This is why I have trouble following you at times. What does it mean to write, "I wouldn't know" immediately followed by its contradiction
All interpretation is context. One can not have every answer but still have some specific beliefs that rise to the level of being "knowledge". Still one must know that even things he knows might not be true. I'm pretty sure there's a place called "Moscow" but I know it is constantly changing and moving. If Moscow exists then you can't visit it twice. This is the nature of reality.
Of course this can't mean anything if you start with the assumption that it makes no sense. I assume everyone makes sense all the time and try to deduce what they mean.
If you're referring to the butterfly effect, my understanding is that the resulting weather disturbance days later is unpredictable, but not because what happens in between the flutter and the fury isn't deterministic. As I understand it, there are simply too many variables involved to know them and make the computation. No miracles or magic occur, just deterministic physics.
No. That's old thinking. Experiment has shown that any result is possible. Remember if you toss a coin a million times every single result is just as likely as every other result. It is exactly as likely to come up heads every time as anything else. Other than free will no sort of determinism appears to apply to reality. All events appear to begin randomly at the subatomic level. Even the butterfly in China is responding random events and then precipitating random events. It's still causation but more than merely unpredictable but unknowable.
My claim was the universe requires no apparent intelligent supervision to function as it appears to function to us, which you both did and didn't know about. Did you introduce this concept to contradict that claim? If so, I don't think it does.
No, I just ignored the claim because I believe it is unknowable. Until all relevant terms are defined it can't be studied. The concept of "God" arises from logic but our religious concept of "God" I believe arises from confusion spawned by the tower of babel; the change in language. I certainly don't know and remarkably enough don't really have an opinion any longer. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes the incidence of atheism with age seems to decrease.
They're both abstractions drawn from physical referents - individual examples of biological species and fitness.
You believe "rabbits" and individuals are interchangeable. Foxes don't eat "rabbits" and if they needed to they'd all starve. Individual foxes eat individual rabbits when they can catch them. They might notice one is tougher or chewier than another or one ran a little faster than most but they don't know if one is fitter than another. They pretty much all taste the same (like chicken).
By removing the individual from the equation you are removing every single difference and you are removing every consciousness. If consciousness is the cause of change as I maintain (remember the least rabbit like individuals survive) then you have factored the actual cause of change in species right out of "Evolution".
You see "fitness" where it doesn't exist. You see gradual change despite the fact all observed change in all life at every level is sudden. You are simply imagining a gradual change of whales coming out of the ocean and then returning.
OK. You're not alone, but you are anomalous (I know you like that word) in not (to my knowledge) being a literalist Abrahamist creationist.
Well.... I believe the Bible is based on literal truth. I'm specifically referring to the Old testament as I'm unfamiliar with the New Testament. Much of it will never be understood but more of it will. Believe it or not our ancestors were not sun addled bumpkins. But all their foundational work was based on ancient science that they couldn't understand. They copied it without change as well as they could. But this copying resulted in some very incomprehensible things that they sometimes "smoothed over" so they made sense.
Ancient science was remarkable and far more advanced than perhaps even I can imagine. But it was weak in things like chemistry, mechanics, optics, and most technology. It was very strong in things like biology, "phycology", anatomy, and zoology. Its nature led to understanding and the ability to manipulate the environment with minimal effort. But its metaphysics was language itself and this became increasingly complex as knowledge increased and it had to give way in the long run to a language that ordinary people could speak. The name of the event that suddenly changed the language and gave rise to
homo omnisciencis is known only as the "Tower of Babel". While I'm not really a " literalist Abrahamist creationist", I do still believe the Bible is literally true from the perspective of the natural logic of the human brain. While it is accurate, precise, literal, and true it still must be unraveled. Unraveling it will probably require the reinvention of ancient science and applying its knowledge to the Bible.
Reality is most highly complex. It bends to our will while still reflecting everything in existence and that has been in existence.
We aren't so complex in some ways since we each see what we believe. We act on those beliefs and eventually become them.