The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, no, that’s not the way it works. I too can conceive of a Maximally Great Being! But whatever we formerly conceived of as existent can also be conceived to be non-existent, but it takes only a single negative instance to prove the contradiction; and whereas Anselm spoke of conceiving a necessary being, I’m saying no such necessity can be conceived without contradiction.

And to me you haven't demonstrated that contradiction as of yet.

Indeed, I can think of a world where an omnipresent being doesn’t live up to its name.

See, right there!! That is where you are completely wrong. If a being that is omnipresent doesn't live up to its nature of omnipresence, then it was never omnipresent in the first place!! Especially (and maybe only) if such an attribute is part of this being's necessary existence.

An omnipresent being can be such if, and only if, it is always in existence, and in which case it would have to be necessarily existent – but that's the very point I’m disputing.

Right! Which is why, as I previously stated, the kalam argument supports the MOA, because based on philosophical and scientific arguments that support a finite universe, it is "necessary" that a "necessary" being exists.

Clearly it is subjective and in which case it cannot be necessary.

The subjectivity is based on what is amount or kind of evidence is convincing to your or I.

But all necessary truths do not exist in reality, otherwise one-eyed Cyclops, winged horses such as Pegasus, and half-fish, half-human mermaids would be in evidence. And in the case of the 2 + 2 = 4 example, you are in the habit of excising parts of my post so that the context and meaning is lost.

How are one-eyed Cyclops, wings horses, etc...how is the existence of these things necessary truths?

The conclusion here is that your illusive Maximally Great Being isn’t all that great, and certainly isn’t necessarily existent, since we can conceive the concept of a greater being, one that is always in existence and ever-present, a being that would in that case be impossible to deny.

It is impossible to deny if you take into account the arguments against infinite regression, which I've argued against extensively on here, and also which I've never seen you give your take on it (if you did, I forgot). Based on the fact that there could never have been an infinite chain of past eternal events leading to the present moment...this alone implies there had to be a NECESSARY first cause, one that is not depedent upon anything exteral to itself to exist, which makes its existence NECESSARY. This is impossible to deny.

Now on the matter of reality, let’s just consider a few things. In experience there is no necessity, a thing is possible or it is actual and a thing that is actual is also possible. It is raining at the moment but it is possible for it to be not raining. But the fact that it is raining also makes it possible for it to be raining. But in the case of our 2 + 2 = 4 proposition it isn’t possible that 2 + 2 = 4 can ever be false; in other words the question of possibility doesn’t arise. But if it is raining the event will not be necessary for we can conceive the possibility of it not raining without involving a contradiction or some other absurdity.

Ok, you are distinguishing the difference between contingent and necessary truths. Got it.

Therefore possible existence belongs to experience and necessary existence to pure concepts alone

Based on what?

So on that understanding if it is asserted that there is a Maximally Great Being that necessarily exists, then it must be demonstrable outside of the proposition, which is to say existent in reality, and experience is part of reality, if not its totality.

It is. Christians believe that the existence of God can be experienced, and not only that, based on the Historicity regarding the Resurrection of Jesus, we believe that the existence of God has already been experienced.

P1. An entity that exists necessarily in experience as well as being logically demonstrable is maximally greater than an entity that exists only as a logical demonstration.

P2. It is impossible to demonstrate necessity in experience

P3. There is no necessary Maximally Great Being in experience

Conclusion: There is no Maximally Great Being

Premise 1 definitely false.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If a thing is necessarily true then it follows that it is also possible. ‘Pegasus is a winged horse’ is both necessarily and possibly true. But what about this: ‘Pegasus necessarily exists’ is possibly necessary true. Therefore Pegasus is a necessarily existing being. Or: ‘Pegasus, the winged horse, is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, Maximally Great Being’. If is possible necessary that Pegasus is the MGB, then…well you know the rest.

I don't get it. For example, the being that you conceive of; the one that you claim is more greater than the one that is defined in the argument...is it possible for that being to exist necessarily? Yes or no.

I have demonstrated conclusively that an omnibenevolent being is contradictory and therefore it is impossible - never mind possibly necessary.

I beg to differ. If you use the problem of evil as a way to demonstrate a contradiction between the existence of evil and an omnibenevolent being, you are thereby presupposing a standard of goodness that an omnibenelent being lacks that would prevent evil...and that is just good old fashioned question begging.

Yes, but only as tautologies, from which only further tautologies follow. I invite you to identify any existent thing that is universally known to be true in reality and was only discovered by means of a self-evident proposition – never mind a necessary existence!

Self-evident proposition? There is no such thing. Either the proposition is true, or it is false.

Now I'm confused. What's with this conciliatory and thoughtful Call of the Wild? Now come on, what have you done with the rather cocksure and utterly certain contributor who generally goes by that name?

Just a few questions that need to be ironed out, thats all lol. I gotta keep it real, man lol

 

[McBell]

Based on the fact that there could never have been an infinite chain of past eternal events leading to the present moment

You have not demonstrated that this claim of yours is a fact.

...this alone implies there had to be a NECESSARY first cause, one that is not depedent upon anything exteral to itself to exist, which makes its existence NECESSARY. This is impossible to deny. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Again, you jump up and down beating your chest claiming this as fact, but the truth is that you have not demonstrated it to be fact.

 

[adi2d]

You have not demonstrated that this claim of yours is a fact.



Again, you jump up and down beating your chest claiming this as fact, but the truth is that you have not demonstrated it to be fact.

Now Wild has been shown to be wrong. I wonder if he will admit it?

 

[cottage]

And to me you haven't demonstrated that contradiction as of yet.

I have, I’ve given you that particular contradiction. I can conceive of a Supreme Being, and you can conceive of a Supreme Being. But also, we can both conceive of no Supreme Being. Therefore there is no Supreme that cannot be thought not to exist. And as I’ve explained a single instance proves the contradiction.

See, right there!! That is where you are completely wrong. If a being that is omnipresent doesn't live up to its nature of omnipresence, then it was never omnipresent in the first place!! Especially (and maybe only) if such an attribute is part of this being's necessary existence.

Not so! If a being was always present everywhere yesterday then it was omnipresent yesterday by definition. Omnipresence refers to the qualitative nature, as in its scope or ‘where’ as in everywhere. But without necessary existence a thing might be present everywhere today but not tomorrow.

Right! Which is why, as I previously stated, the kalam argument supports the MOA, because based on philosophical and scientific arguments that support a finite universe, it is "necessary" that a "necessary" being exists.

No! The Kalam is an inferential argument, and it cannot demonstrate necessity since it is absolutely reliant upon a contingent principle, which it must borrow from the empirical world. And science does not support any metaphysical argument, but merely informs us that the world began.

How are one-eyed Cyclops, wings horses, etc...how is the existence of these things necessary truths?

That’s the very point I’m making, that all necessary truths do not exist in reality. Cyclops is a one-eyed creature. Pegasus is a horse with wings. A triangle has three angles. A bachelor is a male who is unmarried. All are necessary truths by definition, but it does not follow that any or all must logically exist.

It is impossible to deny if you take into account the arguments against infinite regression, which I've argued against extensively on here, and also which I've never seen you give your take on it (if you did, I forgot). Based on the fact that there could never have been an infinite chain of past eternal events leading to the present moment...this alone implies there had to be a NECESSARY first cause, one that is not depedent upon anything exteral to itself to exist, which makes its existence NECESSARY. This is impossible to deny.

In fact it is very easy to deny. (But let me mention first that Infinities are an impossible concept as far as I’m concerned, and they have never formed any part of any argument I’ve ever made.) Now causality is a contingent principle (it cannot be both contingent and necessary), and if God is dependent upon a contingent principle then he cannot be the necessary being. And further more there is no contradiction in a thing coming into existence uncaused, since cause itself isn’t necessary, and it is no more incoherent than an unworldly being using a worldly principle (causation)to create other worldly principles (gravity etc). It amounts to saying God had to use a contingent principle to create contingent principles.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that propositions alone have never demonstrated actual existence, never mind necessary existence.

It is. Christians believe that the existence of God can be experienced, and not only that, based on the Historicity regarding the Resurrection of Jesus, we believe that the existence of God has already been experienced.

‘Christians believe’! It would need to be universally certain in order to meet the criterion necessarily existent in reality.

Premise 1 definitely false.

I would appreciate an argument rather than a bald assertion so I can give you my response.And please also consider again this passage below, which preceded the argument:


So on that understanding if it is asserted that there is a Maximally Great Being that necessarily exists, then it must be demonstrable outside of the proposition, which is to say existent in reality, and experience is part of reality, if not its totality.
P1. An entity that exists necessarily in experience as well as being logically demonstrable is maximally greater than an entity that exists only as a logical demonstration.


P2. It is impossible to demonstrate necessity in experience

P3. There is no necessary Maximally Great Being in experience

Conclusion: There is no Maximally Great Being

 

[cottage]

I don't get it. For example, the being that you conceive of; the one that you claim is more greater than the one that is defined in the argument...is it possible for that being to exist necessarily? Yes or no.

Only as a concept, not as an actual necessarily existent object.

I beg to differ. If you use the problem of evil as a way to demonstrate a contradiction between the existence of evil and an omnibenevolent being, you are thereby presupposing a standard of goodness that an omnibenelent being lacks that would prevent evil...and that is just good old fashioned question begging.

But this has nothing at all to do with ‘standards of goodness’ or subjective moral statements. It’s purely a logical demonstration:

P1. If God were all merciful there would be no suffering.

P2. There is suffering

Conclusion: Therefore there is no all merciful God.

P1 is a necessary truth; P2 is evidential. In order to disprove the conclusion you must show that P1 is false, i.e. that there can be suffering where there can be no suffering, which is impossible, or you must demonstrate that suffering does not exist, which would be absurd since you acknowledge its existence.

Self-evident proposition? There is no such thing. Either the proposition is true, or it is false.

All analytic propositions are tautologies, and therefore self-evident.
‘A blind man cannot see.’ A = A. If all men are mortal, and John is a man, then John is mortal. (All As are Bs, and F is an A, then F is a B.) ‘If X is possibly necessary, then X is necessary’. If it is raining, then it is not raining. So on and so forth, even in the case of long chains of deductive reasoning, as A J Ayer says: ‘7189’ is synonymous with ‘91 X 79’. We may have to resort to calculations, a process of tautological transformation, but as with all tautologies it is still a statement framed in a way so that it cannot be denied. The truth is contained within the proposition, which is why I say that for something to be the case in reality it must be evident outside of the tautology, for tautologies can give us no new or certain information about the world. I’m interested to know why you seem to disagree with this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have, I’ve given you that particular contradiction. I can conceive of a Supreme Being, and you can conceive of a Supreme Being. But also, we can both conceive of no Supreme Being. Therefore there is no Supreme that cannot be thought not to exist. And as I’ve explained a single instance proves the contradiction.

Well, what I previously said still stands; If you can think of an omnipresent being to not be present, then you are not really thinking about an omnipresent being, you are thinking about a contingent being that could/could not exist. An omnipresent being, by definition, cannot fail to be present, so if you can can conceive of a being whose presence is not felt, then you are not thinking of an omnipresent being.

Not so! If a being was always present everywhere yesterday then it was omnipresent yesterday by definition. Omnipresence refers to the qualitative nature, as in its scope or ‘where’ as in everywhere. But without necessary existence a thing might be present everywhere today but not tomorrow.

But those are two different things. First off, for a being to be "present" everywhere today, but not tomorrow is illogical, because you cannot get to a point of ominipresence based on contingent conditions.

So when you say "...a thing might be present everywhere today, but not tomorrow", you are implying that this thing REACHED a point of omnipresence. But how can you reach a point of omnipresence if you are contingent? What pre-conditional chain lead up to this attribute of omnipresence? And not only that, how can you lose the attribute of omnipresence? Unless these attributes are part of this things NECESSARY existence, the attribute can never be gained, and if it can't be gained, it can't be lose. (Unless of course a MGB would grant a contingent being the attribute, perhaps).

No! The Kalam is an inferential argument, and it cannot demonstrate necessity since it is absolutely reliant upon a contingent principle, which it must borrow from the empirical world. And science does not support any metaphysical argument, but merely informs us that the world began.

Umm, cot, an infinite chain of past events leading to the present event is an impossibility, and impossibilities do not "come to past". This fact can be proven philosophically and scientifically....unless you can enlighten me how an infinite chain of past events can lead to this present moment...and I don't think you can, and if you are going to argue against the existence of God, then you must believe in infinite regression, which is believing in impossibilities. So it is based on this impossibility that we can conclude that a First Cause is necessary.

Now you may not like the conclusion, but based on the law of excluded middle, if one possibility is negated, the other alternative wins by default.

That’s the very point I’m making, that all necessary truths do not exist in reality. Cyclops is a one-eyed creature. Pegasus is a horse with wings. A triangle has three angles. A bachelor is a male who is unmarried. All are necessary truths by definition, but it does not follow that any or all must logically exist.

I am still trying to figure out how is Cyclops and Pegasus necessary in their existence. That hasn't been explained to me yet.

In fact it is very easy to deny. (But let me mention first that Infinities are an impossible concept as far as I’m concerned, and they have never formed any part of any argument I’ve ever made.) Now causality is a contingent principle (it cannot be both contingent and necessary), and if God is dependent upon a contingent principle then he cannot be the necessary being. And further more there is no contradiction in a thing coming into existence uncaused, since cause itself isn’t necessary, and it is no more incoherent than an unworldly being using a worldly principle (causation)to create other worldly principles (gravity etc). It amounts to saying God had to use a contingent principle to create contingent principles.

I don't get it.

Based on the fact that propositions alone have never demonstrated actual existence, never mind necessary existence.

But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not the proposition is true or false, and in the case of necessary existence, if it is possible for a proposition to be true, it must be true. Proposition X cannot be both possibily necessarily true, but actually false at the same time. If it is false, then it isn't even POSSIBLE for it to be true. If a proposition is possibly necessarily true, then it follows that this proposition must be necessarily false.

‘Christians believe’! It would need to be universally certain in order to meet the criterion necessarily existent in reality.

It is; once it is realized that the existence of a necessary being COULD be true.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Only as a concept, not as an actual necessarily existent object.

Fine. So then you believe that the natural world exist necessarily, right?

But this has nothing at all to do with ‘standards of goodness’ or subjective moral statements. It’s purely a logical demonstration:

P1. If God were all merciful there would be no suffering.

P2. There is suffering

Conclusion: Therefore there is no all merciful God.

Right!! So you have a standard of mercy that apparently God doesn't ahere to. So you've just argued against me phrasing it "standards of goodness" and replaced it with your own standard, which is a "standard of mercy". So in order to claim that God is not merciful, you have to hold to a standard of what YOU believe to be merciful. So why is your standard of mercy better than God's?

P1 is a necessary truth; P2 is evidential. In order to disprove the conclusion you must show that P1 is false, i.e. that there can be suffering where there can be no suffering, which is impossible, or you must demonstrate that suffering does not exist, which would be absurd since you acknowledge its existence.

So based on your logic, when people go to prison after being convicted of a crime, and they suffer because of it.....do you honestly feel as if the judge or jury are immoral for putting prisons in a place where they will suffer...or did the judge or jury have MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASONS for putting prisoners in prison, where they will suffer?

Suppose all of this "suffering" that you are talking about is a result of God's judgement?? Did you ever think of that? Suppose God allowed people to suffer as a way to strengthen their faith. There are many people that can testify that they become closer to God as a result of their suffering.

All analytic propositions are tautologies, and therefore self-evident.
‘A blind man cannot see.’ A = A. If all men are mortal, and John is a man, then John is mortal. (All As are Bs, and F is an A, then F is a B.) ‘If X is possibly necessary, then X is necessary’. If it is raining, then it is not raining. So on and so forth, even in the case of long chains of deductive reasoning, as A J Ayer says: ‘7189’ is synonymous with ‘91 X 79’. We may have to resort to calculations, a process of tautological transformation, but as with all tautologies it is still a statement framed in a way so that it cannot be denied. The truth is contained within the proposition, which is why I say that for something to be the case in reality it must be evident outside of the tautology, for tautologies can give us no new or certain information about the world. I’m interested to know why you seem to disagree with this.

I don't see how this is a defeater of the argument.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't see how this is a defeater of the argument.

If "God exists" is a necessary truth, then it is a tautology- which means that it does not tell us anything about the empirical world, including what exists in it. So if "God exists" is a necessary truth, it does not tell us that God exists in the empirical world. This is a poor result.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If "God exists" is a necessary truth, then it is a tautology- which means that it does not tell us anything about the empirical world

That is because the empirical world is irrelevant to the argument.

, including what exists in it.

Irrelevant

So if "God exists" is a necessary truth, it does not tell us that God exists in the empirical world. This is a poor result.

Irrelevant

 

[idav]

I don't see how this is a defeater of the argument.

Cause it doesn't work. If it is possibly raining then it is necessarily raining? I don't think so maybe in another parallel universe? It is also possible that it isn't raining. It is incoherent to say that if it is possibly raining then it is necessarily raining in all possible worlds. It simply is false cause it isn't raining all the time, and the mere possibility of it doesn't change that fact. You just invoke your magical being which brings in the paradox that needs to be avoided cause the being has to contradict itself in order to make everything possible and actual at the same time. The maximal being doesn't solve the issue it makes it worse.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is because the empirical world is irrelevant to the argument.



Irrelevant



Irrelevant

Once again showing you don't understand what's going on. Here's a hint: we live in "the empirical world". If necessary truths are tautologies (they are), then they do not tell us any factual information about the empirical world- including what exists in it. Thus, any argument that "God exists" is a necessary truth would not be able to establish that God exists in the empirical world. In other words, its about as relevant as it gets in this context, and this is why it would be a defeater for the MOA (as would any of the other things that have been brought up).

 

[Mikemikev]

evolution is a hoax, Darwin denied human races existed but we all know they do exist. creationists have got it correct. evolution is political correct claiming we are all related and that's the only reason it is supported it has no scientific evidence. there's no macroevolution.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes, its all a big conspiracy- aliens planted evidence of evolution, with assistance from the CIA, the mafia, and underpants gnomes. Derp.

 

[Ouroboros]

Darwin denied human races existed but we all know they do exist.

He denied that human races existed? You mean the literal term "race"? It's a controversial term and has gone in and out of favor in anthropology, sociology, and biology. It depends on what it really means.

Darwin proposed that all humans share ancestry, but he did divide the human species in races depending on features.

See this article for a more detailed exposition of race and Darwin's view: Darwin, race and gender

creationists have got it correct.

Which one? There are many different creationist views, and not only Christians have a creation story. There are other religions and beliefs that hold other versions of creation.

evolution is political correct claiming we are all related and that's the only reason it is supported it has no scientific evidence.

That's just crazy talk.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, its all a big conspiracy- aliens planted evidence of evolution, with assistance from the CIA, the mafia, and underpants gnomes. Derp.

I don't know about yours, but my underpants gnome is a sneaky little bugger.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know about yours, but my underpants gnome is a sneaky little bugger.

They also steal socks from the laundry machine.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Once again showing you don't understand what's going on. Here's a hint: we live in "the empirical world". If necessary truths are tautologies (they are), then they do not tell us any factual information about the empirical world- including what exists in it. Thus, any argument that "God exists" is a necessary truth would not be able to establish that God exists in the empirical world. In other words, its about as relevant as it gets in this context, and this is why it would be a defeater for the MOA (as would any of the other things that have been brought up).

Dude...the empirical world began to exist, and a external cause is absolutely NECESSARY. Not only is it possible for a MGB to exist, but it is absoutely NECESSARY for a MGB to exist...based on the fact that the only other alternative is completely absurd (infinite regression).

No escape. I can care less about tautologies and all of that other stuff. What you NEED to do is find out a way at which an infinite chain of events can be traversed, which is exactly what you have to believe if you negate a First Cause. Until then, you have no argument, nor do you offer a defeater of the argument.

 

[shawn001]

evolution is a hoax, Darwin denied human races existed but we all know they do exist. creationists have got it correct. evolution is political correct claiming we are all related and that's the only reason it is supported it has no scientific evidence. there's no macroevolution.

Mikemikev, I don't know what planet you live on, but this is Earth. All animals evolved, the entire universe has evolved and there are billions of facts to support the theory of Evolution. Which is both a fact and a theory.

"NEIL SHUBIN: Darwin didn't even know about molecular biology and DNA, yet that's where some of the most profound evidence is being uncovered today. Think about that. That somebody in the 1800s made predictions that are being confirmed in molecular biology labs today. That's a very profound statement of a very successful theory.

KENNETH R. MILLER: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory, and that's what evolution is."


NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial


Humans Still Evolving as Our Brains Shrink

Humans Still Evolving as Our Brains Shrink | LiveScience



Humans Really Are Still Evolving, Study Finds

Humans Really Are Still Evolving, Study Finds | Natural Selection & Darwinian Evolution | LiveScience

 

[shawn001]

Human Origins: Evidence of Human Evolution

Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History

Dr. Rick Potts provides a video short introduction to some of the evidence for human evolution, in the form of fossils and artifacts.

[youtube]RQ7VUZHwbEk[/youtube]
Human Origins: Evidence of Human Evolution - YouTube


"However, the established scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis. For example, a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin"