And it's all absolutely absurd, and cannot be believed by a person possessing critical thinking skills.
Discussion
Can a person possessing critical thinking skills believe all this something came from nothing, that all this order came from disorder, or that beauty and harmony and proportion, or that math, came from...chance?
Personhood springs not from rocks.
Your magnet's not quite pointing North, is it?
Can a person with "critical thinking skills" see that the laws of probability render evolutionary theory impossible?
Perhaps when you say "critical thinking skills" you mean "cognitive dissonance."
I don't mean to be disrespectful but you apparently don't understand how evolution works, go find a 10th grade biology textbook. You might find the argument you're making is nonsensical given how evolution by natural selection actually works.
I know how the reproductive system works, and the probability of two "beneficial" mutations happening in opposite genders at the same time in the same place such that they are able to reproduce that mutation in another generation defies all mathematical probability. DNA only comes from DNA.
"A little bit of science drives a man from God; a lot more science drives him right back."
It's got nothing to do with mathematical probability, evolution is not pure chance it's the opposite of that actually. The currently accepted theory is that the DNA double helix evolved from a simpler version a self-replicating single strand RNA.
> "A little bit of science drives a man from God; a lot more science drives him right back."
Is that where the case you'd expect groups like the national academy of sciences to be the most religious not the least. Same for the most educated countries. Meanwhile the population with the least percentage of atheists: prisons.
If chance is at the helm of reality and history, there can be no science, no math, no probability, no persistence of personhood, nothing persists and so nothing remains. But even then I'm applying logic to a realm of chance wherein logic does not and cannot exist.
> If chance is at the helm of reality and history, there can be no science, no math, no probability, no persistence of personhood,...
Nonsense, lots of things might be set up by chance like the fundamental constants of nature, but that does not preclude us from discovering the laws of physics and mathematics, and from those laws, everything else.
There no laws if chance governs all.
You clearly didn't understand my comment, go back and reread.
I understood it. If chance governs all, then there can be no "laws" about anything. No predictions can be made. No scientific method could be applied. It cannot be assumed that things will be tomorrow as they have been in the past.
You clearly don't get it, go reread and look up the anthropic principle.
The improbable scenario in which this set of constraints developed entirely by chance, to allow what we see, is difficult to believe. As are most alternative explanations.
As I've already said in other comments, evolution is NOT governed by chance.
Yea I didn't mention evolution. Would not the set of constraints on reality needed to result in what we see necessarily need to arrive by either chance or by design?
The chance part is that we find ourselves in such a condition, among infinite possible conditions. Sure, we could only yak about it here where such things are possible, but it is still improbable from here.
When you look at text books they say one thing. When you get to the real studies, you see the problems with all of the theories that are treated as fact. Not only are almost all mutations harmful and almost all beneficial mutations only slightly beneficial (most, if not all, are actually lost information that makes them survive better in a particular environment, but less fit overall when considering all environments), so they cannot be selected for, but also DNA is so complex that many sections do one thing when read in one direction, another when read backwards, and yet another when you start reading in the middle. A mutation that might be beneficial in one of those spots is pretty much guaranteed to break it when read in another way for another function. Also the mutation rate is putting so many harmful mutations into the genome that, if we had actually been around for millions of years like we're told, we should have so many mutations that nobody should be able to live. Evolution only makes sense when you look at it from a birds eye view and don't look at the details. That doesn't even take into account how nobody has ever even gotten close to figuring out how the first cell came into existence. One of the best proven scientific laws is abiogenesis, life only comes from life and not non-life.
Textbooks are for indoctrination. They have lots of out-of-date science that has been disproven.
When you understand the science behind how all that works, it's even more beautiful; in comparison a magic man in the sky speaking things into existence seems silly and childish.
Science requires the uniformity of nature. Probability too. Without God who sustains the natural laws you presuppose you cannot account for the very thing science needs to exist.
Nonsense, look up the anthropic principle.
You miss the point. You must presuppose the uniformity of nature -- that things will be tomorrow as they have been through today -- in order to draw conclusions and make predictions about how the physical laws will operate. You cannot account for this. Christians can.
Without presupposing our worldview yours cannot function.
That's not true. Religion needn't even be part of the equation regarding the science of this topic. We simply need to acknowledge the fact that we find ourselves in a universe where the fundamental laws of physics are what they are which allows for the development of life on the occasional planet where we happen to find ourselves. That part could be chance, but that's where the anthropic principle comes in. This doesn't mean the laws of physics change, in fact it's evidence thus far that they don't. Conversely, from a religious standpoint, God could decide to change the fundamental laws of nature at any point. We don't see any evidence of this, in fact we see no evidence for God whatsoever.
My point is that you cannot account for "the fundamental laws of physics" without borrowing our worldview. You must assume it to accomplish your science then try to use that science to reject the very foundation your science is built on.
> you cannot account for "the fundamental laws of physics" without borrowing our worldview.
Yes I can, because the fundamental laws of physics _don't need_ to be accounted for, or have a reason, they are simply observed and shown to be the way the natural world works. I don't know how many times I need to say it but look up the anthropic principle and understand how it works / what it explains.
The question is not do you need to account for them in order to make use of their existence. The question is can you account for them?
I can observe and measure them. But if what you're looking for is something along the lines of "purpose" or reason why they are what they are, then there are 2 answers: "I don't know", and "no explanation / random chance". I'm ok with that.
That's my point. Christian theism can account for these things and other worldviews cannot. Meanwhile, the scientific endeavor must assume the conclusions in order to even proceed.
Then I think you're misunderstanding how science works. There is no assumption of conclusions. Good scientific endeavors remove bias and presuppositions by using "double blind" testing methods.
On the other hand, what your christian theism accounts for it does so by just making things up. Your religion is based on the writings of bronze age goat herders, it **must** therefore be assumed to be flawed. There's no way those people back then knew more about the world/universe than we do now.
Yes, you can account for more things. But your knowledgebase is much more likely to be flawed, incorrect, and filled with falsehoods. I for one, would rather just say "I don't know" about something than to try and force in an explanation for which there is no evidence.
Do you assume there is no God when you read Scripture or test possible hypotheses?
Do you include the claims of Christian theism as possible explanations of phenomena?
In one note, you both claimed lack of bias, and argued for bias against Christian theism. You cannot have it both ways.
> Do you assume there is no God when you read Scripture or test possible hypotheses?
Anytime I've been in a position too test possible hypotheses, I've never assumed there isn't a God and I've never assumed there is either. If any god wanted to reveal himself he would know exactly how to do so to make me believe, and yet here I stand, an atheist.
> Do you include the claims of Christian theism as possible explanations of phenomena?
No. While not excluded completely, once eliminated, there's little reason to continue entertaining ideas that do not meet the standards of evidence.
> In one note, you both claimed lack of bias, and argued for bias against Christian theism. You cannot have it both ways.
I don't think so, perhaps you're misunderstanding what I wrote.
You are submerged in evidence for God. His existence and power is clear from the creation outside of you, and your capacity for reason, and your conscience, within.
Wow, now who's assuming. All the things you mentioned have naturalistic explanations which are more probable than simply saying "god did it" which is intellectually lazy BTW.
"Probable" - again, there is no ground for saying anything is more probable than anything else unless you first borrow our worldview which can alone account for the existence, order, and uniformity of natural laws-- which alone provide the basis for probability. How do you even account for your own capacity for reason? I would suggest that saying "I don't need to" is where the intellectual laziness truly lies. Reason and rationality do not spring from rocks. Where did it come from?
> first borrow our worldview
I don't need to borrow from anyone's worldview, science has it's basis in evidence, logic, observation, and testing.
> our worldview which can alone account for the existence, order, and uniformity of natural laws
You're claiming your religion has a monopoly on being able to explain the natural world?
> How do you even account for your own capacity for reason? ... Reason and rationality do not spring from rocks. Where did it come from?
The best explanation is that our capacity to think critically in this manner had an evolutionary advantage and some degree of this was present in some segment of the population of our prehistoric primate ancestors.
Let me turn your own logic around. You say your religious worldview accounts for existence, and therefore everything else (capacity to reason) that springs forth and that existence itself must have a creator, which you call God. So what created God? Isn't it easier to just save a step and assume the universe always existed? Or if God can just will a universe into being out of nothing, isn't it easier to save a step and say sometimes a universe popping (big bang) into existence spontaneously is bound to happen eventually?
The capacity to think critically cannot spring from rocks or primordial goo. Something cannot come from nothing. Even scientists know this. I think it's intellectually lazy to skip steps and choose what's "easier" because I'm after what's actually true (regardless of what I want to be true).
What is the ground of logic?
What is the source of rationality?
What are the necessary preconditions of the intelligibility that you seek to discover via experimentation and observation?
What is the metaphysical basis for assuming that what is observed today will persist tomorrow?
You cannot account for the very things required to execute your scientific endeavor.
Christian theism can.
> The capacity to think critically cannot spring from rocks or primordial goo. Something cannot come from nothing.
You're misrepresenting evolution here by doing the very thing you accuse me of doing, skipping steps. Please learn how evolution actually works before criticizing it.
> What is the ground of logic? What is the source of rationality? What are the necessary preconditions of the intelligibility that you seek to discover via experimentation and observation?
These questions are almost nonsensical. Logic, rationality, intelligibility, observation all occur in the mind. The ability to understand and think about these topics is something humans have evolved to do, not because philosophy is evolutionarily advantageous, but higher brain function in general was.
> What is the metaphysical basis for assuming that what is observed today will persist tomorrow?
There is no such thing as the "metaphysical". At least so far no demonstrable evidence anything metaphysical exists. But if you have such evidence why waste time talking to me. Present it to the scientific community and claim your nobel prize.
> Christian theism can.
Look if your religion makes you feel better good for you. I happen to think the Christian religion (along with most other religions for that matter) do more harm than good in the world, and I will speak out against it whenever I have the opportunity.
Are you saying that evolution *doesn't* teach that such cognitive capacities sprung from non-sentient matter to sentient matter by the addition of time plus chance, though guided along by natural selection and survival of the fittest?
Are you saying that evolution *doesn't* teach that "water rose above its source" by a slow and gradual accretion of beneficial mutations?
Perhaps you're right and Darwin has been rejected.
There is no such thing as the metaphysical?
How have you arrived at this conclusion with such certainty? How do you know with such certainty that something doesn't exist unless you can observe or measure it? Can you observe or measure that claim itself?
You set up a straw-man by how you represented evolution and now you're giving a *more* accurate version of it for the purpose of...playing some kind of dishonest word game? So you do know how it works but your playing dumb just to argue for arguing sake? If you're just going to be a troll like that other guy you can fuck off.
Oh and don't forget I said that _so far_ there's no evidence for the metaphysical. So I'm not making the claim. The theists are claiming the metaphysical exists, so the burden of proof lies with them; AKA you.
No, not at all: my shortcut for the above is "personhood/rationality doesn't spring from rocks" - no matter how much time and chance you add. Order does not come from disorder, and sentience cannot come from the non- sentient. I'm not arguing for argument's sake. Like you, I think this question is of utmost importance.
I'm also not trying to prove to you that God exists (I don't need to) because God has already revealed that to you. And he has told us that every one knows he exists but repress that knowledge. My purpose would be closer to reminding you what already know.
> no matter how much time and chance you add. Order does not come from disorder, and sentience cannot come from the non- sentient.
It's not time and chance, it's time and reproduction, little by little, bit by bit, there are many intermediate steps which can ultimately give rise to the emergence of something like sentience.
> because God has already revealed that to you.
No, nothing has been "revealed" to me.
> every one knows he exists but repress that knowledge.
I'm not repressing anything, and that's quite presumptuous to assume something like that about another person without knowing them.
> My purpose would be closer to reminding you what already know.
Then you're wasting your time, and perhaps so am I.
To add to this, one of the best proven laws in all of science is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that entropy always increases in a closed system. In other words things go from order to disorder, but evolution is disorder going to greater order. It is contrary to science. It only happens when an intelligence acts on the disorder to order it. In the case of a car or house, it is people creating the order. In the case of life, it is God creating the order. There are zero cases witnessed of information being added to a life form for benefit. The few mutations that have been seen that give a benefit are due to loss of information that gives that lifeform a benefit in one particular environment (usually a lab) but makes it less fit in the general environment of the whole world. Evolution is based on a desire to disprove a need for God and is based on stories. Even the idea of natural selection is just replacing God with nature. Nature can't select anything and definitely can't select a trait that will eventually lead to a benefit when combined with other future mutation. Yes, a few mutations give a benefit, but they are losses of information, not gains of information. Information (including the information in DNA) only comes from an intelligent mind.
With some handwaving arguments and millions of years, evolutionists can make evolution seem plausible, but when looked at in detail, it makes less sense. Evolutionists have also pretty much given up on showing how nonlife can become life because all attempts have failed so miserably. If they can't show that life can come from non-life then the whole theory falls apart completely.
If man is a chemical accident that happens by physical laws, why do you trust your observations? They could just be random chemical reactions. Why do you trust your logic? Isn't it just random reactions? Why do you even trust the laws of logic. If everything is true simply by way of physical processes, why would you believe in logic which is of the mind?
Why does every culture believe murder is wrong if evolution is just survival of the fittest? Wouldn't killing off the weak be good if Darwinian Evolution is true?
In response to your last point about a universe popping into existence, if you know physics well, that is impossible. Everything has a cause. God is the first cause. He works because He is outside time and space and isn't limited by the physical law.
There are so many things in life that are irreducibly complex, that it is incomprehensible that these things could "evolve" even once. Many of them are said to have "evolved" independently multiple times. One irreducibly complex system that makes zero logical sense that it could evolve on its own is sexual reproduction. Unrelated organisms can't reproduce together. You would have to have a male something (particular species/genera/family) evolve a whole male reproductive system in the same location and at the same time as a female of the same species/genera/family evolve a whole female reproductive system through random mutations. If you have studied the complexity of those systems, there is zero chance of that happening. It is illogical.
There are a lot of interesting points here, too many to respond to in this format, as I simply don't have the time.
