Evidence

[Ouroboros]

2 Hungry Monkeys + 2 Bananas = 2 Happy Monkeys.

or

2 Hungry Monkeys + 2 Bananas = 1 Very Happy Monkey + 1 Very Upset Monkey.

 

[Copernicus]

Before the eye can evolve there had to be a brain that simultaneously evolved with it. One cannot precede the other...

You still miss the point. Brains and eyes existed before there were humans, so neither came first in humans. Brains do not need eyes, and not all organisms with brains have eyes. So eyes evolved in ancestral species that already had brains.

...There cannot be a “purpose” for anything unless there is an external agent with a mind to define what the purpose is. If you are going to say that the “purpose” of the eye is to provide vision, then you are really saying nature knew that it was better for a person to see than not, so it purposed made humans evolve to hide eyes. And I know what you are going to say “that is not how it works!!!” But that IS how it works, otherwise no part of the body can be said to have purpose.

No part of the body has a "purpose" in the sense that you define the word. I would rather say that they have systemic functions. A cloud has a function in a weather system, not a purpose. Ditto with the parts of evolved organisms. Your wording is technically inaccurate.

...to try and use science as a way to explain the absolute origins of the universe is to be running on a treadmill. You won’t get anywhere.

Sorry, but we are just going in circles here. Science has provided us with some very sophisticated explanations of our origins. Religions have failed repeatedly to explain such things.

...The terms “physical reality” and “universe” are not mutually exclusive.

The concept of a "multiverse" (or alternate realities) has been around for a long time. If you refuse to acknowledge the distinction I make between physical reality and the observable universe, then let's just move on. Given how time works in our universe, it doesn't even maked sense to ask what existed before the Big Bang. As Krauss has put it, you might as well ask what is south of the South Pole.

First off the quantum vacuum is not “nothing” in the basic sense of the word. I understand that some physicists toss the word “nothing” around to actually mean “something. In the sense of “non-being”, something cannot come from a state of “non-being”. The quantum vacuum is not “nothing”. It is a sea of fluctuating energy and can be described by physical law...

If you acknowledge this, then you can grasp the idea of godless reality. There never was "nothing." There was always random quantum fluctuation, which gives rise to universes or "causal bubbles." Gods are not needed to create universes.

Second, the quantum vacuum itself is within the physical universe and did not exist prior to the universe...

Nothing existed "prior to" the universe, but you've got the metaphor reversed. Universes exist in the quantum soup.

Third, there are more than 10 interpretations of quantum physics and no one knows which one is correct and the interpretation you are using is just one of the 10. So there is no reason why you think the Copenhagen interpretation is true and the other 10 or so are not.

Where did you get the idea I accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation? I don't. You are correct that there are a lot of competing ideas about cosmology in science, but that is how science works. It generates competing models and tries to come up with ways of testing them. Science creates questions that can be answered. Religion creates answers that cannot be questioned.

Fourth, if you believe that things can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing then that leaves the bigger question of why doesn’t any and everything pop in to being out of nothing? What is so special about the particles that only they get to? Why not cars? Why not horses?

Great questions. Have you ever thought of asking physicists those questions? They do have answers, you know. Answering such questions is what they get paid to do. Notice I'm not asking you how God causes things to pop into existence--which is clearly what you believe. I don't really believe in magic.

Fifth, if you are in your living room watching the game and you hear a loud shattering of glass and you look out your window and I am standing by your car with a baseball bat and you see your windshield has been shattered and you asked me what happened and I say “Oh, nothing”. Would you accept that answer? If the answer is yes then I will get my baseball bat immediately. If the answer is no then why would you gladly accept the assumption that particles can do the same thing?

The answer is "no," and you're going to pay for that window. :verymad: I gladly accept the assumption that particles can do the same thing, because scientists have observed them doing just that.

Hmmm, where do fossils come from? Good question…let me think…..ok I’ve thought about that question for an hour…and I’m gona go out on a limb and say that fossils came from DEAD ANIMALS.

Good. We're making progress. So these animals were alive at one time and capable of producing offspring. We find lots of transitional fossils that provide strong evidence for evolution. However, that is far from being the only evidence for evolution. As I said earlier, Darwin did not rely much on the fossil record as evidence for his theory. He knew nothing about genetics or DNA. Subsequent discoveries have only corroborated his theory, never contradicted it.

Give me one good reason why the concept of a maximally great being as defined by Plantiga isn’t possible.

I said may not be possible. If you are going to talk about Plantinga, get your modals straight! Plantinga used "necessary" to entail real existence, as opposed to hypothetical existence. So he ended up begging the question. Also, if something has to be "maximally necessary" (a strange expression), then it could just be the quantum soup that we've discussed. There is no reason why that "something" has to be a "being".

...A necessary truth is something that is true in all possible worlds...

Now you are using "necessary" in a different sense--as it applies to propositions. Entities that "exist" in a possible world are not propositions. Tautologies are necessary truths, but they are propositions. Entities can exist or not exist, but they are not the kinds of thing that can be "true" or "false".

Right, mathematical objects are abstract…but that doesn’t change anything. They still exist, though not physically. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter what definitions are given.

Beware of the reification fallacy.

I repeat…give me a logical flaw based on the concept of God that Plantiga uses. In order to show that something cannot be possible, you have to show it to be logically absurd. I don’t think you can do that. If you can, I would love to see it. You don’t believe in God not because the concept of such a being is absurd……but because you don’t like the idea of such a being. There is a big distinction that should be made between the two.

Actually, I do believe that the "omnimax" God is absurd, but I don't think that Plantinga's argument necessarily leads to that version of "maximally great." For some lengthy treatises on the essential impossibility of that version of God, see The Impossibility of God.

Postulating a pre-bang model only pushes the question of origins back a step further. You still have the problem of entropy…you still have the problem with infinity…these problems are hard to deal with if you are a naturalist.

Don't forget that our temporal frame of reference cannot exist before the "Big Bang". Without causality, you have no entropy. Without time, no "infinity problem."

Krauss’s argument just flat out doesn’t work. He misuses the word “nothing” to make it mean “something”. He doesn’t mean that the universe came from a state of non-being. He is a good scientists, but he is a bad philosopher.

Krauss does have fun with the word "nothing", but he makes it clear that he is talking about empty space or "vacuum". Physicists no longer believe that space is just the "absence of matter." It is actually a substance that interacts with matter. Another way of putting it is that there is really no such thing as nothing. What we used to think of as "nothing" is actually "something."

Wrong again. When Christians say that God is infinite, we are not using the word “infinity” in terms of quantity. We are using it in terms of QUALITY; meaning God is the ultimate source of knowledge, character, power, and presence.

No, the word "infinite" is always about quantity. That's why you use words like "maximal", as well. You are talking about scalar concepts, which are inherently quantifiable. So "omniscience" implies that knowledge is quantifiable (a notion that I reject).

There is no evidence that consciousness comes from brain. All you can do is show that the mind correlates with the brain, but that doesn’t mean that the mind COMES from the brain.

Causal relations are always correlations. It is easy to prove that you can make people lose and gain consciousness by doing things to their brain. For example, people lose consciousness when you introduce general anaesthesia into the blood stream.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You still miss the point. Brains and eyes existed before there were humans, so neither came first in humans. Brains do not need eyes, and not all organisms with brains have eyes. So eyes evolved in ancestral species that already had brains.

I am talking about the human brain and the human eye. So what you are basically saying is the brain was here first, and then all of a sudden eyes started to evolve for absolutely no reason at all.

No part of the body has a "purpose" in the sense that you define the word. I would rather say that they have systemic functions. A cloud has a function in a weather system, not a purpose. Ditto with the parts of evolved organisms. Your wording is technically inaccurate.

So what you have here is a sun that makes water evaporate into the clouds. The clouds become heavy and cause rain to fall. The water causes plants and vegetation to grow....at which herbivores will then it, with a digestive system which had specifically evolved to eat just vegetation. You don't see the problem with this if you negate a Intelligent Designer?? Second, "systemic functions" is an understatement. We have eyes to see, ears to hear, tongue to taste, mouth to speak, digestive system, circulatory system, reproductive system, immune system, and nervous system. How old EARTH can people think that we get all these specified mechanisms from a process that is blind and non-intelligible? A process that cant think or see gave you eyes to see, ears to hear, a system to break down food and reproduce. I will stick to my theism because I don't have that much faith to be a naturalist or atheist.

Sorry, but we are just going in circles here. Science has provided us with some very sophisticated explanations of our origins. Religions have failed repeatedly to explain such things.

You are just simply wrong here buddy. Science has NOT provided us with an explanation as to how life can come from non-life, nor is science in a position to tell us where physical reality came from, since it is contingent. I think my religion does everything that science CAN'T do. Not to mention the fact that this specified and complex human body works in such a orderly fashion that being the rational person I am I can't believe you get this kind of order from a blind and mindless process.

The concept of a "multiverse" (or alternate realities) has been around for a long time. If you refuse to acknowledge the distinction I make between physical reality and the observable universe, then let's just move on. Given how time works in our universe, it doesn't even maked sense to ask what existed before the Big Bang. As Krauss has put it, you might as well ask what is south of the South Pole.

Well, based on the Christian theistic explanation, there was a "before" the big bang. But this "before" is not in terms of temporality, so while there was no "temporal" before, there was a "causal" before. God was timeless before the big bang, and at the moment of the big bang God stepped in to time. So God transcended time itself.

If you acknowledge this, then you can grasp the idea of godless reality. There never was "nothing." There was always random quantum fluctuation, which gives rise to universes or "causal bubbles." Gods are not needed to create universes.

More contradictions? You just said above that there was no "before" the big bang and it doesn't even make sense to ask the question. Now you are postulating "random quantum fluctuations", which gave rise to universes (and even ours). So if the quantum fluctuations are the cause of the universe, then they obviously existed "before" the universe, and not only that; these fluctuations had to exist IN TIME. This is clearly a contradiction.

Nothing existed "prior to" the universe, but you've got the metaphor reversed. Universes exist in the quantum soup.

No matter what cosmic theory you use, you still have the infinity problem, and the entropy problem.

Where did you get the idea I accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation? I don't.

The idea that virtual particles pop in to being out of nothing in the quantum vacuum, and the idea that our universe could have been one of those things that popped in to existence in this large cosmic vacuum is the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics.

You are correct that there are a lot of competing ideas about cosmology in science, but that is how science works. It generates competing models and tries to come up with ways of testing them. Science creates questions that can be answered. Religion creates answers that cannot be questioned.

Oh science can answer the question of where the universe came from?? Oh wow, lets hear it...

Great questions. Have you ever thought of asking physicists those questions? They do have answers, you know. Answering such questions is what they get paid to do. Notice I'm not asking you how God causes things to pop into existence--which is clearly what you believe. I don't really believe in magic.

Trust me, the question cannot be answered because it defies all logic and rationale. Second, I will admit, I don't know how God can cause things to exist from nothing. But which view makes more sense? When a magician (God) pulls the rabbit out of the hat, at least we know that the magician (God) caused the rabbit to appear. There is a causal agent to explain the origin of the effect. But on your view, there is no magician, the rabbit just POPPED in to being, uncaused out of nothing. No magician, no hat; just the rabbit lol. To me it is clear which view is more plausible than not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The answer is "no," and you're going to pay for that window. :verymad: I gladly accept the assumption that particles can do the same thing, because scientists have observed them doing just that.

That's my point, what is so special about particles that only they get to pop in to existence out of nothing. Again, the state of nothingness doesn't have any preconditions or rules of thumb that will allow only particles to do such. Second, the particles dont come from "nothing" in the sense of non-being. Third, you didn't see me break the window so for all you know, nothing could have caused the window to break. You believe that particles could come from nothing, so why not believe that nothing caused the window to break? Apparently, on your view the state of nothingness can do a lot of amazing things.

Good. We're making progress. So these animals were alive at one time and capable of producing offspring.

But there is no reason to believe that these animals produced DIFFERENT kinds of offspring. We see animals today producing offspring, but the offspring is always the same kind of animal. There is no reason to believe that the animals of yesterday are able to do something that the animals of today haven't been able to do.

We find lots of transitional fossils that provide strong evidence for evolution.

No we don't, that is your presupposition leaking in to the observational evidence. How do we know that those fossils aren't just one species of animals that died off? What reason do we have to conclude that a fossil is the transitional form in to another animal?

However, that is far from being the only evidence for evolution. As I said earlier, Darwin did not rely much on the fossil record as evidence for his theory. He knew nothing about genetics or DNA. Subsequent discoveries have only corroborated his theory, never contradicted it.

Right, he didn't rely on the fossil record because there IS no fossil record. He said himself that if we found transitional fossils that would corroborate his theory. Well, we haven't found them yet.

I said may not be possible. If you are going to talk about Plantinga, get your modals straight! Plantinga used "necessary" to entail real existence, as opposed to hypothetical existence. So he ended up begging the question. Also, if something has to be "maximally necessary" (a strange expression), then it could just be the quantum soup that we've discussed. There is no reason why that "something" has to be a "being".

This is clearly false. The hypothetical concept came only in the first premise where he is defining what it means to be a "maximally great being" (MGB). It is basically stating "I am not stating that a maximally great being exist; but if such a being DID exist, these are his attributes".....it is only after further analysis that it is determined that such a being does in fact exist.

Now you are using "necessary" in a different sense--as it applies to propositions. Entities that "exist" in a possible world are not propositions. Tautologies are necessary truths, but they are propositions. Entities can exist or not exist, but they are not the kinds of thing that can be "true" or "false".

Not at all. My point is it is possible for a MGB to exist. Point blank, period. There is a possible world where a MGB exist. But in order to be MG as defined by Plantiga, a MGB would have to exist in all possible worlds, because if you can think of a world at which a MGB does NOT exist, then this being could not be maximally great...because we can think of a greater being that does exist in all possible worlds. So if this beings existence is true in all possible worlds, that would make its existence a necessary truth. The proposition "God exist in all possible worlds" is a necessary truth.

Actually, I do believe that the "omnimax" God is absurd, but I don't think that Plantinga's argument necessarily leads to that version of "maximally great." For some lengthy treatises on the essential impossibility of that version of God, see The Impossibility of God.

No you tell me why a "omnimax" God is absurd. Just give me a brief summary.

Don't forget that our temporal frame of reference cannot exist before the "Big Bang". Without causality, you have no entropy. Without time, no "infinity problem."

If you believe there is a naturalistic explanation for the big bang, then you do have the infinity problem, because a naturalistic cause is a temporal one.

the word "infinite" is always about quantity. That's why you use words like "maximal", as well. You are talking about scalar concepts, which are inherently quantifiable. So "omniscience" implies that knowledge is quantifiable (a notion that I reject).

Well to avoid confusion I can use the word "maximal" and the same point will be made. So the definition of infinity is irrelevant since I don't hold the view that God's attributes are quantifiable.

Causal relations are always correlations. It is easy to prove that you can make people lose and gain consciousness by doing things to their brain. For example, people lose consciousness when you introduce general anaesthesia into the blood stream.

Once again, that only shows correlation between the mind and the brain. The brain does not depend on the mind to exist but it does depend on the mind to give the it consciousness. When you are happy, is your brain happy? When you are sad, is your brain sad? Your mind the actual "you". What is true of your brain is not true of your mind.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your sad attempt at avoiding the fact that your are wrong about 2+2=4 being a necessary truth merely shows just how dishonest you are willing to be in order to protect your beliefs.

Mest....I said 2+2 = 4, and how that is a necessary truth....you asked if you had two piles of sand and I had two piles of sand.....first off....how many piles of sand do we have total? 4. If we put our 4 piles of sand to make one pile of sand...that one pile of sand will consist of our 4 piles of sand. Now what part of 2+2=4 dont you understand?

 

[McBell]

Mest....I said 2+2 = 4, and how that is a necessary truth....you asked if you had two piles of sand and I had two piles of sand.....first off....how many piles of sand do we have total? 4. If we put our 4 piles of sand to make one pile of sand...that one pile of sand will consist of our 4 piles of sand. Now what part of 2+2=4 dont you understand?

Now I realize you will likely not understand this, but increasing the font size does not help you when all you are doing is repeating the same nonsense.

 

[Ouroboros]

Now I realize you will likely not understand this, but increasing the font size does not help you when all you are doing is repeating the same nonsense.

I wonder if the size of the numbers also counts for the formula? Hmmm...

2 + 2 = 2?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I wonder if the size of the numbers also counts for the formula? Hmmm...

2 + 2 = 2?

I think it only works if you remove the question mark (or at least increase the size of the question mark).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mest....I said 2+2 = 4, and how that is a necessary truth....you asked if you had two piles of sand and I had two piles of sand.....first off....how many piles of sand do we have total? 4. If we put our 4 piles of sand to make one pile of sand...that one pile of sand will consist of our 4 piles of sand. Now what part of 2+2=4 dont you understand?

The real problem is that 2 actually equals 1. Look, I've proved it:

Let x and y both be equal to 2, i.e.,
x =2
and
y =2

If anyone not trying to prove god or what is and isn't a necessary truth such that god must exist would refrain from analytical comments on the above, I would be grateful.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think it only works if you remove the question mark (or at least increase the size of the question mark).

Hehe. You're right.

Let's try again:

2+2=2

Perhaps even

2+2=3

 

[Ouroboros]

The real problem is that 2 actually equals 1. Look, I've proved it:

Let x and y both be equal to 2, i.e.,
x =2
and
y =2

Oh noez! Ya' divided by zero! Now we'll have a wormhole showing up and sucking us all in. Damn...

I like this one:

1 = 3/3
= 3 * 1/3
= 3 * 0.333...
= 0.999...
Ergo 1 is approximately 1.

(I know, I know, screwing with limits again)

 

[adi2d]

I already showed you two possible worlds where 2+2 would not equal 4
Those worlds would use number system we who use base 10 would consider base 3 and base 4.

I think the computer we are using is base 2. So there is no 2 or 4

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Now I realize you will likely not understand this, but increasing the font size does not help you when all you are doing is repeating the same nonsense.

Me stating that 2+2 will always equal 4 is nonsense? Wow. If irrationality is the price of not believing in God I will gladly leave you to it.

 

[Copernicus]

I am talking about the human brain and the human eye. So what you are basically saying is the brain was here first, and then all of a sudden eyes started to evolve for absolutely no reason at all.

No, I clearly said "neither" in repeated posts, and you just blew off what I said. Eyes and brains co-existed in the earliest humans. Neither came first.

"systemic functions" is an understatement...I will stick to my theism because I don't have that much faith to be a naturalist or atheist.

Evolution theory does not challenge theism, although it may challenge your version of it. You'll stick to that because you perceive a threat to your religious beliefs, and that prevents you from finding out what it really says and considering the possibility that you may be misguided and mistaken.

You are just simply wrong here buddy. Science has NOT provided us with an explanation as to how life can come from non-life, nor is science in a position to tell us where physical reality came from, since it is contingent. I think my religion does everything that science CAN'T do. Not to mention the fact that this specified and complex human body works in such a orderly fashion that being the rational person I am I can't believe you get this kind of order from a blind and mindless process.

To believe it, you have to take the trouble to learn it first. Abiogenesis has not yet been proven from a scientific perspective, unlike biological evolution. However, there is a mountain of evidence pointing in that direction. And science has provided us with a plausible way to explain the origin of the universe without appealing to the intervention of a super-intelligent, super-powerful magical being. You are satisfied with your faith-based just so story. Fine. I prefer science-based explanations.

...But this "before" is not in terms of temporality, so while there was no "temporal" before, there was a "causal" before...

That is simply incoherent. Causation entails temporality, and it breaks down as you look back at the time of the Big Bang. But we are only talking about time reference within our "causal bubble" of a universe.

...You just said above that there was no "before" the big bang and it doesn't even make sense to ask the question. Now you are postulating "random quantum fluctuations", which gave rise to universes (and even ours). So if the quantum fluctuations are the cause of the universe, then they obviously existed "before" the universe, and not only that; these fluctuations had to exist IN TIME. This is clearly a contradiction.

You have already accepted the existence of a magical being that transcends time. It should not be difficult for you to accept a "quantum foam" that transcends our temporal framework. The quantum foam model is weird, but certainly not as weird as a super-intelligent creator with magical powers.

The idea that virtual particles pop in to being out of nothing in the quantum vacuum, and the idea that our universe could have been one of those things that popped in to existence in this large cosmic vacuum is the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics.

Not even close. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Look it up.

But there is no reason to believe that these animals produced DIFFERENT kinds of offspring. We see animals today producing offspring, but the offspring is always the same kind of animal. There is no reason to believe that the animals of yesterday are able to do something that the animals of today haven't been able to do.

Transitional fossils give us reason to believe that these animals produced DIFFERENT kinds of offspring. I've already cited examples of animals giving birth to different kinds of animals (e.g. mules). Don't ask for evidence if you won't acknowledge it.

No we don't, that is your presupposition leaking in to the observational evidence. How do we know that those fossils aren't just one species of animals that died off? What reason do we have to conclude that a fossil is the transitional form in to another animal?

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of what a transitional fossil is (Wikidpedia: "A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."). It does not necessarily have to BE the actual ancestor of modern plants and animals. It just represents a very closely related species to the actual ancestors. We are not necessarily descended from Lucy, but we are descended from a related hominid.

...There is a possible world where a MGB exist. But in order to be MG as defined by Plantiga, a MGB would have to exist in all possible worlds, because if you can think of a world at which a MGB does NOT exist, then this being could not be maximally great...because we can think of a greater being that does exist in all possible worlds. So if this beings existence is true in all possible worlds, that would make its existence a necessary truth. The proposition "God exist in all possible worlds" is a necessary truth.

I understand the argument perfectly well, and I have rebutted it. Your MGB is assumed to exist when you define it as necessarily existing in all possible worlds, the real world being a "possible world." However, that assumption begs the question. There is no point in going back and forth on this, since you do not refute my argument. You just repeat Plantinga's argument as you understand it no matter what I say. I'm not the first to make this criticism of Plantinga, and you won't be the last to ignore it. You can define words, but you cannot define entities into existence. That is, you can define what an "MGB" would be if one existed, but that doesn't mean that one exists.

Well to avoid confusion I can use the word "maximal" and the same point will be made. So the definition of infinity is irrelevant since I don't hold the view that God's attributes are quantifiable.

Then don't contradict yourself by using words that quantify his attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, maximal, etc.).

Once again, that only shows correlation between the mind and the brain. The brain does not depend on the mind to exist but it does depend on the mind to give the it consciousness. When you are happy, is your brain happy? When you are sad, is your brain sad? Your mind the actual "you". What is true of your brain is not true of your mind.

I never equated the brain with the mind. In fact, I explicitly reject that view. The brain clearly causes consciousness, because we can do things to it that predictably shut down and start up consciousness. A blow to your head can cause you to lose consciousness. A kick in your posterior, not so much. Well, I don't really know about you, but that seems to be true for most people.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I was making a rather flippant but subtle (or at least indirect) commentary.



J.D. Crossan is a Biblical/NT scholar (one of the most well-known in the world, actually). I think he's wrong about almost everything he says (his evaluation of the socio-economic state of both Galilean cities and villages in pre-70 Galilee, the extent of Hellenistic influence, his "cross gospel", and most importantly his Jewish-peasant Cynic depiction of the historical Jesus). However, he's still a nice guy. And he was invited to debate Craig by an individual who has a radio show, one Crossan had been thrice invited to debate on, each time for a discussion/debate with another scholar with opposing views, and each time a cordial, respectful, and productive occasion.

And being a nice guy, when asked if it would be ok to have the debate not on the radio show but in a evangelical church in front of an audience whose views are completely at odds with Crossan's, he said yes. And when they asked if another evangelical scholar like Craig could serve as "moderator", he said yes. And then, at the last moment, they asked if Buckley could not only moderate, but participate, so concerned was Crossan with encouraging respectful dialogue and recognizing that opposing views need amount to mere "rhetorical genocide" and claims of complete authority used to decide who is and isn't Christian, Crossan again said yes. So he went to debate an opposing scholar (Craig), in front of a completely hostile audience to him and completely supportive of Craig, and tried to have a debate when even the moderator not only represented the views of everyone there except Crossan, but also wasn't a moderator at all (making the "debate" a two against one scenario, only Craig's side also had the power of moderator). And he took Craig's vindictive rhetoric in stride and did not respond in kind (even when Craig's use of classical fallacious arguments, such as his appeal to emotions by comparing Crossan's views as tantamount to saying the Nazi Jesus was the true Jesus).

Craig set up a debate in which everyone but Crossan supported him, and he used that support to control how the debate proceeded.

A debater's arguments will rise and fall on their own merit regardless on what type of crowd is in attendance.

I know. But your point is based on an example that doesn't show anything. There are a huge number of animals who are classified as belonging to this or that genus, or order, or whatever, yet look less like all of their relatives than they do some species from another order or family.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Have you ever observed anything other than this??? If no, then there is no need to believe otherwise.

And then, when all of a sudden we see macroevolution you define two different species to be the same. They aren't. Let's start with Vulpes vulpes, or the "red fox" used in the study.

We've never seen macroevolution, thats my point.

So, what do you have besides "foxes are dogs" or is going to be another quietly ignored question?

No fox has been seen producing a non-fox...or a non-dog....nor have a non-dog or non-fox been seen to produce the fox. That is what I do know.

If you don't even know how this "voo doo scheme" started, let alone the current state of research, what other than pure, blind dogma is behind your view? I thought you go where the evidence leads.

What? Science doesn't even know how it started. My view is that God created all the creatures of the land, just like Genesis says. Just accept the fact that evolution is a religion, as in order to believe that it occurred, you have to accept by faith, because there sure hasn't been any observational evidence or scientific evidence supporting it

Which is easily proved. In fact, had you ever taken even a basic symbolic/mathematical logic course that required you to prove something without any premises, you'd know that, whatever the logical system, this is possible iff (if and only if) you are asked to prove a tautology. By "logical system" I do not mean different kinds of logic (quantum vs. fuzzy vs. many-valued vs. propositional and so on), but that one system may allow a step in a proof via modus tollendo tollens (i.e., going from one line in the proof to the next and noting that this step is valid by writing something like MT and the relevant lines) that another system doesn't.

You said it is easily proven, yet you haven't proven.

Prove it. I don't care what formal system you use, providing it isn't one you made up, but you can prove that statement just like you can prove "a bachelor isn't married" or "either it's raining or it isn't raining". Just take out whatever logical book(s) you used to learn whatever system you did, and supply a formal proof.

What???????????????????

Alternatively, you can admit that you've never actually studied logic, and that you are simply "paraphrasing" (I'm being generous there) what someone else said without really knowing possible world semantics or even some basic logical calculus.

Nope, never took one logic or philosophy class a day in my life. But this is irrelevant though, because to be frank, it isn't as if I am on here speaking to a bunch of biologists, philosophers, cosmologists, physicists, etc. I personally believe the ratio of people on here with degrees in science or philosophy as opposed to not is very low. I am an average person who does research just like any average person would do to be able to discuss topics like the ones we are discussing.

This world and every possible world. I can add two men and two women and get two couples (this one is easy, a little demonstration of basic algebra shows the problem). You keep insisting things about what is and isn't necessary by referencing a logical system you are not familiar with except through the argument you are using it for.

Look, I said 2+2 will always equal 4. In any possible world you can imagine, 2+2 will always equal 4. Now until you can demonstrate otherwise, why are you sitting here arguing against this point? I mean hell, we have a guy postulating the absurdity of something popping in to existence out of nothing, and we also have people on here arguing against the necessary truth of 2+2 =4 in all possible worlds? All of this for the sake of not believing in God. Is this a new trend or something? Did irrationality become "cool" or something? Is it "you believe something can come from nothing, and I believe there is a possible world where 2+2 will NOT = 4.....so lets go out and have a beer" kind of deal? Have we come this far?

I said two apples. If we go with pieces of fruit than we could end up with 4 or 100 objects.

What sense does this make?

I'm asking you to demonstrate you understand the system of logic you are relying on other than your parroting phrases and lines from the specific argument or arguments you've come across for God's existence.

And I am asking you what part of 2+2=4 don't you understand? And I am not "parroting" anyone. I am using a argument for the existence of God. Plain and simple. If you don't like the argument or think the argument is unsound or invalid, take that up with the argument. Until you can state why the argument is false, which you haven't done yet btw...then why are we discussing this?

I deny it is necessarily true in any world. If we go back a few hundred years that line, 2 + 2 = 4, has no meaning at all. Instead of two we might find II, and we may not find any symbol or word for this: " = "

And then there's actual logical, formal languages in which 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4. For example, I might have

y = 2;
y = y + 2;

The return value? 6. Not four.

Makes no sense

Look back at what you claimed was irrelevant. This time note the section I've bolded:
Could you explain what causes paired photons to have some sort of shared influence instantaneously when separated by many miles?

Define "shared influence" and what do you mean in this context.

Could you explain how particles can be in different places at once?

The same particle is not in difference places at one time. A physical entity can only be in one place at one time.

How must physical systems which have infinitely many states at once?

How do you know there are infinitely many? Have you counted them?

 

[Ouroboros]

I think the computer we are using is base 2. So there is no 2 or 4

There are 10 different kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. (Old joke, I know)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, I clearly said "neither" in repeated posts, and you just blew off what I said. Eyes and brains co-existed in the earliest humans. Neither came first.

So you are saying that they appeared simultaneously?

Evolution theory does not challenge theism, although it may challenge your version of it. You'll stick to that because you perceive a threat to your religious beliefs, and that prevents you from finding out what it really says and considering the possibility that you may be misguided and mistaken.

Whether evolution is a threat to my religious beliefs is irrelevant. If it is true, then it is true. I've never seen any observational evidence supporting it and science is SUPPOSED to be based on observational evidence and experiments. No one has ever observed macroevolution, so it doesn't even qualify as a science based on the mere definition of science.

And it should be noted that even if evolution was proven, I would still believe that an Intelligent Designer was the mastermind behind it, for reasons I've already mentioned.

To believe it, you have to take the trouble to learn it first. Abiogenesis has not yet been proven from a scientific perspective, unlike biological evolution.

Show me one case of macroevolution that has been observed.

However, there is a mountain of evidence pointing in that direction. And science has provided us with a plausible way to explain the origin of the universe without appealing to the intervention of a super-intelligent, super-powerful magical being. You are satisfied with your faith-based just so story. Fine. I prefer science-based explanations.

Plausible way? Based on what? Whatever theory science has to explain the origin of the universe without God will allow the questions of origins to be placed upon that cause. So the question of absolute origins is never really answered because all you would have is an infinite regression of cause and effect relations going back to eternal past. This is clearly absurd based on the problems with infinity. So a supernatural being that doesn't depend on anything else for its existence is necessary.

That is simply incoherent. Causation entails temporality, and it breaks down as you look back at the time of the Big Bang. But we are only talking about time reference within our "causal bubble" of a universe.

Causation only entails temporality if the causal agent was in time. It was only at the moment of creation did God "become" temporal. If God was sitting perfectly still for all eternity there is no way he could be in a temporal state.

You have already accepted the existence of a magical being that transcends time. It should not be difficult for you to accept a "quantum foam" that transcends our temporal framework. The quantum foam model is weird, but certainly not as weird as a super-intelligent creator with magical powers.

If the universe began to exist then not even the quantum foam existed.

Not even close. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Look it up.

Well according to Hawking's Quantum Gravity model, it does.

Transitional fossils give us reason to believe that these animals produced DIFFERENT kinds of offspring. I've already cited examples of animals giving birth to different kinds of animals (e.g. mules). Don't ask for evidence if you won't acknowledge it.

If they can mate then they are of the same kind. Just like ligers...they are obviously cats.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of what a transitional fossil is (Wikidpedia: "A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."). It does not necessarily have to BE the actual ancestor of modern plants and animals. It just represents a very closely related species to the actual ancestors. We are not necessarily descended from Lucy, but we are descended from a related hominid.

".......that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral ground and its derived descendant group".......what part of that definition entails macroevolution? How does common traits entail evolution? Answer: It does. That is just a clear example of evolutionists reading their presuppositions in to the evidence.

I understand the argument perfectly well, and I have rebutted it. Your MGB is assumed to exist when you define it as necessarily existing in all possible worlds, the real world being a "possible world."

Ok, but notice it is either possible or it isn't possible. If it is possible then it must exist. You have to show that it isn't possible. If it is possible, then the conclusion follows logically whether we like it or not. The proposition "God exists necessarily in all possible worlds" is either true or it isn't true. If it is even POSSIBLE for something to exist necessarily, then it follows that it must exist ACTUALLY.

However, that assumption begs the question. There is no point in going back and forth on this, since you do not refute my argument. You just repeat Plantinga's argument as you understand it no matter what I say. I'm not the first to make this criticism of Plantinga, and you won't be the last to ignore it. You can define words, but you cannot define entities into existence. That is, you can define what an "MGB" would be if one existed, but that doesn't mean that one exists.

Necessary truths exist in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, including this one. If it is POSSIBLE for something to be necessarily true, then it must be true, because if it wasn't possible, then it wouldn't be necessarily true. Just think about it for a moment; you have to fully grasp the concept of necessary truth and contingency truths. The concept of a necessary truth is so powerful that if it is possible for something to be necessarily true, then it must actually be true. Because this kind of truth have to be factual EVERYWHERE, in all possible worlds.....2/47...3-6-5....

Then don't contradict yourself by using words that quantify his attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, maximal, etc.).

You've contradicted yourself at least 3 times since we've been talking. You are the last person that needs to check someone on contradictions.

I never equated the brain with the mind. In fact, I explicitly reject that view. The brain clearly causes consciousness, because we can do things to it that predictably shut down and start up consciousness. A blow to your head can cause you to lose consciousness. A kick in your posterior, not so much. Well, I don't really know about you, but that seems to be true for most people.

Well we agree that the mind and brain are two distinctive things. So the brain cannot be used to explain the origins of the mind. So if something made up of matter cannot explain it, then what else are you left with.

 

[sonofdad]

If the universe began to exist then not even the quantum foam existed.

How could you possibly know that?

 

[johnhanks]

I am talking about the human brain and the human eye. So what you are basically saying is the brain was here first, and then all of a sudden eyes started to evolve for absolutely no reason at all.

It's hard to tell sometimes whether you are really as confused as your posts suggest, or whether you're just very bad at expressing yourself. What we have above suggests you believe Copernicus had claimed there were once humans with brains and no eyes. Do you honestly think that's what he said?
When he patiently put you right on this you responded with another inanity:

Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild
So you are saying that they appeared simultaneously?

You seem impervious to the fact that the earliest humans inherited the features (including eyes and brains) of their immediate predecessors, which inherited the features of their immediate predecessors, and so on all the way back to the earliest vertebrates and beyond. As to which came first, it is worth noting that a brain has numerous useful functions independent of eyes, whilst eyes (in the true, image-forming sense) are of little or no use without a CNS to process the information they provide.

Right, [Darwin] didn't rely on the fossil record because there IS no fossil record. He said himself that if we found transitional fossils that would corroborate his theory. Well, we haven't found them yet.

Most palaeontologists - people, that is, who actually know things about the subject, and aren't just waving placards proclaiming their ignorance - would disagree with you. However, for argument's sake let's pretend for a moment that Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ambulocetus and the rest really do lack the features necessary to make them transitional fossils, which you say "we haven't found yet". What features, then, would some future find have to possess to convince you that it was transitional?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Have you ever observed anything other than this??.

Yes: "Throughout the experiment, altogether 10,500 of foxes were used as parents. In all, about 50,000 offspring were obtained and tested for their amenability to domestication. The result of this directional selection is impressive: a unique domestic fox with behavior very similar to another species, the domestic dog, has been developed through methodically applied selection."

"On the origin of a domesticated species: identifying the parent population of Russian silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes)." Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 103(1), 168-175.

The "origins" of this species is different than explaining the origins of the species we know of as the dog (Canis familiaris) in terms of another species, the grey wolf (Canis lupus), because while one took place over 10,000 years ago, we watched as foxes over a few generations resulted in this "unique" species, a "fox" that doesn't looks, acts, and thinks more like a dog than a wolf.

In other words, we watched while litter after litter of little fox babies went from this:

into this:

Explained all in terms of evolution:
Trut, L., Oskina, I., & Kharlamova, A. (2009). Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. Bioessays, 31(3), 349-360.

And the picture just gives you an idea of phenotypic morphology, which is actually less of an indication of difference than the fact that these "domestic foxes" act more like dogs than any kind of fox.

No fox has been seen producing a non-fox

A fox is a dog.

...or a non-dog....nor have a non-dog or non-fox been seen to produce the fox. That is what I do know.

What you know is that there is no instance you are aware of such that the above could be false, because you get there by defining things like "dogs", "wolves", and "foxes" which are as similar as humans and chimps to be the same animal. So when a "fox" not only looks different than the species it's ancestors (and not tens of thousands of years ago, but in the 20th century), but behaves more like a separate species. In fact, it doesn't just randomly look different than other foxes, it developed dog-like physical characteristics not seen in any other fox.

How do you explain this process?

What? Science doesn't even know how it started.

I said that Darwin didn't come up with his theory through references to fossils and you said

Well, somehow this mysterious “fossil record” became part of this voo doo scheme.

That "somehow" is not a mystery. We are talking about the history of research on evolution, not the process itself. When you refer to the ways in which the fossil record became part of the scientific discussion of evolution as happening "somehow", it indicates you are refuting a theory you are ignorant of.

If I wished to show that no biological theories of evolutionary processes could be accurate, I'd have to understand what those theories were. Can you tell me why topology was a necessary step in analysis and how the Lebesgue integral is an improvement? No. Why? Because you do not understand either toplogy or theories of integration (not to mention how they relate). And there's nothing wrong with that. We are all ignorant of infinitely more than that which we know of. However, if you tried to demonstrate that analysis (classical mathematical discipline) was superior not just before measure theory, but back infinitesimals were used and we had no formal definitions for them (i.e., before we had the formal definition of limits we do now and a later but rigorous definition infinitesimals), you'd run into a lot of problems. Because I seriously doubt that you are aware of what any of this means and therefore can't really show anything about it.

That has not prevented you from doing this with logic, physics, biology, and just about everything else. You talk about things you really don't understand at a very basic level, and then claim you follow the evidence.

You said it is easily proven, yet you haven't proven.

Yes, but that's mainly because I don't want to give you a derivation which allows you to go look up other things you don't understand but have no problem claiming are "'obvious" and that anything to the contrary is "absurd". Also, I'm not the one claiming my understanding of possible worlds semantics, modal logic, and proof is sufficiently advanced to claim I can prove god exists.

because to be frank, it isn't as if I am on here speaking to a bunch of biologists, philosophers, cosmologists, physicists, etc.

How would you know? You told a cosmologists she was wrong about cosmology. Did you know that?

I personally believe the ratio of people on here with degrees in science or philosophy as opposed to not is very low. I am an average person who does research just like any average person would do to be able to discuss topics like the ones we are discussing.

You neither do research like an average person nor discuss it like an average person. I happen to know someone whose field I know a bit about but who recently spent a long time here and in Italy studying the musical production, styles, etc, produced by a particular group of nuns a few centuries ago. I wouldn't go up to her and use terms I barely understand from what I know of musicology and gender studies to argue she's wrong. Why? Because I'd have no idea what I'm talking about. I'd ask for information from her, rather argue.

I'd like to think that the average person doesn't "do research" by looking for the evidence of what they believe to begin with, not really understanding most of it, and ignoring any contradicting research even when they are spoon-fed it.

why are you sitting here arguing against this point?

Because you are making very bold claims using technical terms with technical meanings and a history going back over 2,000 years, but you don't really understand what you are saying. The idea that there is no possible world in which that mathematical statement is true doesn't enter into your head because things like "nominalism", while fundamentally related to things you are trying to argue, are also things you don't have any knowledge of.

All of this for the sake of not believing in God.

One of the volumes I have on cosmology and physics is not only published by an academic press and is highly technical, but is theistic. The authors state, in clear terms, that they are arguing for the existence of god (among other things). The volume one of the most critical evaluations of the big bang theory I've ever read and supports a multiverse theory.

Modal logic and quantum physics weren't developed so that people need not believe in God. It is simply the impression you've gained by reading a small amount of very specific interpretations of some tiny aspect of some area of research. So when arguments are presented against these views, you don't have the research background (amateur or no) to evaluate them other than in terms of opposition to the only exposure you've had. Which means that every counter-argument is automatically opposed to whatever evidence you believe there is for god, even when others have used those counter-arguments to support theistic views.

And I am asking you what part of 2+2=4 don't you understand?

The part where you reject a nominalist interpretation without even realizing it in order to accept an opposing view you also don't know about and relate this view to possible world semantics.

And I am not "parroting" anyone.

Why is it that you are aware of a number of technical terms but have little or no idea what they mean?

I am using a argument for the existence of God. Plain and simple.

You are using a computer of some sort to access the internet. You visit a website which requires you to have a program to view it and an operating system to run that program on. Then there's the way the keyboard, mouse, etc., all work to enable you to make posts. And it is all very simple to do, because somebody else built it that way.

Your "plain and simple argument" were made for you. You did not develop the big bang theory, you did not come up with possible world semantics, you did not develop any kind of cosmological argument, nor are any of your arguments your own. They were built for you, like your computer, so that you can use them without really understanding how it is they are supposed to work.

If you don't like the argument or think the argument is unsound or invalid, take that up with the argument.

I have. And then I get:

Makes no sense

You have 0 issue with making arguments that rely on concepts you've never even heard of, but you feel free to determine what does and doesn't make sense with respect to a philosophical and logical framework you know almost nothing about.

Define "shared influence" and what do you mean in this context.



The same particle is not in difference places at one time. A physical entity can only be in one place at one time.



How do you know there are infinitely many? Have you counted them?

I covered this already here. Why don't you start going where the evidence leads instead of leading yourself to the interpretations of the evidence you wanted to begin with?