Why I am not an atheist.

[ppp]

To give sound evidence for what I would like to show, requires that people can free themselves from tautological thinking.

For instance, I just wrote a long

I didn't ask. And I am not going to wade through ramble or preamble. You claim that it is provable that human intelligence is incompatible with there being no pre-existing purpose in nature. Prove it, or pound sand.

 

[John D. Brey]

You think everything is a freaking tautology.

You can't find a single one that matches the definition.

Telling others they don't know how to
think will get you nowhere, and the
less so for the example you give.

IF you can think clearly, show it by
dropping this " tautology" bs, and
just state your case in a few simple declarative
sentences.

If you cannot, it just reconfirms that you
don't know what you are talking about.

In claiming that water means life, NASA scientists are . . . making---- tacitly--- a huge and profound assumption about the nature of nature. They are saying in effect, that the laws of the universe are cunningly contrived to coax life into being against the raw odds; that the mathematical principles of physics, in their elegant simplicity, somehow know in advance about life and its vast complexity. If life follows from [primordial] soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: "Make life!" And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means that the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension. This is a breathtaking vision of nature, magnificent and uplifting in its majestic sweep. I hope it is correct. It would be wonderful if it were correct. But if it is, it represents a shift in the scientific world-view as profound as that initiated by Copernicus and Darwin put together.

Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle.​

John

 

[Audie]

In claiming that water means life, NASA scientists are . . . making---- tacitly--- a huge and profound assumption about the nature of nature. They are saying in effect, that the laws of the universe are cunningly contrived to coax life into being against the raw odds; that the mathematical principles of physics, in their elegant simplicity, somehow know in advance about life and its vast complexity. If life follows from [primordial] soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: "Make life!" And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means that the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension. This is a breathtaking vision of nature, magnificent and uplifting in its majestic sweep. I hope it is correct. It would be wonderful if it were correct. But if it is, it represents a shift in the scientific world-view as profound as that initiated by Copernicus and Darwin put together.

Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle.​

I have "evidence" that the worldview above is correct. And I'm thus aware that it represents a transcendence of the current worldview larger than the one initiated by Copernicus and Darwin combined.

It's even fair to say it's the final dramatic shift in human understanding before the arrival of a new kind of life no longer tethered to biology.



John

Also, before trying to tell others how to think,
you try to THINK about responding on topic.

Trying to keep up with your leaps is much like
trying to chase a squirrel through the treetops.

 

[John D. Brey]

I didn't ask. And I am not going to wade through ramble or preamble. You claim that it is provable that human intelligence is incompatible with there being no pre-existing purpose in nature. Prove it, or pound sand.

It takes two to tango. I'm still looking for a partner wallflower. <s>



John

 

[Audie]

It takes two to tango. I'm still looking for a partner wallflower. <s>



John

You should go somewhere else now.

 

[ppp]

It takes two to tango. I'm still looking for a partner wallflower. <s>

Have you even danced a tango, John? If you had, you would know that tango is a direct and to the point dance. Brutally terse and forthright in its communication. You are not interested in a tango. You, John, want to be the maiden dancing alone in the meadow while the gods watch lustfully from the shadows of the surrounding forest.

You claim that it is provable that human intelligence is incompatible with there being no pre-existing purpose in nature. Prove it, or pound sand.

 

[ratiocinator]

If that were true we wouldn't have so many books, including Freedom Evolves, attempting to make sense of what's already well-known.

Again, you're confusing different issues. Freedom evolves isn't about justifying evolution itself, it's about the nature of 'free will'. Have actually, really read it at all?

So well-intentioned people who don't see evidence for an extra, or supernatural assistant to nature, make the fatal leap in logic that since they don't see evidence for the supernatural assistant to nature, they can be so sure that nature has a way to arrive at the thoughtfulness and mindfulness of the human brain, that no evidence of how it arose need occur since there's no evidence that it didn't occur naturally. They turn lack of evidence of an alternative to nature doing all the work, into evidence not just that, nature did, it but how.

Even though we see no evidence for a supernatural assistant to nature, neither do we have evidence for how thoughtless, mindless, processes could arrive at something like the human brain

You're just emphasising your own complete misunderstanding. Evolution is, in no way at all, based on the assumption of no supernatural designer. It doesn't even rule one out.

 

[John D. Brey]

You seem to be mixing up a lot of different things. There is the well established theory of evolution that explains how we got from simple organisms up to complicated ones with impressive capabilities, like using tools and so on.

There's an important difference between "showing" that something happened, versus "explaining" how it happened. At best, the theory of evolution shows that living organisms evolved through incremental changes that proved fortuitous to survival, and thus allowed them to reproduce, and thus survive.

Still, rocks don't seem to want either to survive nor even breed. They just sit there aeon after aeon. They don't even get a rise when a female rock is sitting right next to them.

Science doesn't explain why a rock is celibate while rabbits go at it like . . . well . . . rabbits.

It's simply a fact that the theory of evolution is no more based on the assumption of no creator/designer than the theory of gravity is. Or, for that matter, that the theory of gravity is based on the assumption that there are no supernatural pixies called Eric, whose sole pleasure in life is pulling massive things towards each other.

There wouldn't be a theory of gravity if there wasn't sentience. There might not even be gravity without sentience if some scientific theories are correct.

And I would say the fundamental distinction between living organisms versus non-living things is as great as the distinction between theism and atheism. I suppose we could solve the problem through a solution to either dichotomy.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I bet your idea could be written in a hundred
words.

They say if you can't explain your idea in
simple terms, you don't really understand
it yourself.

Please try!

Like this-
Spaceships are products of intelligent design

From this i think its implied that intelligence
evolved.

I don't think Dennet explains it to my satisfaction.

Have you ever heard that James Bay song Let it Go, " . . . so come on, let it go, just let it be, why don't you be you, and I'll be me . . .."

John

 

[Audie]

There's an important difference between "showing" that something happened, versus "explaining" how it happened. At best, the theory of evolution shows that living organisms evolved through incremental changes that proved fortuitous to survival, and thus allowed them to reproduce, and thus survive.

Still, rocks don't seem to want either to survive nor even breed. They just sit there aeon after aeon. They don't even get a rise when a female rock is sitting right next to them.

Science doesn't explain why a rock is celibate while rabbits go at it like . . . well . . . rabbits.



There wouldn't be a theory of gravity if there wasn't sentience. There might not even be gravity without sentience if some scientific theories are correct.

And I would say the fundamental distinction between living organisms versus non-living things is as great as the distinction between theism and atheism. I suppose we could solve the problem through a solution to either dichotomy.



John

You would say that, but you absolutely cannot
identify the difference.

Its ok, no biologist can identify a bright, line distinction.

But they know that, and, you dont.

 

[John D. Brey]

You don't have a theory. Theories require a set of facts.

Red is a color.
Dog's generally bark.
Tree's often have bark.

In a lecture Popper told his audience that science requires more than facts and observations. He told them to make a list of every observation they made for the whole of their life and include any factual recall they had about them and submit it to the Royale Academy of Science so they can throw it in the trash.

Science requires the imagination to move beyond inductive (factual) inferences, beyond tautological (fatally factual) thinking, and into true creative existence.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

Albert Einstein​

John

 

[Audie]

Have you ever heard that James Bay song Let it Go, " . . . so come on, let it go, just let it be, why don't you be you, and I'll be me . . .."

John

Good suggestion. Been thinking of
putting you on ig so I won't be tempted to
respond to your intractable ignorance-on- display. Bye.

 

[John D. Brey]

Again, you're confusing different issues. Freedom evolves isn't about justifying evolution itself, it's about the nature of 'free will'. Have actually, really read it at all?

Have you read any of this thread at all? It's partwise about the interrelationship between evolutionary theory versus the human free will and sentience that even Dennett admits is difficult to correlate with standard evolutionary theory.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Good suggestion. Been thinking of
putting you on ig so I won't be tempted to
respond to your intractable ignorance-on- display. Bye.

That's a perfect way for you to be you, and let me be me, since I've never put anyone on ignore ever, and never will. For me, but naturally not for you, it signifies arrogance and impatience, among other gnarly vices.

For me, threatening to put someone on ignore is just plain ignore-rant.



John

 

[ratiocinator]

It's partwise about the interrelationship between evolutionary theory versus the human free will and sentience that even Dennett admits is difficult to correlate with standard evolutionary theory.

Consciousness is a mystery regardless of evolutionary theory and Dennett is promoting his own ideas. Free will is another matter and the debate is more about whether compatibilism is 'real' free will or if free will is just an illusion. Either way there is no problem with evolution. The idea that human brains evolved and do what they do is entirely uncontroversial.

 

[John D. Brey]

You're just emphasising your own complete misunderstanding.

I'd say I'm emphasizing the difference between my understanding and yours. I doubt either of us are the criteria for complete understanding.

Evolution is, in no way at all, based on the assumption of no supernatural designer. It doesn't even rule one out.

Since I believe in one interpretation of the theory of evolution, i.e., that living things evolve, I'd naturally agree that that theory doesn't rule out God.

As you yourself note, the theory of evolution doesn't have an answer (yet) for how life, or even the universe, came to exist as it does. Even as science doesn't know who wrote the law of gravity?

Unfortunately, it's kind of a cheezy ploy to take life, and the universe, as a given, and then hypothesize that since life, and the universe, evolve, evolution is in any way related to the genesis or existence of life, or the universe.

So why do so many atheists get all excited about Darwinism, or evolution as a theory, as though it refutes the need for a designer or creator? All it does is explain how, once you have life, and a universe, those two things (that look like they were designed), lead to evolution.



John

 

[ratiocinator]

As you yourself note, the theory of evolution doesn't have an answer (yet) for how life, or even the universe, came to exist as it does.

Those questions are entirely outside its scope.

Even as science doesn't know who wrote the law of gravity?

'Who' is begging the question.

Unfortunately, it's kind of a cheezy ploy to take life, and the universe, as a given, and then hypothesize that since life, and the universe, evolve, evolution is in any way related to the genesis or existence of life, or the universe.

Cheesy? It's just plain wrong.

So why do so many atheists get all excited about Darwinism, or evolution as a theory, as though it refutes the need for a designer or creator?

Begging the question again. You talk as if there's a need in the first place. Postulating a designer just leads to infinite regress (which is where theists wheel in the special pleading).

 

[John D. Brey]

Consciousness is a mystery regardless of evolutionary theory and Dennett is promoting his own ideas. Free will is another matter and the debate is more about whether compatibilism is 'real' free will or if free will is just an illusion. Either way there is no problem with evolution. The idea that human brains evolved and do what they do is entirely uncontroversial.

Right. That's a tautology though: What do brains do? the things brains do.

Here's another: Because things evolved, we know evolution occurred. And another: We know evolution occurred, because things evolved.

Here's the worst one yet: why did things evolve? because of the laws of physics.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

You would say that, but you absolutely cannot
identify the difference.

Its ok, no biologist can identify a bright, line distinction.

But they know that, and, you dont.

Actually, I recently pointed out to someone that the distinction between living organisms versus non-living things is a distinction like the distinction between atheism and theism.

Eliminate the chasm between either dichotomy and I hypothesize you'll have destroyed both dichotomies.

That's what I was prepared to attempt. Jerusalem, O' Jerusalem, how often I would have liked to take you under my wing like a mother goose but you weren't interested and now that time has past.



John

 

[ratiocinator]

Right. That's a tautology though: What do brains do? the things brains do.

We all know the sorts of things brains do. Do you really need a list?

Here's another: Because things evolved, we know evolution occurred. And another: We know evolution occurred, because things evolved.

Nonsense. We 'know' (as much as we can know anything in science) things evolved because of the evidence.

Here's the worst one yet: why did things evolve? because of the laws of physics.

Not really, at least not directly. Things evolve because they reproduce with inheritance and variation, when there are finite resources so not all individuals survive and reproduce.

There are no tautologies - just your own convoluted misunderstandings and apparent desperation to find fault.