Theistic Evolution - Insight & Answers

[madness]

- You advocate an emergent view of consciousness. This is a holistic theory. The apparent incompatability of reversible microphysics and the arrow of time is an example of holism. The treatment of whole systems in quantum mechanics is an example of holism. You yourself said that the observer must be treated as part of the system. The list goes on.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not objective because it is based no empirical facts. It is an a priori argument.
- Note also that falsifiabilty is not falsifiable, yet you do not reject it.
- You have not proven anything about induction. As far as I can tell you do not understand what induction is. There is no reference to the supernatural in induction. Once again you have not addressed any of my points.

 

[SixNein]

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

Diet coke version:
It's open ended, and origins will never be fully explained.

Hardcore Version:
I can construct statements in mathematics that cannot be proven. If I can construct statements that cannot be proven, I can ask questions about philosophy that have no answers.

Does God exist?

The question about existence of God is impossible to prove. Since the question is impossible to prove, many people feel there is no God; however, I can ask a simple question about mathematics that you cannot prove. Is set theory consistent? If you prove set theory to be consistent, you are inconsistent. By the same logic being used by atheist, set theory is inconsistent because it cannot be proven to be consistent.

Because something cannot be proven, it does not necessarily mean not true. The problem is undecidable, and you have to accept it one way or another on faith.

"God exists because mathematics is undoubtedly consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove the consistency" - Hermann WeylDid God use evolution?

The problem is opened ended again because of God in the statement. Can you truly visualize this number: 2i^i? Let's be honest, anything to do with infinity is very poorly understood. At best, we can say there is different sizes of infinity; however, we do not understand infinity. If you think you understand infinity, you are hopelessly lost, and you have never seen the limitations of the human mind.

Creation of the universe...

If mathematics is inexhaustible, what does that tell us about our universe? I personally view it as a hint, and I believe we know next to nothing about our universe.

I believe the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite, it does not mean it cannot expand.

 

[Hurkyl]

Lets be honest, anything to do with infinity is very poorly understood.

Only by those that understand it poorly.

 

[SixNein]

Only by those that understand it poorly.

I declare you null! =P

 

[JoeDawg]

Because something cannot be proven, it does not necessarily mean not true. The problem is undecidable, and you have to accept it one way or another on faith.

Faith is belief without evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence.

Not believing in something does not require faith.

Equivocating religious faith with evidence based belief is hugely dishonest.
They are completely different standards.

 

[SixNein]

Faith is belief without evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence.

Not believing in something does not require faith.

Equivocating religious faith with evidence based belief is hugely dishonest.
They are completely different standards.

The mathematical question was proven to be undecidable. I'm making the assumption that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God. Unless you feel you can prove or disprove the existence of God, I think it is fair to say these questions are very much alike.

I could argue that I am evidence for the existence of God; however, I would not be one step closer to proving the existence of God. I could also argue the usefulness of set theory is evidence of it's consistency; however, I would not be one step closer to proving it consistent.

 

[JoeDawg]

Unless you feel you can prove or disprove the existence of God

Its a huge mistake to imply that the existence of anything can be 'proved' or disproved.

Proof is mathematical concept, given certain premises (assumptions), one can prove things via logical constraints. But all of these things are on the level of abstraction and whether they are proved or not, your premises could be faulty, which makes your proof useless.

The word can also be used in a much looser sense with regards to matters of law and such.

Empirical science doesn't prove anything.
Science deals with observational evidence and probability.
The more non-conflicting evidence we have for a theory the more concrete that theory.

Religious faith deals with revealed truths. Belief in gods, faith, demands no evidence or logic. So you are misusing concepts.

Also, you haven't bothered to define which god you are talking about. One can very easily show via historical evidence, human psychology, and the physical sciences how self-contradicting, unsupported by the evidence, and down right nonsensical, most religious traditions are.

But people don't believe in Jesus, Allah, and Buddha based on evidence or logical proof.
They believe based on feelings, emotions, and instinctive needs. That is the essence of faith. Science and mathematics are completely different.

The standards are not the same.

 

[drizzle]

this is a logic talk about that issue by a guy called rajabali
[you can skip the religious introduction and start from about 7:10]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1dwXEV51E

 

[madness]

I disagree that not believing in something does not require faith. Remaining agnostic does not require faith but to actually assert that God does not exist does require faith. Do you then think that believing in freewill requires faith while not believing in it doesn't? I think the distinction between believing in something and not believing in it is semantic. For example consider Arabic, where instead of the verb "to be", they have the verb "to not be". Then in order to say you believe anything you have to say you don't not believe in it.

 

[JoeDawg]

I disagree that not believing in something does not require faith. Remaining agnostic does not require faith but to actually assert that God does not exist does require faith.

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, not belief.
Having faith in something means, no amount of evidence or logic would change your mind.

Do you then think that believing in freewill requires faith while not believing in it doesn't?

As long as one is willing to accept new information on a subject, its not a matter of faith. Even if one is extremely agnostic on the subject and doesn't believe knowledge of said thing is really possible. All scientific belief is tentative, even when we have huge amounts of evidence. All logic is based on premises, which are simply assumptions of one kind or another. The fact a person has confidence based on evidence or logic, is not the same as faith. If one has faith is something, the matter is closed, because it has been divinely revealed as truth.

People who compare religious faith to belief based on evidence or logic usually do so to justify their faith. Faith has no justification. You either believe or you don't.

Not believing requires no such commitment. I could 'not believe' in Jesus, simply because I have never heard of him. That is hardly the same as faith.

 

[SixNein]

Its a huge mistake to imply that the existence of anything can be 'proved' or disproved.

Proof is mathematical concept, given certain premises (assumptions), one can prove things via logical constraints. But all of these things are on the level of abstraction and whether they are proved or not, your premises could be faulty, which makes your proof useless.

The word can also be used in a much looser sense with regards to matters of law and such.

Empirical science doesn't prove anything.
Science deals with observational evidence and probability.
The more non-conflicting evidence we have for a theory the more concrete that theory.

Religious faith deals with revealed truths. Belief in gods, faith, demands no evidence or logic. So you are misusing concepts.

Also, you haven't bothered to define which god you are talking about. One can very easily show via historical evidence, human psychology, and the physical sciences how self-contradicting, unsupported by the evidence, and down right nonsensical, most religious traditions are.

But people don't believe in Jesus, Allah, and Buddha based on evidence or logical proof.
They believe based on feelings, emotions, and instinctive needs. That is the essence of faith. Science and mathematics are completely different.

The standards are not the same.

God/Jesus and Allah/Muhammad are both religions based upon Judaism. So those three religions discuss the same God. Bud is an eastern religion that I know very little about. With all of your talk about nonsense, a layman would be surprised that the ethics of modern day society is rooted in religion.

A mathematical proof is far more rigorous then physical theories. A mathematical proof has to account for every possibility. If one possibility is left out, a proof is not valid. I can also take mathematical questions and turn them into physical questions.

Proofs are used in physics as well. For example, black holes were mathematically proven to exist long before observations of them. When presented mathematical information about black holes, Einstein famously said: "Your math is right but your physics is wrong."

Question: If mathematics was to disappear, would the disappearance effect the universe?

Not believing in God requires just as much faith as believing. The question of God is undecidable. If you take a stance, you are believing a proposition.

 

[JoeDawg]

God/Jesus and Allah/Muhammad are both religions based upon Judaism.

Loosely based. They have hugely different worldviews.

So those three religions discuss the same God.

They all claim monotheism. The fact they all claim one god, doesn't mean their conception of that god is the same. Their theology can be very different.

With all of your talk about nonsense, a layman would be surprised that the ethics of modern day society is rooted in religion.

Democracy comes from pagan Greece, our modern idea of human rights, from the Enlightenment Europe, and our individualistic ideas from things like the American constitution, which advocated separation of church and state... and for very good reason.

Our ethics are rooted in our nature as social animals, our instinct for compassion, and self-preservation. Religions are an expression of our ethical beliefs.

A mathematical proof is far more rigorous then physical theories. A mathematical proof has to account for every possibility. If one possibility is left out, a proof is not valid. I can also take mathematical questions and turn them into physical questions.

And if your premises are wrong, your rigorous math is useless. Empirical data is much more useful in the day to day world.

Question: If mathematics was to disappear, would the disappearance effect the universe?

Since mathematics is a human invention, abstractions derived from observed data, and most people would say the universe has been around longer than humans... its a pretty easy question to answer.

Not believing in God requires just as much faith as believing.

Nope, really doesn't. A rock is an atheist, and so is newborn baby. They don't have any belief in gods.

 

[SixNein]

Loosely based. They have hugely different worldviews.

They all claim monotheism. The fact they all claim one god, doesn't mean their conception of that god is the same. Their theology can be very different.

They are more similar then you may think. People have a religious doctrine, but they don't typical follow it. Jesus preached endlessly about pacifism, but many Christians do not follow it; instead, they hold to a belief in force. Much of your argument is placed around a stereotype, and it is not based upon the doctrine itself. Einstein once remarked if people practiced the teachings, it could end most of the worlds social problems.

Democracy comes from pagan Greece, our modern idea of human rights, from the Enlightenment Europe, and our individualistic ideas from things like the American constitution, which advocated separation of church and state... and for very good reason.

All men were created equal? Much of the philosophical ideologies of right and wrong have roots in religion.

Our ethics are rooted in our nature as social animals, our instinct for compassion, and self-preservation. Religions are an expression of our ethical beliefs.

Instinct of compassion? Do I honestly need to explore practices of many different societies? Sparta for example?

And if your premises are wrong, your rigorous math is useless. Empirical data is much more useful in the day to day world.

If mathematics is wrong, physics is wrong; therefore, your empirical data is useless.

Since mathematics is a human invention, abstractions derived from observed data, and most people would say the universe has been around longer than humans... its a pretty easy question to answer.

I'm a realist myself.

Nope, really doesn't. A rock is an atheist, and so is newborn baby. They don't have any belief in gods.

Continuum Hypothesis, Do you believe it is true or false?

If you say false, you do so on an act of faith.
If you say true, you do so on an act of faith.
If you say don't know, you are undecided.

God Exists, do you believe this statement is true or false?

If you say false, you do so on an act of faith.
If you say true, you do so on an act of faith.
If you say don't know, you are undecided.

Faith is believing something uncertain is true or false.

 

[JoeDawg]

They are more similar then you may think.

They all claim Abraham and monotheism. That's about it for similarity.

Much of the philosophical ideologies of right and wrong have roots in religion.

Your opinion. The facts are all societies have ethics rooted in the fact we are social animals.

Instinct of compassion?

This is a social animal thing. Dogs, cats, chimps, all have this to one degree or another.

If mathematics is wrong

You are not reading what I wrote. Mathematics can be useful, but its usefulness is dependent on the validity of the premises one uses.

Faith is about believing without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
This is not science or mathematics.

 

[SixNein]

They all claim Abraham and monotheism. That's about it for similarity.

Your opinion. The facts are all societies have ethics rooted in the fact we are social animals.

This is a social animal thing. Dogs, cats, chimps, all have this to one degree or another.

You are not reading what I wrote. Mathematics can be useful, but its usefulness is dependent on the validity of the premises one uses.

Faith is about believing without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
This is not science or mathematics.

Was it ethical for Sparta to kill babies deemed unfit to be Spartans? Was it ethical for Sparta to encourage young Spartans to kill slaves as a test of manhood? How about all the countless genocides that have taken place?

Do you agree with the following?
If you say God does not exist, then you have committed an act of faith.
If you say God does exist, then you have committed an act of faith.

If you don't agree, then you are an illogical creature. =p

 

[madness]

JoeDawg, I can understand your point, but I think you are using a strong form the word faith. Is it not possible for someone to believe in God, but to accept the possibility that their belief is wrong, and be willing to accept new evidence? This would really be no different to believing in freewill. Of course if you define faith to mean that they believe it unquestioningly and beyond normal reason then it is a different matter.

 

[swat4life]

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, not belief.
Having faith in something means, no amount of evidence or logic would change your mind.


As long as one is willing to accept new information on a subject, its not a matter of faith. Even if one is extremely agnostic on the subject and doesn't believe knowledge of said thing is really possible. All scientific belief is tentative, even when we have huge amounts of evidence. All logic is based on premises, which are simply assumptions of one kind or another. The fact a person has confidence based on evidence or logic, is not the same as faith. If one has faith is something, the matter is closed, because it has been divinely revealed as truth.

People who compare religious faith to belief based on evidence or logic usually do so to justify their faith. Faith has no justification. You either believe or you don't.

Not believing requires no such commitment. I could 'not believe' in Jesus, simply because I have never heard of him. That is hardly the same as faith.

God this is insightful. Thanks for sharing!

I swear without any jest that I'm going to print this out in about 30 seconds.


The thing that struck me harder than the old Eurostar train is this statement:

"All scientific belief is tentative, even when we have huge amounts of evidence. All logic is based on premises, which are simply assumptions of one kind or another."

The ideas that immediately came to mind are:
-Life in general is largely built on a set of assumptions so deeply held we hardly ever question them

-How often does the average person question the fundamental, deeply held assumptions they hold surrounding almost any aspect of life - esp. scientific assumptions?


-How emotionally attached are scientists to the assumptions they've pretty much accepted as true and how much of scientific progress, enlightenment, etc. is diminished or enhanced by scientists' willingness or unwillingness to question standard assumptions (esp. if the individuals, institutions, etc. who came up with those assumptions are the ones who are called upon to change them!)

Thanks again for this most enlightening post...

 

[swat4life]

this is a logic talk about that issue by a guy called rajabali
[you can skip the religious introduction and start from about 7:10]

I'm watching this now. Part of the reason why I do this is to expand my mind. There are so many misconceptions and stereotypes about muslims,as I am not one, I know that see stuff like this helps me fill my mind with alternative bits of information to combat the junk that's no doubt in there due to societal osmosis.

Secondly, I'm paying close attention to his logical arguments and fundamental premises...

 

[JoeDawg]

Was it ethical for Sparta to kill babies deemed unfit to be Spartans?

Those evil spartans.

Have you read the Bible or the Qur'an?
How ethical is it for a god to kill the first born children of entire cities?
Or have its followers kill every living thing in a city, right down to babies, pets and livestock?
This is ethics?

How about the inquisition? Was that ethical?
How about hurricanes, parasites, diseases, and earthquakes, which maim and kill endless numbers of people and animals?

These are the ethics we get from gods?
If so, the spartans may have been right.

If you say God does not exist, then you have committed an act of faith.
If you say God does exist, then you have committed an act of faith.

I say there is a huge amount of evidence that gods are the result of human psychology and social dynamics and nothing more.

I also think there is a huge amount of evidence unicorns are imaginary. So I don't believe in them either.

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, I can understand your point, but I think you are using a strong form the word faith.

We can certainly use the word 'faith' to mean something like simple belief/hope, but that is just not the way the word is used historically with regards to theology and religions. So when talking about religions, its at best confusing, and at worst dishonest. You can't ignore history.

If you're talking about your favorite baseball team... that would be different.

Add to that the fact that many religious people use the 'you have faith in science' as a way of disparaging science and implying that belief in science is no more grounded that belief in gods... and that is not only dishonest, its a rhetorical attack on science.

Is it not possible for someone to believe in God, but to accept the possibility that their belief is wrong, and be willing to accept new evidence?

Well sure, but that means you lack faith, or as they say, ye have little faith.

This would really be no different to believing in freewill.

Well not really, I've never observed a god, but I have observed myself and others making decisions. I can still be skeptical of freewill, but freewill, whatever it is, is part of my experience.

Of course if you define faith to mean that they believe it unquestioningly and beyond normal reason then it is a different matter.

Just to be clear, this is not my definition, Abraham and Isaac, was all about Faith.
Would you kill your son if god asked you to?
Abraham is the source of all three monotheistic religions, and that's the standard for true 'faith'.

 

[JoeDawg]

I swear without any jest that I'm going to print this out in about 30 seconds.

Ha, thanks, just make sure you spell my name right... and you might want to run a spell check before commiting it to paper :-)