Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because it's not a living tissue. It's just matter.

Before it can think, it has to be alive.

Ahhh yes :clap

So life had to come first, right? Right back to abiogenesis, right? Problems my friend, problems.

Who said anything about infinite regress?

If you negate the existence of a timeless, external cause, then the universe has existed eternally in time, right? Thus, infinite regress.

I'm not talking about your belief in God. I'm talking about your 100% conviction, with no possibility of being incorrect, that natural evolution is impossible and no evidence exists.

The infinite regress argument is fire proof, that is why I think my position is so much validated.

We don't know if it was chaotic and random. Just that it happened.

Well, it was either chaotic and random, or it was organized and orderly. Can't be both.

Who says they're precise? Seems pretty inhospitable to me. Earth is always dodging bullets.

What does earth dodging bullets have to do with cosmic low entropy?

If there was "objective morality" then we'd expect to see other animals following them, with the exact rules that are supposed to apply to us.

No, because animals are not moral agents...which is why when a lion kills a hyena, it "kills" it, but it doesn't "murder" it.

Hardly. Methinks you need to study up on the intricacies of language. A word's dictionary definition is not necessarily going to be the actual concept that the word is supposed to convey, or its full depth of meaning. Even within the same language, it's also likely to change from dialect to dialect.

God is the only being capable of producing such a world that we live in.

Different genealogies given, different order of events, etc.

I need specifics.

Thing is, even if it were 100% consistent, there's no reason to take them as history.

So can you explain why there is no reason to take the bible as history, but reason to take anything in a school history text book as history?

Why is what's described beyond the ability of a Trickster God playing a massive prank?

Christianity is the worlds biggest religion...so that must have been the greatest prank in the history of...pranks.

No, you're sharing the consensus reached among certain groups of Christians, not all Christianity as a whole, and CERTAINLY not religion as a whole.

Well, all Christians that I am aware of believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and is also the source of human life and consciousness, which is what we've been discussing.

You don't know that.

Science cannot explain the origin of nature. That I do know.

Besides, the sciences don't tackle the topic of origins in most cases. Frankly, I think your understanding of science has been influenced by the Straw Man's lies.

There is a reason why it doesn't tackle it.

Hardly essential.

Well, since I don't see any good refutations from you, I'd say I am on the right path.

Well, in my brief exploration, I found something you might find interesting. From wikipedia:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections

There are many versions of the argument, the one I hold to is the Modal version. Give me refutation of that.

They are called "family", the family Canine, to be precise. "Kind" is so generic and broad that it's completely useless. Believe it or not, tanooki (raccoon dog) are also part of this family.

Canine is just another name for dog. How about simplicity for a change? No need for bio-babble.

Family is two degrees away from "species".

Call it what you want...but an animal has never been observed to be different than the parents that produced it, which is why I grow weary of anyone that tries to tell me otherwise.

The "family" that humans belong to is "hominidae", that is "Great Apes", which includes only three other genera (singular genus): Chimpanzee, Orangutan, and Gorilla. We are as different from each other as domestic dogs are from other canines.

I will stick with my religion of Christianity which tells me that humans are NOT animals, than listen to falliable human beings

And if you bring the ability to reproduce into it, remember that domestic dogs cannot interbreed with foxes.

That is because so much genetic information was lost over time that some animals like foxes can't interbreed with their kind...the same thing applies for the "cat" kind and the cheetah...but there is no denying that the fox and the cheetah were PRODUCED by a dog and a cat...that is where their origin comes from.

IOW, apparently if we go by your "kind" classification, including both domestic dogs and foxes in the same one, then at some point, members of this same "kind" lost the ability to interbreed.

So, if I lose my ability to breed with any race other than that of the Negroid, that would mean that I am not a human? That simply doesn't follow. I am who I am based on where I came from...What I am saying is all animals of the same kind TEND TO look like others of their kind...that is quite apparent.

BTW, wolves are not dogs; IOW, wolves ARE non-dogs.

They are clearly the same kind of animal.

Very good. They're not even remotely related, despite the fact that they meet your criteria of child-recognition of surface-similarities. Therefore, "any child can see it" is completely worthless as a judgment of two species' relatedness.

BTW, it's an ant-lion.

Any child can see it. If you go to a pet store and ask for a snake, and they bring you out a hamster, you would realize that what you are brought is different than what you asked for....they are both different KINDS of animals.

 

[Sapiens]

...

That is because so much genetic information was lost over time that some animals like foxes can't interbreed with their kind...the same thing applies for the "cat" kind and the cheetah...but there is no denying that the fox and the cheetah were PRODUCED by a dog and a cat...that is where their origin comes from.



So, if I lose my ability to breed with any race other than that of the Negroid, that would mean that I am not a human? That simply doesn't follow. I am who I am based on where I came from...What I am saying is all animals of the same kind TEND TO look like others of their kind...that is quite apparent.



They are clearly the same kind of animal.



Any child can see it. If you go to a pet store and ask for a snake, and they bring you out a hamster, you would realize that what you are brought is different than what you asked for....they are both different KINDS of animals.

So please, tell me where the lines that separate "kinds" are. How do I know one kind from another? Are hamsters, gerbils and guinea pigs the same kind? Are cobras, garter snakes and king snakes the same kind? How about dolphins, plesiosaurs and great white sharks? What is the degree of separation of bonobos, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons and people ... all the same kind? Most children faced with those groups would call the members all the same "kind," but would you? If not, what separations would you identify and what is the criteria that you use to make the separations?

 

[Bunyip]

Call of the Wild

"The infinite regress argument is fire proof, that is why I think my position is so much validated.*"



Far from being fire proof, that argument is self defeating - you think that an eternal Universe is somehow a problem, but posit an eternal god as the solution. It is special pleading.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call of the Wild

"The infinite regress argument is fire proof, that is why I think my position is so much validated.*"



Far from being fire proof, that argument is self defeating - you think that an eternal Universe is somehow a problem, but posit an eternal god as the solution. It is special pleading.

The argument is that God is a TIMELESS cause, and infinity used in terms of "temporal becoming" doesn't apply to something that was timeless before creation.

Your objection is almost as miniscule as the old "who created God" objection, as if apologists doesn't have an answer ready to go.

 

[Bunyip]

The argument is that God is a TIMELESS cause, and infinity used in terms of "temporal becoming" doesn't apply to something that was timeless before creation.

Your objection is almost as miniscule as the old "who created God" objection, as if apologists doesn't have an answer ready to go.

But no apologist can ever answer either of those questions - they both prove the fallacy of special pleading. The argument you see as 'fire proof' is demonstrably flawed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But no apologist can ever answer either of those questions - they both prove the fallacy of special pleading. The argument you see as 'fire proof' is demonstrably flawed.

Oh brother...

 

[Bunyip]

Oh brother...

You prove me right - there is no way you can defend your supposedly 'fire proof' argument, it evaporates into nonsense the moment it is examined.

By the way, positing a timeless agency as a cause is illogical - there is no 'before' the Big Bang. Causality is a temporal concept.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You prove me right - there is no way you can defend your supposedly 'fire proof' argument, it evaporates into nonsense the moment it is examined.

By the way, positing a timeless agency as a cause is illogical - there is no 'before' the Big Bang. Causality is a temporal concept.

Ok so explain to me how you can reach infinity by successive addition?

 

[Bunyip]

Ok so explain to me how you can reach infinity by successive addition?

What would be the point of explaining basic maths to you - why change the subject? What on earth is the relevance?

Can you explain why you imagine the Universe needs a creator, but god does not?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What would be the point of explaining basic maths to you - why change the subject? What on earth is the relevance?

Can you explain why you imagine the Universe needs a creator, but god does not?

That is kinda what i was gettin at but hey, dodge the question.

 

[Bunyip]

That is kinda what i was gettin at but hey, dodge the question.

LOL

Buddy, I've been reading your posts for a while - dodging the questions and repeating the same fallacies no matter how many times you are corrected is pretty much all you do here.

But sure, i'll answer the question - you only way to get to infinity by successive addition is to perform addition an infinite number of times.

Now answer my question - why does the Universe need a creator, but god does not?

 

[Sapiens]

That is kinda what i was gettin at but hey, dodge the question.

You do seem to be ducking mine.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

LOL
Buddy, I've been reading your posts for a while - dodging the questions and repeating the same fallacies no matter how many times you are corrected is pretty much all you do here.

Me? Dodge questions? How unlike me. I don't run away from questions, I run towards them.

If there is a tornado coming in the distance, and everyone is running away from it, I will be the only one running towards it.

But sure, i'll answer the question - you only way to get to infinity by successive addition is to perform addition an infinite number of times.

LOL if the answer to the question was that simple, it wouldn't have been asked, trust me LOL

So, you will get to infinity by adding an infinite number of increments one by one, right? Ok...so here is a follow up question for ya:

If I asked you to count to infinity, and you "arrived" to infinity by adding one number after the other, what is the natural number that represents infinity? Do tell.

Now answer my question - why does the Universe need a creator, but god does not?

A couple reasons...

1. We have empirical evidence which suggests a finite universe, and anything that BEGAN to exist has an external cause.

2. A universe that has existed eternally in time is logically absurd.

So we have both philosophical and scientific reasons for this...fire proof.

 

[cottage]

1. We have empirical evidence which suggests a finite universe, and anything that BEGAN to exist has an external cause.

False! Nothing in the experiential world is seen as beginning to exist; things in the universe don’t begin to exist but only change form, therefore it cannot be inferred that the beginning of the universe as a whole requires an external cause.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

False! Nothing in the experiential world is seen as beginning to exist; things in the universe don’t begin to exist but only change form, therefore it cannot be inferred that the beginning of the universe as a whole requires an external cause.

Then the universe never began and is therefore past eternal, which will run you into the problem of infinite regress, cot. I don't know what part of that you aren't understanding.

If you take away the existence of a timeless, external, supernatural entity, then by default you are left with a past eternal universe that has existed infinitely within time, and this whole "material changing form" deal would mean that the cause/effect chain is as infinite as the universe itself....and both are equally logically absurd.

There is no escape.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

1. We have empirical evidence which suggests a finite universe, and anything that BEGAN to exist has an external cause.

Why does it have to be an eternal cause? Why can't it just be a cause?

And a cause doesn't necessarily have to mean creator.

He asked you why the Universe needs a creator, which is rather specific. Not why it simply needs a cause. All you've done was explain why it may need to be a cause.

So why does the cause have to be a creator?

 

[cottage]

Then the universe never began and is therefore past eternal, which will run you into the problem of infinite regress, cot. I don't know what part of that you aren't understanding.

If you take away the existence of a timeless, external, supernatural entity, then by default you are left with a past eternal universe that has existed infinitely within time, and this whole "material changing form" deal would mean that the cause/effect chain is as infinite as the universe itself....and both are equally logically absurd.

There is no escape.

With respect it is you who are not able to follow the argument despite my putting it to you umpteen times.

Nothing begins to exist within the phenomenal world, objects merely change form, but the world as a whole began to exist (the Big Bang) and causality began with it, and thus there is no infinite regress and no external cause.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

With respect it is you who are not able to follow the argument despite my putting it to you umpteen times.

Cot, my argument is that no event x can come to past if there was an infinite number of events which precedes it...NOTHING. That is the infinity problem that you have in a nut shell, and that is the problem that you will run in to if you negate a timeless cause. That problem isn't going anywhere and quite frankly nothing that you've said does the problem any justice.

Nothing begins to exist within the phenomenal world, objects merely change form, but the world as a whole began to exist (the Big Bang) and causality began with it, and thus there is no infinite regress and no external cause.

Cot, dude, with all due respect..you are my homeboy, but I have to ask......WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Nothing begins to exist within the phenomenal world, objects merely change form

This is like saying a house that is made up of wood didn't begin to exist upon completion of the building project, because the wood that the house is made of existed before the house was built. Foolishness.

"objects merely change form"

No problems with that...the problem is the objects couldn't have been changing forms from eternity, and if God is out of the picture, that is exactly what you get.

but the world as a whole began to exist (the Big Bang)

I don't know how you can go from "nothing begins to exist" - to "but the world as a whole began to exist". You've said this nonsense numerous times, and I will not continue trying to decipher it.

and causality began with it, and thus there is no infinite regress and no external cause

And this as well...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why does it have to be an eternal cause?

I said external, even though God is eternal in the sense of having no beginning in time.

Why can't it just be a cause?

Because everything that begins to exist must have an external cause. The cause was "beyond" or "transcended" the effect. If I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, you would have no problem explaining it, would you?

But what if I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, but the catch is that the origin of your computer MUST BE WITHIN THE COMPUTER. Then you would have problems explaining the origin of your computer, right? Because you would know that nothing can be the origin of its own domain.

And a cause doesn't necessarily have to mean creator.

Yes it does. To think that you can use nature to explain the origins of nature is quite absurd.

He asked you why the Universe needs a creator, which is rather specific. Not why it simply needs a cause.

Obviously, the fact that I am a Christian apologist who has just around 3,000 posts defending my beliefs...any argument that I am making against naturalism is in fact an argument for supernaturalism...so in other words, if I am saying that nature didn't do it, I am saying that God did do it.

Now if that isn't enough for you, tough crap.

All you've done was explain why it may need to be a cause.

So why does the cause have to be a creator?

No, I am saying why it needs to be an external, timeless, immaterial cause, and as far as im concerned, those attributes describes the Christian God to a T.

 

[fantome profane]

I said external, even though God is eternal in the sense of having no beginning in time.



Because everything that begins to exist must have an external cause. The cause was "beyond" or "transcended" the effect. If I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, you would have no problem explaining it, would you?

But what if I asked you to explain the origins of your computer, but the catch is that the origin of your computer MUST BE WITHIN THE COMPUTER. Then you would have problems explaining the origin of your computer, right? Because you would know that nothing can be the origin of its own domain.



Yes it does. To think that you can use nature to explain the origins of nature is quite absurd.



Obviously, the fact that I am a Christian apologist who has just around 3,000 posts defending my beliefs...any argument that I am making against naturalism is in fact an argument for supernaturalism...so in other words, if I am saying that nature didn't do it, I am saying that God did do it.

Now if that isn't enough for you, tough crap.



No, I am saying why it needs to be an external, timeless, immaterial cause, and as far as im concerned, those attributes describes the Christian God to a T.

How long did "God" exist before creating the universe?