Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[~Amin~]

We'll start with the concept of God being "supernatural" and/or outside of space and time.

Wouldn't say outside of time and space, but rather not bound by time and space.
It is also conceivable to say outside of time and space, from a spiritual context if understood correctly. And i really don't think the world supernatural describes this the best way, although it is close.

 

[~Amin~]

Do you honestly think that any answer pulled from any where is better than the honesty of admitting "I don't Know?"

I have NEVER made a statement unless i honestly believe it, but truly i have great respect, for someone who says i don't know, when they don't.

 

[~Amin~]

"Cogito ergo sum" I think therefore, I am. This is Rene Descartes statement, when he was thinking if existence is real or not, he denied his own body, then he tried to deny the existence of his mind,
but then thought, the moment i try to deny my mind, i am actually using my mind, and so he made this statement "Cogito ergo sum" I think therefore, I am.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

*Nods* though the definitions of "I", "think", "therefore", "I", "am" can be open to debate and are commonly used in a way that is nod in keeping with the principle of the argument which is the minimalist approach (i.e. the concept of I does not necessarily refer to the person, the concept of think does not necessarily refer to the activity of the brain etc)

However such a statement does not validate any one position so much as to argue that the philosophising entity exists in some form, in this case, that would be the individual holding onto a particular theological position, it holds no reference let alone implies no validity about the particular positions held - only the existence in some form of the philosopher.

The only way that one could claim that such a statement "Cogito ergo sum" could imply that a particular theological position was in some way valid would be to suggest that merely considering the position lends it some degree of validity in that it is capable of affecting our existence (by considering the position our existence is altered by the act of considering it and any residual affects such as memory) in that way it could be argued to 'exist' in some form. Though, that would depend on how one classifies existence and such a definition could be so vague as to be ineffectual. Even then, the existence itself does not necessarily extend beyond the philosopher(s) if it is merely part of their 'thoughts' for a time (a part of themselves while they consider the concept)

 

[gnostic]

I see yout 'title' is "the lost one" .. looks like you will remain that way, unless you change your narrow understanding of the meaning of evidence..

"The Lost One" is simply a playful title for my "agnostic" stance. It doesn't really have much meaning.

However, I preferred being "lost" because it is what I feel comfortable in. Life is much about the journey than the destination.

Religions like Christianity and Islam, the people are more interested about the destination than journey, trying to reach God and its reward, Heaven or Paradise, so they become obsessed with death, ignoring what's important at the present and what they have now. To me, that's a selfish attitude. You are only being "good" for the reward (the promise of afterlife) and doing "right" because of the fear of hell.

But I shouldn't be hard on Christians and Muslims. For some people, they need a pair of crutches to do what's right or being good. They need instruction, commandment or law, because without these codes, they themselves become lost, not knowing what is right and wrong, good or bad. They don't have instinct to know what is good or right.

I don't have religion, and yet I know what is good and right, without the needs for reward or fear of punishment. I tried to the right thing, because of the way I live my life.

As to your accusation of having limited (or "narrow" as you put it) understanding of "evidence". You and I have different understanding about evidence.

I preferred "evidence" as used in science: Empirical evidence.

Evidences that can be observed, measured, tested (repeatedly), and most importantly, verified independently.

In science, such gathering of information and evidences completely ignore what a person's belief is. Science also tried to explain the natural world (as well artificial world, created by man, like electronics, computers, automobiles, architecture, bridge-building, etc), so it ignored the supernatural, like spirit, God and angels. Because beyond the superstitious imaginations and writings of ancient & medieval people, there are no empirical evidences to be found that can be tested and verified.

In science, every hypotheses and theories can be refuted or disproved (hence, they are refuteable). So it is best considered to each proposition, hypothesis or theory to be "false" at the beginning, until proven (or disproved) otherwise, with verifiable evidences. So in Scientific Method, FALSIFIABILITY is of uttermost important.

For a (theist) believer, faith is a needed requirement, not evidence. You have reach the conclusion (to believe) without requiring any evidence that support God exist. That's not evidence, it's faith.

 

[gnostic]

Going back to the question of evolution being "refuted".

There are more than just one evolutionary mechanism, but I think Matthew78 was referring to Darwin's theory on Natural Selection.

Natural Selection (NS) will always be subject to review, as is every other theories in every other fields of science. So there is always a possibility that it could be refuted in the future. However, the theory of NS is still supported by evidences and it is still strong and valid theory today, and has not been refuted, even with the introduction of new mechanisms.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Hmmmn gnostic, I am not so sure on that with its relation to humans; humans are atypical in our sexual behaviour because to an extent we have departed from our natural reproductive behaviour (and NO, this does not refer to homosexuality, for those who have a hard-on for homosexuality being 'unnatural'). Natural Selection has been curtailed to an extraordinary amount, because humans with their intellectual capacity have 'selected' non natural criteria by which to evaluate potential breeding partners, such as wealth and have engaged in evolution stifling behaviours such as monogamy.

In relation to other animals, perhaps NS remains a valid theory, but for humans, its applicability is limited indeed.

 

[~Amin~]

*Nods* though the definitions of "I", "think", "therefore", "I", "am" can be open to debate and are commonly used in a way that is nod in keeping with the principle of the argument which is the minimalist approach (i.e. the concept of I does not necessarily refer to the person, the concept of think does not necessarily refer to the activity of the brain etc)

However such a statement does not validate any one position so much as to argue that the philosophising entity exists in some form, in this case, that would be the individual holding onto a particular theological position, it holds no reference let alone implies no validity about the particular positions held - only the existence in some form of the philosopher.

The only way that one could claim that such a statement "Cogito ergo sum" could imply that a particular theological position was in some way valid would be to suggest that merely considering the position lends it some degree of validity in that it is capable of affecting our existence (by considering the position our existence is altered by the act of considering it and any residual affects such as memory) in that way it could be argued to 'exist' in some form. Though, that would depend on how one classifies existence and such a definition could be so vague as to be ineffectual. Even then, the existence itself does not necessarily extend beyond the philosopher(s) if it is merely part of their 'thoughts' for a time (a part of themselves while they consider the concept)

I did NOT post this to prove any position, except to show the extent of human thought, this was only something to be thought of by those who say '' existence only seems organised and balanced'', but that its only our mind that makes it appear so.

 

[Two-bit guru]

If evolution was refuted something else would come up. It always does. D

 

[~Amin~]

Natural Selection (NS) will always be subject to review, as is every other theories in every other fields of science. So there is always a possibility that it could be refuted in the future. However, the theory of NS is still supported by evidences and it is still strong and valid theory today, and has not been refuted, even with the introduction of new mechanisms.

You have spoken trully, still it only seems strong from a material approach prespective,
and can be refuted, through science.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I did NOT post this to prove any position, except to show the extent of human thought, this was only something to be thought of by those who say '' existence only seems organised and balanced'', but that its only our mind that makes it appear so.

I see... well with it being isolated in such a manner I thought you were attempting to use that to support your position, my apologies.

Though I would suggest that in such an argument you would have that some concept of god exists as a part of all people who consider the idea of god (and perhaps more-so in those people who consider the idea more strenuously - thus in both theists and atheists and agnostics alike whom consider the concept) and even that the concept of god can affect our existence in varying ways; the nature of that existence might be disputable however the existence itself is not.

... Though at the same time the concept of "the non existence of god" would have similar characteristics, as would "a four legged simultaneously entirely black and entirely white chair with no legs"

 

[~Amin~]

I see... well with it being isolated in such a manner I thought you were attempting to use that to support your position, my apologies.

Thats fine, your right to think that.

 

[camanintx]

Wouldn't say outside of time and space, but rather not bound by time and space.

Can you give me an example of anything (other than God) that is not bound by time and space?

 

[riley2112]

Can you give me an example of anything (other than God) that is not bound by time and space?

Nice to know you don't ask for much. Can anybody give you an example of anything that is not bound by time and space?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Do you mean OUR time and space, or SOME time and space? For starters we can only give examples from within our existence or from the conceivable metaphysical existence... by cutting out god... well can we include other concepts, like devils, angels, leprechauns etc

 

[riley2112]

I really was not aware of the difference.
Would you explain?

 

[gnostic]

You have spoken trully, still it only seems strong from a material approach prespective,
and can be refuted, through science.

Like I said, all scientific theories can be refuted. There always a possibility that Natural Selection and Evolution be refuted, but like you said only through science. But this refutation have to come from new evidences but evidences that can be tested, and repeated testing to verify if such theory has been proven to be false.

Even with newer evolutionary mechanisms and theories (Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking) being introduced in the 20th century, the older theory - Natural Selection - is still a valid scientific theory. These other mechanism simply add to our knowledge of evolution, so they more or compliment.

The mistake that creationists and other religious believers is that they assume evolution is about the origin of life, which is wrong.

Evolution is more about changes in species (where life already exist), and ability of creature (including human) to survive, adapt to changing environment and reproduce. It is not about creating new life out of nothing.

This is why that evolution, as well every other science, will be refuted through science, and not through religion or creationism.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well we have a time and space, that does not mean that the time and space that we can perceive is the only time and space, there may be some other time and space. Whether that is alternate realities, higher level dimensions or what have you, some of those existences may (or may not) include alternate time and space (parallel worlds for example)... then you have the concept of existences that do not include time or space (btw this is where a lot of people place a monotheistic god)

 

[riley2112]

I see. So you can perceive that there may be other time and space in alternate realities, higher dimensions and parallel worlds.Is that correct? Just trying to make sure I understand where you are coming from.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I consider it a possibility.

In such a case, these would constitute space-time that is separate from our own... would there be some sort of linkage? I dont know. Would there be some sort of at least relative (rather than absolute) approximation of the relationship between time (or space for that matter) in one such and in our own? Again I dont know. As to what that would actually mean for us? Well I am rather apathetic about it (much as I am towards most concepts of 'God')

Intergalatic travel (heck even time travel) seems to be a bit more realistic for humanity at this point than concerning ourselves over potential extra-universal existences... and that is saying something.

Edit: Although that does not mean that such existences would be without meaning (for example, some 'God' outside of our own existence for you theists), perhaps I should have said 'fixating ourselves on' rather than 'concerning ourselves over'