Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[cottage]

Then I'd like you to explain to me how does a God that exists in time make him "limited". Please explain.

This god of yours had to change his atemporal being in order to bring the itsy-bitsy universe into existence. He couldn’t achieve that end without doing so for otherwise would have done so; therefore he is limited in what he can achieve and the means at his disposal.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Literally nothing existed, besides space...there is just the rock and the ground that it is on...quantum events are nonexistent

Then you're talking about a different universe with different sets of laws. You may as well add "and what if the Speed of Light is different in the universe with this rock?". We can sit here and try to think about it, but we're just addressing the problems of a different hypothetical universe.

I'm talking about THIS Universe, which does have quantum events.

There is no particular PRIOR moment at which you can reference...and if you posit a particular pre-big bang model, then there WERE moments prior to our big bang universe...thus, infinity problem.

And the problem is?

If the rock was stationary in empty space, and never moved, and as existed for eternity and literally nothing exists besides the rock and the space that the rock occupies, then the rock has a NECESSARY existence...and the question is "why" does not apply..so it would be impossible for the rock to move, because there are no pre-deterministic conditions that will allow it to move.

My question is, though, why does the rock occupy the particular position it's in, out of an infinite amount of positions it can occupy?

That's basically what you're asking, but in regards to the event of the Big Bang and it's position in time.

So what is the opposite of "existing for eternity"......."[not] existing for eternity"...so if the singularity didn't exist for eternity, then there has to be a reason why it exists, thus, you are pushing the question of origins one more step backwards.

The singularity is just an arrangement of the Universe at the time, which is how we're defining it's existence. It's like someone with long hair who puts it in a pony tail. The pony tail didn't exist prior to arranging their hair that way, but their hair it self did exist.

My answer is the same. We don't know why the Universe was in this state/arrangement at the time. There's no clues or observations that let us peak back further.

Even If I began to exist a year after the big bang, I could still ask "why did the singularity expand only a year ago".

And that's your answer. It happened a year ago because that's your position in time relative to the event.

The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago because of YOUR position in time. That's your answer.

As far as we know, our universe is a closed system. There is nothing outside it replenishing the energy that it is losing, and will soon lose...so therefore it is a closed system.

The Universe is not losing energy.

So while you are waiting for your next check to get cashed or your next direct deposit, and it takes the bank 30 years to cash it or deposit it, and they give you that answer, I wonder would you accept that answer.

And I could then ask "Why did you wait 30 years later, relative to the time I asked you to cash it?"

It makes no difference. It doesn't become an excuse for them to take a long time to do something.

Irrelevant

It's the same analogy. You can't define a position in time without other positions in time. Same with space.

For the third time...it doesn't matter when it happened, the question is, why did it happen when it did...i could have asked the question one second after it happened, one minute...one hour..one day...etc...either way, the question remains, why did it happen when it happened?

Well when did it happen?

Limits as far as what?

As far as time. If he became temporal and is finite quantitatively in time, it means he can only occupy one position in time.

I'd expect a true omnipotent god could occupy all positions in time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This god of yours had to change his atemporal being in order to bring the itsy-bitsy universe into existence.

Again, how does changing your atemporal being make you limited? I am not understanding...so this must be yet another concept that cottage is spewing out that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. :yes:

He couldn’t achieve that end without doing so for otherwise would have done so;

What?

therefore he is limited in what he can achieve and the means at his disposal.

?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then you're talking about a different universe with different sets of laws. You may as well add "and what if the Speed of Light is different in the universe with this rock?". We can sit here and try to think about it, but we're just addressing the problems of a different hypothetical universe.

I'm talking about THIS Universe, which does have quantum events.



And the problem is?



My question is, though, why does the rock occupy the particular position it's in, out of an infinite amount of positions it can occupy?

That's basically what you're asking, but in regards to the event of the Big Bang and it's position in time.



The singularity is just an arrangement of the Universe at the time, which is how we're defining it's existence. It's like someone with long hair who puts it in a pony tail. The pony tail didn't exist prior to arranging their hair that way, but their hair it self did exist.

My answer is the same. We don't know why the Universe was in this state/arrangement at the time. There's no clues or observations that let us peak back further.



And that's your answer. It happened a year ago because that's your position in time relative to the event.

The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago because of YOUR position in time. That's your answer.



The Universe is not losing energy.



And I could then ask "Why did you wait 30 years later, relative to the time I asked you to cash it?"

It makes no difference. It doesn't become an excuse for them to take a long time to do something.



It's the same analogy. You can't define a position in time without other positions in time. Same with space.



Well when did it happen?



As far as time. If he became temporal and is finite quantitatively in time, it means he can only occupy one position in time.

I'd expect a true omnipotent god could occupy all positions in time.

You are purposely ignoring the "infinity/birth" analogy which I used to directly demonstrate how infinite regression is impossible. Until you can directly respond and refute that analogy, there is nothing more to talk about.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ahhh yes :clap

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

What you're expressing is not abiogenesis, because what you want to have happen happens in the womb every day. And in some cases, in the lab.

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

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

No such thing as a fire proof argument. Time, in any case, is relative to space. Part of the finite universe model is that time itself did not exist until the Big Bang event.

However, there are a few new theories popping up that might point, in fact, to a universe older than the Big Bang.

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

Why not?

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

Point is, Earth is always in danger. Remember that meteor that exploded over Russia last year? If that had been just a few seconds earlier, that entire city it was near would have been obliterated.

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.

Then morality is not objective, because humans are animals.

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

A bold statement that I've never been given reason to take seriously, even as a theist.

I need specifics.

Go read the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew, and then in Luke. They're different.

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?

Actually, school history text books are just as bad.

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

It's what trickster Gods do best. :yes:

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

Because that "simplicity" is actually wrong. Close means wrong, remember? A dog is a type of canine, but not all canines are dogs.

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.

Is a Great Dane identical in every way to a Chihuahua? Furthermore, are you identical in every way to your parents? No difference whatsoever? Someone looking at you and your parents would not be able to distinguish any differences?

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

Far as I'm concerned, that's still listening to fallible human beings.

Then again, the peer-review process is designed to reduce that fallibility to near-nonexistence.

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.

Wrong. Foxes are not dogs. You can't equate a cheetah with a domestic cat; they're both felidae, sure, but they're of completely different lineages.

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.

'Course it doesn't follow. That will never happen, because biological evolution doesn't happen to individuals. Again, we are not Pokemon. We were also perfectly capable of breeding with Neanderthals; an ancestry that you, if you're of African ancestry, do not share with me, a European-descendant.

As long as your descendents are homo sapien, they're human.

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.

You can't use outward appearance. Case in point:

On looks alone, what "kind" would you say this is? Looks kinda like a raccoon, doesn't it?

They are clearly the same kind of animal.

No, they're not. Dogs and wolves are distinct. For one, dogs are domesticated, wolves are not. Wolves are also significantly bigger than dogs.

Now, technically speaking, dogs are descended specifically from the Grey Wolf, and are the same species. But that just means that at best, dogs are wolves, not the other way around. Foxes, however, are neither wolf nor dog.

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.

They belong to different classes of animals. But they still share a distant common ancestor(which was reptilian itself), which would have lived about the same time as early dinosaurs.

Besides, if you regard humans as so fallible, why do you use its most heavily biased manifestation as your basis for confirmation? "Any child can see it" is hardly compelling, since I used to "see" monsters as a child.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The common ancestor of a snake and rodent pre-dates the earliest dinosaurs by 80 million years. Just throwing that out there.

 

[Riverwolf]

The common ancestor of a snake and rodent pre-dates the earliest dinosaurs by 80 million years. Just throwing that out there.

It would have been the same common ancestor that all mammals share with reptiles, right?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It would have been the same common ancestor that all mammals share with reptiles, right?

Yes, as well as birds. The first amniotes, which date back 312 million years. Dinosaurs date back around 230 million years.

 

[cottage]

Again, how does changing your atemporal being make you limited? I am not understanding...so this must be yet another concept that cottage is spewing out that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. :yes:

I’m not ‘spewing out’ anything, and there is no need to be so indignant just because you’ve not understood what has been said.

I'll try again:

We have an unchanging God that had to change an aspect of himself in order to create the temporal world [contradiction]. And further more, that it was necessary for him to change from an atemporal being in order to bring about the a temporal effect means that he couldn’t have done so unchanged (for if he could have done so then he would have done so).

So as I said, it undermines and whittles away at the concept of an unchanging, omnipotent God.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, as well as birds. The first amniotes, which date back 312 million years. Dinosaurs date back around 230 million years.

Ahhh yes. It is 7:30am, nothing like getting the day started with more voodoo science propoganda. Gotta love it :yes:

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Ahhh yes. It is 7:30am, nothing like getting the day started with more voodoo science propoganda. Gotta love it :yes:

Answer his question about the animal picture he posted. Tell us what kind it is, if looks tell us everything we need to know.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I’m not ‘spewing out’ anything, and there is no need to be so indignant just because you’ve not understood what has been said.

Not that there are any Eienstein's lurking in these forums, and I will include myself with that...but I tend to at least generally understand what folks on here are saying..but for some reason, recent interactions with you have lead me with more questions than answers, on a consistent basis...

So I am beginning to think it is YOU.

I'll try again:

We have an unchanging God that had to change an aspect of himself in order to create the temporal world [contradiction]. And further more, that it was necessary for him to change from an atemporal being in order to bring about the a temporal effect means that he couldn’t have done so unchanged (for if he could have done so then he would have done so).

So as I said, it undermines and whittles away at the concept of an unchanging, omnipotent God.

I am still NOT quite sure how this is a problem. However, I will respond to that by saying this: what is the other alternative? As I said before, and I will say again, and continue to say...we only have 3 options...

1. The universe was created by a supernatural, timeless, external being (God)
2. The universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing
3. The universe is eternal...all space, matter, energy, and time is eternal (in whatever naturalistic realm you can think of).

Those are the ONLY 3 options. Now, for the sake of eliminating the BS, lets just take #2 out of the equation...as neither one of our sensical minds can come to believe that this can ever happen, right?

So now we are down to 2 options...#1, and #3. Since these are the only two options, to negate one is to grant the other...when you only have two options and one is negated, the other one wins by default...automatically.

Now, lets examine the two options...lets start with #3, which is the eternal-universe alternative. If the universe is eternal, for any event to take place, an infinite number of events preceded it. To give a thought analogy, one that I gave many times before;

Imagine you are building a brick house which takes an infinite amount of bricks before it is "complete"....and of course, your goal is to complete building the house. Would you ever complete building the house? No, because for every brick that you lay, you have infinitely more bricks to lay...so the house will never be complete...and it doesn't matter how many bricks you have, or how fast you lay the bricks, or how much time you spend laying the bricks, the house will never be complete.

Now, if we live in a past-eternal naturalistic realm (universe/world), for every single event that takes place, there had to have been an infinite number of events that preceded it....so how would we "arrive" at any event, if we had to traverse an infinite number of events prior...we would not get to the point of "today" if an infinite number of "todays" preceded it.

This concept is quite absurd, in fact, so absurd that there is no possible world at which this can be accomplished. You cannot imagine a possible world at which you could complete building the brick house, can you? And if you can, well gosh darnit, enlighten me.

If you apply this concept to the universe in general, you will get the same absurd results, and there is no escaping this because we live in a world full of events, full of cause/effect relations, and if time is past eternal, then quite frankly the same absurdities will apply.

The only way to rid ourselves of these absurdities is for us to posit a past-boundary to time..a beginning of all beginnings...something that initiatied the entire cause/effect chain...and the only thing capable of initiating time itself can be God...and God himself could not exist in a temporal realm, otherwise the same absurdities would apply to God, thus, the cause had to be atemporal. Had to be.

And there is no way out of this, cot...no matter what you do you cannot negate the existence of God, and yet posit an alternate cause without presupposing time, and while presupposing time, you giving birth to the illogical concept of infinite regression.

So thus, the existence of God is necessary, due to the impossibility of a past-eternal universe..The God hypothesis is the best explanation (more rational) than the other two..and therefore, we should appeal to the best explanation, that God exists.

Now, with respect to your objection...I don't see the issue here. It seems to me that it is logically coherent for a man that was sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity, to suddenly begin to move and thus initiating physical time. I can see it happening...but I cannot see infinity being traversed whatsoever, under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever, and as I said, if you think otherwise, enlighten me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Answer his question about the animal picture he posted. Tell us what kind it is, if looks tell us everything we need to know.

When you answer my "infinity-birth" analogy, I will answer his question about the animal.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ahhh yes. It is 7:30am, nothing like getting the day started with more voodoo science propoganda. Gotta love it :yes:

Do you even know what voodoo is?

 

[Riverwolf]

When you answer my "infinity-birth" analogy, I will answer his question about the animal.

Do you know how time is related to space?

Here's a hint:

Say you synchronize two clocks to the second on Earth, such that they both display the exact same time (and assume that both are fully functional with no possibility of one being faster or slower from their own internal mechanics; that is, assume that if you left both of them on Earth for 30 years, they'd still display the exact same time down to the second). Now, put one of them in a rocket ship bound for space.

The one on the rocket ship is fully protected from all the g-forces required for liftoff, and all the turbulence. That is, the clock is physically undisturbed.

Once the rocket gets to orbit, if you were to compare the two clocks, they now, or at least will soon, display different times.

This is demonstrably true, because satellite technology has to compensate for it in order to work.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you even know what voodoo is?

Yeah, unnatural stuff...and that is what macroevolution is...unnatural stuff.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you know how time is related to space?

Here's a hint:

Say you synchronize two clocks to the second on Earth, such that they both display the exact same time (and assume that both are fully functional with no possibility of one being faster or slower from their own internal mechanics; that is, assume that if you left both of them on Earth for 30 years, they'd still display the exact same time down to the second). Now, put one of them in a rocket ship bound for space.

The one on the rocket ship is fully protected from all the g-forces required for liftoff, and all the turbulence. That is, the clock is physically undisturbed.

Once the rocket gets to orbit, if you were to compare the two clocks, they now, or at least will soon, display different times.

This is demonstrably true, because satellite technology has to compensate for it in order to work.

I am getting everything but an answer to the analogy. Must be on the right path.

 

[idav]

...and that is what macroevolution is...unnatural stuff.

You have been here for years and still believe that nonsense. No YEC has yet to justify a belief in micro while denying macro evolution, they are the same damn thing separated by more time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have been here for years and still believe that nonsense. No YEC has yet to justify a belief in micro while denying macro evolution, they are the same damn thing separated by more time.

"Time of the gaps" reasoning. Please, give me more.

 

[idav]

"Time of the gaps" reasoning. Please, give me more.

Time and knowledge of gaps is where creationists play, not people working with science and truth.