both sides. This cannot be like a coin toss, now can it. A snake with LESS toxicity will fail more often to incapacitate a prey with some immunity to the venom than one with stronger venom and from the prey side, a prey with stronger immunity is more likely to survive such encounters than one with less, on average, resulting in a population that will, all other things being equal, move towards a refinement of that attribute.
I will address the rest another time. It is very time consuming.

Here is an interesting link for anyone who wants to learn more about actual evolution (including those that already accept it).

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments