Evidence

[George-ananda]

I apologize for the blunt and accusatory tone in what follows, as it was addressed to another and it is simply easier to quote what I've already written in order to show how theosophists did not embrace, but helped create, modern Vedic interpretations and modern Eastern thought.



Theosophists did not "embrace" Vedic tradition. Eastern intellectuals as far back as the 18th century embraced Western esoteric practices and traditions.

Thank you for the information but the lengthy history behind the philosophy is not terribly important to us (dare I say it) non-intellectual types. My simpler understanding is fine for my needs.

I have found truth and depth from individual teachers/gurus within this system of thought that have truly made my life much clearer and better. And I feel quite sure they are not deluding me.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes. Many American Buddhists consider themselves atheists, but they believe in the supernatural powers of bodhisattvas and in a cycle of rebirth.

It's tangential to what we're discussing but I don't think the above is true. If you debate deeper with these Buddhist-Atheists (and I have) their version of rebirth is watered-down to the point of containing no supernatural features (their karma/work effects what comes after them, etc. etc.). But that's all off-topic to our discussion.

George, you are working with a stereotype of "westerners" that I do not share. Most are not materialists, IMO. A great many, if not most, believe in gods, ghosts, spirits, demons, destiny, and magic.

I'm well aware there are the whole gamut of beliefs among 'westerners'. For lack of perfect all-agreed-upon terms I was using the IMPERFECT phrase western-atheistic-materialism to refer to the school of thought (that you subscribe to) where non-physical entities like souls and spirits do not exist.

I have a lot of respect for the accomplishments of traditional Vedic philosophers and scientists, but I don't see that tradition as especially enlightening in modern times. The scientific method has led to far greater insights into the nature of reality. Religion has a rather bad track record in that department.

I naturally take the opposite opinion. Future decades/centuries will recognize Consciousness as the fundamental aspect of the universe. Already a minority of scientists and spiritual teachers are supporting that view. They are receiving about the same reception Darwin received by the general public in the mid 1800's.

I'm not in a position to make much sense out of such claims, and I find it very hard to believe that you are in any better position.

It is my personal opinion that phenomenon exists that shows main-stream science to be dramatically incomplete. Hence we must be part of a universe vastly more complex than main-stream science in the early 21st century can reach. The many teachers I have come to admire tell us of a universe that extends beyond our known physical dimensions. Certainly it's over my head to fully conceptualize things beyond three-dimensions and time but even physicists are telling us how weird the universe really is.

 

[McBell]

There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one.

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
evidence
n
1: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to
base belief;
...
​

Reckon it depends upon how you define "evidence"...
I use the above definition myself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Too many irrelevant, repetitious questions, and too little time.

Nice cop out

Silly question. All primates have both. Read Dawkins' book, if you want to understand how eyes evolved in animals. I'm not the expert. He is. Or, if you don't trust Dawkins, read what other evolutionary scientists have said about it. Don't waste time asking such technical questions in an internet discussion forum.

I will ask anyone; If our eyes/sight is dependent upon the brain, which one came first, the eye or the brain? Pretty simple and straight-forward question if you ask me.

It is more plausible, because physicists have more plausible theories about the beginning of the universe that don't require reference to supernatural beings.

Science cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain.

Worse yet, the supernatural being hypothesis explains nothing, since it leaves unanswered the question of where that being came from.

The question of origins only applies to things that were created, or "came in to being". God never came in to being, so far from being an unanswered question, it is actually a nonsensical question.

If it didn't have to have been created, then why did physical reality have to have been created?

Because physical reality is CONTINGENT. It was not necessary for the universe to begin to exist. Any contingent entity must owe its existence a preexisting entity.

Since the putative deity is an superfluous entity, it violates Occam's Razor to assume its existence.

It doesn't violate Occam's Razor. In this case, based on the evidence that has been presented, theism is the most rational belief system of the two options that are presented.

We observe lots of simple processes in nature that interact to produce greater complexity. Brains are guidance systems for moving bodies. Hence, organisms with moving bodies that had improved guidance systems tended to outlast those that did not. Natural selection produced the human brain, just as it produced most of the traits that we observe in complex living organisms.

The human brain cannot function without blood, so what came first, the blood or the brain???

Be honest. Dawkins has answered that himself. You can easily look up his answer. You are under no obligation to read his books, either. It's up to you whether you want to do what is necessary to understand his point of view. I would only suggest that you cease criticizing his books as if you had read them.

Answered what? His refusal to debate the one man that is the forefront of Christian Apologetics? I did look it up, and he said the reason why he wouldn't debate Dr. Craig was because "he is busy".

How about a horse producing a mule? Does that count? If not, why not?

A horse and a mule are part of the same family. If you get a picture of a horse, donkey, mule, zebra, and a lion on a piece of paper and tell a 5 year old to pick out the different animal, if the child is bright he/she will always pick the the lion.

Nonsense. You ought to pay attention to the literature on speciation. However, I am under no illusion that you are interested in doing so.

What I would like for you to do is show me an instant of an animal producing a different kind of animal (a dog producing a non-dog). That's what I want. If you were to take all the dogs in the world, and place them in their own universe and allow them to reproduce as they pleased....every single offspring produced will always be a DOG. That is all we see. There is no reason to think that long ago when you or I wasn't around, that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that animals of today haven't been observed to do. These kind of theories are from people that don't like the idea of a God.

The fossil record alone is enough evidence of gradual evolution, but Darwin didn't rely on it to make his case.

Fossil record? There is no fossil record. When you find a fossil in the dirt, if you think anything other than "this once living creature has now died", you are reading your presupposed theory in to the equation. There is no need to think anything other than that. You don't know if that fossil had any offspring, and you certainly don't know if it had ANY offspring.

He started out by simply referring to the practice of plant and animal breeding, which depend on the existence of heritable traits in order to work. If intelligence can guide the evolution of species, then it makes perfect sense that unintelligent environmental conditions can do the same.

I don't believe intelligence guided the evolution of species.

The premise that God exists is inherent in the attempt to define God as a necessary being. The actual question, before Plantinga started begging it, was whether any necessary being at all existed. Plantinga has to assume God's existence in order to prove it.

Not at all. The question isn't whether any necessary being exist at all. Remember, the second premise states whether or not it is POSSIBLE for a maximally great being to exist. If the existence of a MGB is even possible, that would mean that this being does in fact exist, because all necessary truths must exist in reality.

Philosophers are not unanimous on the question of "necessary truth,"

Well let me ask you a question; Is there a possible world where 2+2 won't equal 4? If your answer is "no" (which it should be), then 2+2=4 is a necessary truth.

but you set up a false dichotomy here. God is neither necessarily necessary nor contingent. If he doesn't exist at all, then he is neither.

But the argument is based on the POSSIBILITY of God existing. If God exists as a maximally great being...if this is even remotely possible, then it follows that God exist in reality. A maximally great being is omnipresent and exists in all possible world.

These are just bald assertions that you have no basis for. If anything is necessary, then it is clearly physical existence itself, for we exist. The universe itself did begin to exist, but that is not the same as the claim that physical existence began to exist. You don't want to admit this, but surely you have to acknowledge it as a valid point in some corner of your mind.

You are failing to distinguish the difference between necessary truths and contingent truths. The universe does not exist necessarily. It didn't have to be here, and at this point it doesn't matter whether you are a theist or a naturalist. The universe doesn't have to be here. And anything that could have FAILED to exist can not be considered necessary.

Science has not enabled us to know everything that there is to know, and I doubt that it ever will.

And science is also incapable allowing us to use it as a tool for knowledge in some areas; "absolute origins" are one of them.

So say you. I don't believe it for a second.

Well, it isn't as if science will be able to be explain the absolute origin of its own domain. So I am safe with my theism.

Note the bolded clause. YOU call it "God". I do not. It is reaonable to assume that physical reality just always existed in some form.

I don't think it is reasonable. The big bang theory has the most empirical evidence supporting a finite universe and on this theory, there is no external physical cause. Now you can postulate a pre-big bang model, but it will be based on no supporting evidence and even if you do...you would still have the philosophical arguments against infinity....so good luck what that one.

If you have "logical reasons to draw the conclusion that God was not created", then present them. So far, you have shared nothing in that regard.

1. The kalam argument...which we briefly touched on
2. The ontological argument, which you haven't refuted as of yet
3. The argument from consciousness, which we have addressed
4. The argument based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ

All seem logical to me. Until proven otherwise, I am quite convinced.

So, you are giving up your postulation that God exists?

Um, see 1-4 above

Once again, you conflate the universe with physical reality itself, which encompasses our universe. If you cannot grasp the difference, then we cannot have a rational discussion on the subject.

Um, the universe is physical reality. Where do you think the branch of "physics" come from....physical-physics-universe...all go hand in hand.

I do not postulate an eternal universe.

Then you are contradicting yourself because earlier you stated that "it is reasonable to assume that physical reality always existed in some form". If it "always" existed in some form, then that would make it eternal. Tsk tsk tsk smh.

That is the question, and you just begged it.

Let me rephrase that....there is no EVIDENCE that consciousness came from inanimate objects.

 

[Copernicus]

I will ask anyone; If our eyes/sight is dependent upon the brain, which one came first, the eye or the brain? Pretty simple and straight-forward question if you ask me.

And I gave you a perftectly straightforward answer, which you ignored: neither. The only real question you are asking here is how something as complex as an eye could evolve, but you can get the answer to that from a variety of sources, for example, the Wikipedia page: Evolution of the Eye.

Science cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain.

Science is a methodology that has no inherent domain.

The question of origins only applies to things that were created, or "came in to being". God never came in to being, so far from being an unanswered question, it is actually a nonsensical question.

You beg the question by trying to define God as a non-contingent (necessary) being. That is the conclusion you are trying to prove.

Because physical reality is CONTINGENT. It was not necessary for the universe to begin to exist. Any contingent entity must owe its existence a preexisting entity.

I have asked you not to conflate the terms "physical reality" and "universe", yet you continue to ignore me. They are not the same. Our universe is only that aspect of physical reality that we can observe. There may well be other universes that exist independently of ours, and "physical reality" encompasses everything, not just our universe. And your last statement is demonstrably proven false, because we know of particles that come into existence without any preexisting "entity" that causes them. From Wikipedia (Quantum Vacuum State, emphasis mine):

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

Answered what? His refusal to debate the one man that is the forefront of Christian Apologetics? I did look it up, and he said the reason why he wouldn't debate Dr. Craig was because "he is busy".

That is a valid reason. He cannot take the time to debate everyone who wants to debate him. He simply doesn't think that Craig would make a worthy debate partner.

A horse and a mule are part of the same family. If you get a picture of a horse, donkey, mule, zebra, and a lion on a piece of paper and tell a 5 year old to pick out the different animal, if the child is bright he/she will always pick the the lion.

Horses and donkeys are different species of animal, yet they still share enough genetic material to mate and produce offspring. There is a mountain of evidence to explain and support how evolution takes place. I know you won't read it, but Dawkins wrote a masterful summary of the evidence in The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Dawkins wrote it for those who were unaware of the evidence, but not even he expected it to cure willful ignorance.

What I would like for you to do is show me an instant of an animal producing a different kind of animal (a dog producing a non-dog)...

I've shown you a simple case of a horse and a donkey producing a non-horse/non-donkey. However, the kind of further evidence you seek is easy to find, if you bother to google "proof of macroevolution". For example, Cornell biologist Allen MacNeill lists some of it here: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence.

...These kind of theories are from people that don't like the idea of a God.

Hogwash. Not every biologist is an atheist. See Theistic Evolution.

Fossil record? There is no fossil record. When you find a fossil in the dirt, if you think anything other than "this once living creature has now died", you are reading your presupposed theory in to the equation. There is no need to think anything other than that. You don't know if that fossil had any offspring, and you certainly don't know if it had ANY offspring.

Seriously? Where do you think fossils came from? Do you think that God put them there to deliberately deceive us? I'll stick with my "presupposed theory."

I don't believe intelligence guided the evolution of species.

Good. You, me, Dawkins, and Darwin all share that lack of belief.

Not at all. The question isn't whether any necessary being exist at all. Remember, the second premise states whether or not it is POSSIBLE for a maximally great being to exist. If the existence of a MGB is even possible, that would mean that this being does in fact exist, because all necessary truths must exist in reality.

No matter how you strain, you cannot get rid of the fact that it may not be POSSIBLE for a maximally great (or necessary) being to exist. That, in fact, is the conclusion that you are trying to prove. The only way that Plantinga, you, or anyone else can get to it is by assuming the conclusion. You cannot make things exist by defining them into existence. If you could, I would define a maximally great bank account for myself.

Well let me ask you a question; Is there a possible world where 2+2 won't equal 4? If your answer is "no" (which it should be), then 2+2=4 is a necessary truth.

Since the meaning of those symbols is given by definition, we have only to posit a world in which they are given different definitions. However, mathematical truths do not "exist" in the same way that physical beings do. What is necessarily true in mathematics is not necessarily true in the real world. We define the meanings of symbols, not the existences of beings.

But the argument is based on the POSSIBILITY of God existing. If God exists as a maximally great being...if this is even remotely possible, then it follows that God exist in reality. A maximally great being is omnipresent and exists in all possible world.

How do you know that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist? Because you define it as existing? Not a very compelling argument. You expose the flaw in the argument that Plantinga is much more adept at concealing.

You are failing to distinguish the difference between necessary truths and contingent truths. The universe does not exist necessarily. It didn't have to be here, and at this point it doesn't matter whether you are a theist or a naturalist. The universe doesn't have to be here. And anything that could have FAILED to exist can not be considered necessary.

Actually, you and I do have to be here at this point in time, because we actually do exist. If we aren't necessary, then nothing is. However, Plantinga did build in a special meaning for necessity and contingency that had to do with things having a "beginning." The universe that we now see may have had a beginning, but that does not mean that physical reality itself had a beginning.

...The big bang theory has the most empirical evidence supporting a finite universe and on this theory, there is no external physical cause. Now you can postulate a pre-big bang model, but it will be based on no supporting evidence and even if you do...you would still have the philosophical arguments against infinity....so good luck what that one.

Actually, you are dead wrong on that one. Lawrence Krauss does an excellent job of explaining why in A Universe from Nothing. Why there is something rather than nothing. As I've already pointed out to you, your "arguments against infinity" run aground on your assumption that God is infinite. I am neither counting on luck nor your willingness to acknowledge the point.

1. The kalam argument...which we briefly touched on
2. The ontological argument, which you haven't refuted as of yet
3. The argument from consciousness, which we have addressed
4. The argument based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ
All seem logical to me. Until proven otherwise, I am quite convinced.

I do not doubt your conviction, only your conclusions.

I do not postulate an eternal universe.

Then you are contradicting yourself because earlier you stated that "it is reasonable to assume that physical reality always existed in some form". If it "always" existed in some form, then that would make it eternal. Tsk tsk tsk smh.

Please note my earlier stipulation that I do not equate the observable universe with all of physical reality. You do. Hence, you perceive a contradiction that isn't there.

Let me rephrase that....there is no EVIDENCE that consciousness came from inanimate objects.

There is overwhelming evidence that consciousness comes from brains, and that animate beings are made up of inanimate materials.

 

[adi2d]

Well let me ask you a question; Is there a possible world where 2+2 won't equal 4? If your answer is "no" (which it should be), then 2+2=4 is a necessary truth QUOTE]




Sorry to interrupt you deep thinkers but I can think of a couple worlds where 2+2 doesn't equal 4

1 2 10 11 12 20 21 22 etc

1 2 3 10 11 12 13 20 21 etc

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I will ask anyone; If our eyes/sight is dependent upon the brain, which one came first, the eye or the brain? Pretty simple and straight-forward question if you ask me.

Neither.

Science cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain.

That's why we're lucky enough to have philosophers and historians of science to do this.

The question of origins only applies to things that were created, or "came in to being". God never came in to being, so far from being an unanswered question, it is actually a nonsensical question.

Got it. God doesn't exist, because he never came into being.

Because physical reality is CONTINGENT. It was not necessary for the universe to begin to exist. Any contingent entity must owe its existence a preexisting entity.

Which you know from your rigorous study of modal logic and possible world semantics from Aristotle's sea battle to Kant's synthetic vs. analytic propositions and a priori truth and Leibniz's informal sketch of possible worlds down to Lewis, Kripke, and finally Plantinga. Or because you parrot Craig or parrot someone else who does.

The human brain cannot function without blood, so what came first, the blood or the brain???

Sometimes it seems the human brain can't function with blood.

Answered what? His refusal to debate the one man that is the forefront of Christian Apologetics? I did look it up, and he said the reason why he wouldn't debate Dr. Craig was because "he is busy".

I'm not a fan of J.D. Crossan, but that doesn't mean the fact that he was invited to debate Craig only to be ambushed is ok. And of the two, Crossan remained civil. Craig's debates are too often for the sake of a supportive audience, so he could use modal logic to prove that he doesn't exist and it would somehow be proof of God.

A horse and a mule are part of the same family. If you get a picture of a horse, donkey, mule, zebra, and a lion on a piece of paper and tell a 5 year old to pick out the different animal, if the child is bright he/she will always pick the the lion.

Get three pictures of housecats and one of a lion, and she'll pick out the lion as different. Get a picture of a black widow, a "daddy longlegs" (Opiliones), a brown recluse, and a scorpion, and the child will pick the scorpion and be wrong. But, if we move on from playing sesame street, we find laboratory evolution studies:

"Darwin's theory of evolution preceded any knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of heredity, and the development of evolutionary theory since has frequently omitted these mechanisms. Yet, the molecular details are at the heart of the evolutionary process and, thus, of central interest. The development of next-generation sequencing technology has at last provided the means to study the molecular basis of evolution on a genome scale (Metzker, 2010; Brockhurst et al, 2011). Many recent studies have utilized next-generation technologies to find mutations on a genome-wide basis (Albert et al, 2005; Friedman et al, 2006; Herring et al, 2006; Velicer et al, 2006; Gresham et al, 2008; Barrick et al, 2009; Conrad et al, 2009; Araya et al, 2010; Atsumi et al, 2010; Charusanti et al, 2010; Kishimoto et al, 2010; Lee and Palsson, 2010; Lee et al, 2010)."

You can see the whole article here: Microbial laboratory evolution in the era of genome-scale science

What I would like for you to do is show me an instant of an animal producing a different kind of animal (a dog producing a non-dog).

How about a fox producing a dog?
"But an extraordinary experiment, carried out since the late 1950s at a fur farm in Siberia, has led to doubts as to what exactly was selected in prehistoric domestication. In this experiment, foxes were selectively bred from individuals that showed the least fear and aggression toward humans, based on rating their spontaneous approaches and tolerance of human contact without biting, under carefully controlled conditions. At the same time, a control strain of fox was bred without such selection. Intriguingly, the two strains began to diverge in morphological characteristics, as well as in the tameness that was under active selection. Tameness-selected foxes were more likely to have floppy ears, curly tails, and shorter, more rounded faces – all part of the ‘cute’ package identified by Lorenz as a feature of many young mammals, and thought to be retained into adulthood in domestic dogs and cats as a result of human preferences."
Byrne, R. W. (2005). Animal evolution: Foxy friends. Current Biology, 15(3), R86-R87.

I also found a description you can access yourself for free: Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model

That's what I want. If you were to take all the dogs in the world, and place them in their own universe and allow them to reproduce as they pleased....every single offspring produced will always be a DOG. That is all we see.

Yet, somehow, we see rapid evolution in insects all the time. The larger the animal, the slower the evolution (in general; and mainly because of life-span and number of offspring). One theory is that this explains seemingly extraneous DNA. If every gene were vital, every mutation would likely mean extinction.

With insects, we can have many, many, many generations in a few weeks, which allows us to observe evolutionary processes themselves (rather than evolutionary algorithms used as models).

Fossil record? There is no fossil record. When you find a fossil in the dirt, if you think anything other than "this once living creature has now died", you are reading your presupposed theory in to the equation.

You do know that Darwin didn't use fossils to develop his theory, correct? And you know how, in general, inference and deduction are used in the development and testing of theories?

because all necessary truths must exist in reality.

Prove it.

Well let me ask you a question; Is there a possible world where 2+2 won't equal 4? If your answer is "no" (which it should be), then 2+2=4 is a necessary truth.

Does 2 + 2 = IV?
What about two plus zwei?

What do you get when you add two apples and two people?
What is the value of two zeros plus two zeros?
Have you read anything on possible world semantics other than stuff taken from Craig (directly or indirectly)? If so, have any of these been about possible world semantics in general?

You are failing to distinguish the difference between necessary truths and contingent truths.

That's why we have formalisms. Could you demonstrate using formal (i.e., symbolic) logic your proof?

The big bang theory has the most empirical evidence supporting a finite universe and on this theory, there is no external physical cause.

Could you explain what causes paired photons to have some sort of shared influence instantaneously when separated by many miles? Could you explain how particles can be in different places at once? How must physical systems which have infinitely many states at once?

Where do you think the branch of "physics" come from

Greek.

then that would make it eternal.

Which would violate your argument about infinities, the one that I gave you several arguments against and you didn't respond to.

 

[McBell]

Well let me ask you a question; Is there a possible world where 2+2 won't equal 4? If your answer is "no" (which it should be), then 2+2=4 is a necessary truth.

Then 2+2=4 is not a "necessary truth".

If I have two piles of sand and you have two piles of sand and we add them together, how many piles of sand do we end up with?

 

[repiv]

I'll preface this by stating that I am atheistic. However, I have a very religious friend, and I am trying to see things from his perspective. What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one. Arguments like, "Well, then, where did all of this come from?" don't work because all they do is make the situation even more complicated. What created the creator? Then, it seems to me that tremendous amounts of (for lack of a better word) insanity are constructed around this belief in a mystic being (or beings). There are entire doctrines, entire codes of ethics, entire books that claim to have all the answers, but they are vague and antiquated. Even within the same religious tree, people can't agree on what they are supposed to mean. How can anyone view something so ambiguous, be it the Quran or the Bible or any other text, as a legitimate source of information or even guidance? Why is it that new religions, such as Scientology, are met with such disgust even though, objectively speaking, they are no more absurd? I mean no disrespect. I simply do not understand.

Great question and very truthful observations. Also the trivial answer of 'faith' does no good either.

So here is my personal attempt at it.

1. There is still so much we do Not know then there is that we do know. Even the most pure science type will admit this.

2. Science does not address our is able to understand all things, especially the human heart (realm of love). Yet if you honestly look at human society you see that he human heart drives the actions of people far more then Science or our intellect does.

3. Fortunately for me, I have had a direct experience(s) with God. As such no matter what anyone else says you can NOT disprove that to me. This does not mean I see God as blessing a particular religion or such, just rather that he does exist.

So I hope this helps you understand why I 'believe' in God. For me it is not a belief but an experience.

 

[jmn]

experience.

In order to distinguish delusions from 'religious' beliefs, a delusion is also supposed to be out of context with the usual cultural beliefs for that society. Delusional disorders with false beliefs occur largely in isolation as encapsulated, isolated delusions. Such individuals do not have other primary psychological symptoms such as hallucinations, incoherent speech or qualitatively abnormal mood states.The delusions may lead to secondary symptoms, for instance a belief in persecution may lead to secondary emotional change, such as fear or anger specifically in relation to the imagined persecutors.

 

[repiv]

In order to distinguish delusions from 'religious' beliefs, a delusion is also supposed to be out of context with the usual cultural beliefs for that society. Delusional disorders with false beliefs occur largely in isolation as encapsulated, isolated delusions. Such individuals do not have other primary psychological symptoms such as hallucinations, incoherent speech or qualitatively abnormal mood states.The delusions may lead to secondary symptoms, for instance a belief in persecution may lead to secondary emotional change, such as fear or anger specifically in relation to the imagined persecutors.

Are you attempting to diminish my experience without even knowing me or what I have experienced ?

 

[jmn]

experienced ?

Fantasy- spirits moving through time and space, visions of colorful bright lights, merely brain chemistry.:yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And I gave you a perftectly straightforward answer, which you ignored: neither. The only real question you are asking here is how something as complex as an eye could evolve, but you can get the answer to that from a variety of sources, for example, the Wikipedia page: Evolution of the Eye.

No, this is the classic example of “jumping the gun”. Before the eye can evolve there had to be a brain that simultaneously evolved with it. One cannot precede the other. This isn’t just the case for the eye either. The whole body has compatibility functions at which everything just “happen” to be compatible with each other. 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.

Science is a methodology that has no inherent domain.

Right, and we use this methodology to study and explain how things in nature operate. We cannot use this method to explain where nature itself came from. So 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.

You beg the question by trying to define God as a non-contingent (necessary) being. That is the conclusion you are trying to prove.

Not at all. Before you even get to the point of “proof”, you define what “God” is. Based on Plantiga’s version, God is defined as a maximally great being. Then he lists certain attributes that a maximally great being would have. At this point, either it is possible for such a being to exist, or it isn’t possible for such a being to exist. If there are no internal incoherencies based on what God is defined as, then it follows that it is possible for a MGB to exist. If it is possible for something to be necessarily true, then it logically follows that it must be necessarily true, due to the law of excluded middle. Either something is A or B, if not B then A, or if not A then B. There are no in-betweens.

I have asked you not to conflate the terms "physical reality" and "universe", yet you continue to ignore me. They are not the same.

This is silly. Before the universe came in to being, there WAS no physical reality. The terms “physical reality” and “universe” are not mutually exclusive.

Our universe is only that aspect of physical reality that we can observe.

This is also silly. If there is another physical realm out there that we don’t know about or can’t observe, it would still exist in a universe. There is no escaping this.

There may well be other universes that exist independently of ours, and "physical reality" encompasses everything, not just our universe.

Which goes back to what I just said; Even if there are other universes that exist independently of ours (which I don’t believe, and also which there is no scientific evidence for), then this physically reality would exist in a universe.

And your last statement is demonstrably proven false, because we know of particles that come into existence without any preexisting "entity" that causes them. From Wikipedia (Quantum Vacuum State, emphasis mine):

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. Second, the quantum vacuum itself is within the physical universe and did not exist prior to the universe. 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. 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? The state of nothingness doesn’t have any “preconditions” that will allow just particles to pop in to being and nothing else. So why are we limited to just particles? 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?

That is a valid reason. He cannot take the time to debate everyone who wants to debate him. He simply doesn't think that Craig would make a worthy debate partner.

But yet Wendy Wright was a worthy debate opponent?? Wow

Horses and donkeys are different species of animal, yet they still share enough genetic material to mate and produce offspring. There is a mountain of evidence to explain and support how evolution takes place. I know you won't read it, but Dawkins wrote a masterful summary of the evidence in The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Dawkins wrote it for those who were unaware of the evidence, but not even he expected it to cure willful ignorance.

And Kent Hovind gave 100 reasons why evolution is a stupid theory…would you like me to post that link to you?

I've shown you a simple case of a horse and a donkey producing a non-horse/non-donkey. However, the kind of further evidence you seek is easy to find, if you bother to google "proof of macroevolution". For example, Cornell biologist Allen MacNeill lists some of it here: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence.

Now that is one link I will gladly take a look at. That’s what I need right there.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hogwash. Not every biologist is an atheist. See Theistic Evolution.

That is true, but at least theists that believe in evolution admit that even if evolution actually occurred, that there had to be a mastermind behind it. Not some voo doo science crap. I disagree with theistic evolutionists too.

Seriously? Where do you think fossils came from? Do you think that God put them there to deliberately deceive us? I'll stick with my "presupposed theory."

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.

No matter how you strain, you cannot get rid of the fact that it may not be POSSIBLE for a maximally great (or necessary) being to exist.

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

That, in fact, is the conclusion that you are trying to prove. The only way that Plantinga, you, or anyone else can get to it is by assuming the conclusion. You cannot make things exist by defining them into existence. If you could, I would define a maximally great bank account for myself.

If you having a maximally great bank were necessarily true, then you would have a maximally great bank. A necessary truth is something that is true in all possible worlds, so if there was at least one world at which you don’t have a maximally great bank, then you’ve just stepped in to the realm of contingency.

Since the meaning of those symbols is given by definition, we have only to posit a world in which they are given different definitions.

But wouldn’t you agree that an object or entity is what it is, and isn’t what it isn’t? The nature of something doesn’t change. They exist due to the necessity of their nature. There is no possible world where 1+1 doesn’t equal 2.

However, mathematical truths do not "exist" in the same way that physical beings do. What is necessarily true in mathematics is not necessarily true in the real world. We define the meanings of symbols, not the existences of beings.

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.

How do you know that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist? Because you define it as existing? Not a very compelling argument. You expose the flaw in the argument that Plantinga is much more adept at concealing.

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, you and I do have to be here at this point in time, because we actually do exist. If we aren't necessary, then nothing is.

This is clearly false. It was possible for me and you to not exist, so therefore our existence is contingent. If God exist, it is not possible for him to NOT exist, which makes God’s existence NECESSARY.

However, Plantinga did build in a special meaning for necessity and contingency that had to do with things having a "beginning." The universe that we now see may have had a beginning, but that does not mean that physical reality itself had a beginning.

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.

Actually, you are dead wrong on that one. Lawrence Krauss does an excellent job of explaining why in A Universe from Nothing. Why there is something rather than nothing.

I have to laugh at the fact that you mentioned Lawrence Krauss for a few reasons. The first reason is William Lane Craig already debated Lawrence Krauss. Anyone that follows WLC and his work knows that he is a proponent of the kalam cosmological argument, an argument which deals almost primarily with the origin of the universe. Krauss was not so quick to use that “universe from nothing” approach with WLC, and I am quite sure Dr. Craig would have been more than happy to oblige him in that regard should he want to take the debate there. Not to mention the fact that WLC already elsewhere called Krauss out on his misuse of the standard definition of the word “nothing” anyway.

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.

As I've already pointed out to you, your "arguments against infinity" run aground on your assumption that God is infinite. I am neither counting on luck nor your willingness to acknowledge the point.

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.

Please note my earlier stipulation that I do not equate the observable universe with all of physical reality. You do. Hence, you perceive a contradiction that isn't there.

As I said before; any physical reality would have to exist within a universe regardless of whether it is of our own or one that we don’t know about.

There is overwhelming evidence that consciousness comes from brains, and that animate beings are made up of inanimate materials.

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.

 

[Breathe]

That is true, but at least theists that believe in evolution admit that even if evolution actually occurred, that there had to be a mastermind behind it.

Not always true; I knew a polytheist who believed evolution occurred on its own, without any gods guiding it or designing evolution; he believed in atheistic evolution, despite being a theist.

I personally believe evolution is done without God guiding it and without it being "designed", but simply seeing evolution as an inevitability, despite being a happy theist, so I suppose I could count, too.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Neither.

Cool.

Got it. God doesn't exist, because he never came into being.

Not quite what I had in mind, but you can obviously believe that if you want to.

Which you know from your rigorous study of modal logic and possible world semantics from Aristotle's sea battle to Kant's synthetic vs. analytic propositions and a priori truth and Leibniz's informal sketch of possible worlds down to Lewis, Kripke, and finally Plantinga. Or because you parrot Craig or parrot someone else who does.

Same answer you previously gave……neither.

Sometimes it seems the human brain can't function with blood.

So what came first, the object, or the “stuff” needed for the object to function? Hmmmm

I'm not a fan of J.D. Crossan, but that doesn't mean the fact that he was invited to debate Craig only to be ambushed is ok. And of the two, Crossan remained civil. Craig's debates are too often for the sake of a supportive audience, so he could use modal logic to prove that he doesn't exist and it would somehow be proof of God.

?

Get three pictures of housecats and one of a lion, and she'll pick out the lion as different.

Of course she will pick out the lion as different. No one is arguing against the fact that there are different varieties within the kind, but they are all the same kind. The three housecats and the lion are all cats. That’s my point.

"Darwin's theory of evolution preceded any knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of heredity, and the development of evolutionary theory since has frequently omitted these mechanisms. Yet, the molecular details are at the heart of the evolutionary process and, thus, of central interest. The development of next-generation sequencing technology has at last provided the means to study the molecular basis of evolution on a genome scale (Metzker, 2010; Brockhurst et al, 2011). Many recent studies have utilized next-generation technologies to find mutations on a genome-wide basis
You can see the whole article here: Microbial laboratory evolution in the era of genome-scale science

I am talking about macroevolution. Unlike others, I actually go where the evidence takes me. Microevolution is science; it is what we can observe. Macroevolution isn’t.

How about a fox producing a dog?
"But an extraordinary experiment, carried out since the late 1950s at a fur farm in Siberia, has led to doubts as to what exactly was selected in prehistoric domestication. In this experiment, foxes were selectively bred from individuals that showed the least fear and aggression toward humans, based on rating their spontaneous approaches and tolerance of human contact without biting, under carefully controlled conditions. At the same time, a control strain of fox was bred without such selection. Intriguingly, the two strains began to diverge in morphological characteristics, as well as in the tameness that was under active selection. Tameness-selected foxes were more likely to have floppy ears, curly tails, and shorter, more rounded faces – all part of the ‘cute’ package identified by Lorenz as a feature of many young mammals, and thought to be retained into adulthood in domestic dogs and cats as a result of human preferences."
Byrne, R. W. (2005). Animal evolution: Foxy friends. Current Biology, 15(3), R86-R87.

I also found a description you can access yourself for free: Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model

A fox is a dog.

You do know that Darwin didn't use fossils to develop his theory, correct? And you know how, in general, inference and deduction are used in the development and testing of theories?

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

Prove it.

That’s like asking me to prove that the married man isn’t single. All necessary truths must exist in reality based on what it means to be a “necessary truth”.

Does 2 + 2 = IV?
What about two plus zwei?

Name me a possible world where 2+2 = not 4

What do you get when you add two apples and two people?

You get four objects….two pieces of fruit…and two human beings.

What is the value of two zeros plus two zeros?

So you are asking me to add the value of nothing? Wow.

Have you read anything on possible world semantics other than stuff taken from Craig (directly or indirectly)? If so, have any of these been about possible world semantics in general?

Yes I have, but I didn’t know that I needed to.

That's why we have formalisms. Could you demonstrate using formal (i.e., symbolic) logic your proof?

Once you demonstrate a possible world at which 2+2= not 4.

Could you explain what causes paired photons to have some sort of shared influence instantaneously when separated by many miles? Could you explain how particles can be in different places at once? How must physical systems which have infinitely many states at once?

Nothing can be more irrelevant. My concern is not what happened after the universe came in to being. My concern is what is the best and most plausible explanation based on the origins of the universe/physical reality.

Which would violate your argument about infinities, the one that I gave you several arguments against and you didn't respond to.

What would violate my argument against infinities?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not always true; I knew a polytheist who believed evolution occurred on its own, without any gods guiding it or designing evolution; he believed in atheistic evolution, despite being a theist.

I personally believe evolution is done without God guiding it and without it being "designed", but simply seeing evolution as an inevitability, despite being a happy theist, so I suppose I could count, too.

Good point, but regardless of what kind of evolutionists you are…whether atheistic, polytheistic, or theistic…I disagree with you. I refuse to believe that there could be a thing called “purpose” without a thing called a “mind”. Just can’t.

Then 2+2=4 is not a "necessary truth".

If I have two piles of sand and you have two piles of sand and we add them together, how many piles of sand do we end up with?

Ummm Mest…if you have 2 piles of sand and I have two piles of sand, that is a total of 4 piles of sand. So 2+2 is still equals 4. The sand is still there, it just isn’t in the form of two single piles. But nevertheless we started with four piles of sand; your two and my two, which confirms my point that 2+2 will always equal 4.

 

[Breathe]

Good point, but regardless of what kind of evolutionists you are…whether atheistic, polytheistic, or theistic…I disagree with you. I refuse to believe that there could be a thing called “purpose” without a thing called a “mind”. Just can’t.

I can't understand why you'd feel that way, you're welcome to your disagreement without any hostilities from me.

 

[McBell]

Ummm Mest…if you have 2 piles of sand and I have two piles of sand, that is a total of 4 piles of sand. So 2+2 is still equals 4. The sand is still there, it just isn’t in the form of two single piles. But nevertheless we started with four piles of sand; your two and my two, which confirms my point that 2+2 will always equal 4.

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.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what came first, the object, or the “stuff” needed for the object to function? Hmmmm

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.

The three housecats and the lion are all cats. That’s my point.

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.

A fox is a dog.

That's your response? First it's

I am talking about macroevolution. Unlike others, I actually go where the evidence takes me.

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.

First, why are they called Vulpes Vulpes? Because that distinguishes a particular sub-class of Canidae:

"A fourth grouping in the tree consists of other fox-like taxa, including Vulpes, Alopex, and Fennecus". from Wayne, Geffen, & Vila's chapter in Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids


What do they mean by a "fourth grouping" and "fox-like"? This:

Notice that groping of species itself (as opposed to the time scale) not based on presumed evolutionary theories of this fake "science" of macroevolution, but upon DNA. Nor is DNA the only way the we can get this classification without relying on clearly false unscientific notions like inference, deduction, analysis, hypothesis testing, etc., that are behind "evolution".

For example, this study-
Zrzavý, J., & ŘIčánková, V. (2004). Phylogeny of recent Canidae (Mammalia, Carnivora): relative reliability and utility of morphological and molecular datasets. Zoologica Scripta, 33(4), 311-333.

used genes, but also "188 morphological, developmental, behavioural and cytogenetic characters." And, unlike the table above, which neither includes all species nor uses more than DNA and is also concerned with timescales, this study was intended specifically to classify canidae into taxa based on purely observable means. And guess what? You're still wrong:

Not only are Vulpes Vulpes a different species, they're a different genus than dogs.

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

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

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.

That’s like asking me to prove that the married man isn’t single.

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.

All necessary truths must exist in reality based on what it means to be a “necessary truth

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.

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.

Name me a possible world where 2+2 = not 4

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.

You get four objects….two pieces of fruit…and two human beings.

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

So you are asking me to add the value of nothing? Wow.

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.

Once you demonstrate a possible world at which 2+2= not 4.

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.

Nothing can be more irrelevant.

What would violate my argument against infinities?

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? Could you explain how particles can be in different places at once? How must physical systems which have infinitely many states at once?