Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
ChrisGB said:
There is no resistance to science, but as Searle's introduction to "Is the Brain a Digital Computer?" shows
You might also quote someone writing a book saying "is the brain cream cheese?" That the brain is not a digital computer is hardly news as has been explained patiently to you numerous times.
IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
There is no resistance to science, but as Searle's introduction to "Is the Brain a Digital Computer?" shows
You might also quote someone writing a book saying "is the brain cream cheese?" That the brain is not a digital computer is hardly news as has been explained patiently to you numerous times.
Jabbah said:
ChrisGB said:
Sorry but a quantum "sea of potentialities" might be offered by someone as a brute fact based on which everything g else might be explained. There are big problems with such an approach.
On the other hand, prime mover is NOT a brute fact, because we can, as I've said, talk about the attributes of it, etc.
What are the problems with such an approach other than negating the need for god? Isn't everything essentially reducible to brute facts? Even quantum mechanics as we know it is based on brute facts that limit our understanding. Even if we manage to create a grand unifying theory of everything, brute facts will still exist of why is it like that and why are the constants exactly that. The answer to those questions is that given the potentially infinite number of universes that could have spontaneously erupted from an infinite sea of quantum randomness, the universes capable of supporting life will support it and the life capable of asking those questions will, and due to evolution that universe will seem perfect for that life.On the other hand, prime mover is NOT a brute fact, because we can, as I've said, talk about the attributes of it, etc.
How is the prime mover not also based on brute facts? Where do the attributes you talk of come from?
Prime mover is none of these, because we know it is pure act, can deduce other properties from that such as immateriality, and so on, and have proved its "place" by reflecting on causation.
A brute fact, unintelligible, can cause nothing.
In any case, can you unpack "infinite sea of quantum randomness"??
durbster said:
ChrisGB said:
blissful ignorance of the fact that this scientism is blatantly and obviously not possibly true, because scientific method is just a method, not some idea or meta-method that can prove itself. To justify believing in scientism, you need to engage in rational thought and get into philosophy and metaphysics to work out how it could be that this method gives all truth.
Or you could merely look at the computer you're typing this guff on, and the internet which allows people from all corners of the globe to join together and develop RSI from relentlessly facepalming while reading this thread.Science has proved itself over and over and over. The scientific method has done more for mankind than any religion ever has.
Book a flight on your smartphone, get on the plane, fly to Australia and then explain to me how science is "just a method".
But there is plenty against this brain-dead silliness insisting without any possibility of demonstrating it, logically or empirically, that scientific method is the ONLY way of knowing (scientism) or that matter is the ONLY thing that exists, or that nature is ALL there is, or that EVERYTHING is reducible to atoms or strings etc. These are all patently false yet believed in blindly as the default cultural positions of many Westerners.
The fundamentalist error is to then say : therefore this method is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING, which is easily refuted - prove it using scientific method! Whoops!
IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
There is no resistance to science, but as Searle's introduction to "Is the Brain a Digital Computer?" shows
You might also quote someone writing a book saying "is the brain cream cheese?" That the brain is not a digital computer is hardly news as has been explained patiently to you numerous times.
And bring on the "obviously the brain isn't a digital computer" posts now. Who could ever have thought so? Err, well, the atheists looking for a purely mechanistic explanation of mind, for one.
Edited by ChrisGB on Tuesday 15th April 21:52
ChrisGB said:
durbster said:
ChrisGB said:
blissful ignorance of the fact that this scientism is blatantly and obviously not possibly true, because scientific method is just a method, not some idea or meta-method that can prove itself. To justify believing in scientism, you need to engage in rational thought and get into philosophy and metaphysics to work out how it could be that this method gives all truth.
Or you could merely look at the computer you're typing this guff on, and the internet which allows people from all corners of the globe to join together and develop RSI from relentlessly facepalming while reading this thread.Science has proved itself over and over and over. The scientific method has done more for mankind than any religion ever has.
Book a flight on your smartphone, get on the plane, fly to Australia and then explain to me how science is "just a method".
But there is plenty against this brain-dead silliness insisting without any possibility of demonstrating it, logically or empirically, that scientific method is the ONLY way of knowing (scientism) or that matter is the ONLY thing that exists, or that nature is ALL there is, or that EVERYTHING is reducible to atoms or strings etc. These are all patently false yet believed in blindly as the default cultural positions of many Westerners.
The fundamentalist error is to then say : therefore this method is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING, which is easily refuted - prove it using scientific method! Whoops!
Can you show me one single thing that can only be known by a method other than the scientific method, and cannot be shown by the scientific method?
ChrisGB said:
All of which would leave your arguments to be developed by the dualists and lead you to attend Thomist conferences where your pseudo-dualist arguments are lapped up?
Not that we haven't been round this circle before.....
I guess you must be ignoring me, as I have already discussed the conference, and Searle attending has nothing to do with his sudden conversion to dualism or becoming a thomist.Not that we haven't been round this circle before.....
Is there any statement you can make that is a) factually correct or b) not supercilious, arrogant and downright mean?
ChrisGB said:
The fundamentalist error is to then say : therefore this method is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING, which is easily refuted - prove it using scientific method! Whoops!
Nobody has said that. The scientific method is merely the best way we know of so far, and it has proved that with the examples I showed earlier.The best way I've heard it described is that science is building a map of the world we inhabit. A map of Bristol is not actually Bristol but it describes it in sufficient enough detail that we can travel around it without issue.
You keep flogging the dead horse of equating science to fundamentalism but it's a non-starter because science readily acknowledges there is a lot we don't know - the majority of the universe is a total mystery after all. Fundamentalism says, "this is how it is.", whereas science says, "this is probably how it is, because...".
I'm happy to accept we could be hundreds of years away from truly understanding consciousness and there are many exciting discoveries yet to be made, but no matter how you try to twist it, each answer we've found so far has moved us further from the Gods we used to know.
ChrisGB said:
And bring on the "obviously the brain isn't a digital computer" posts now. Who could ever have thought so? Err, well, the atheists looking for a purely mechanistic explanation of mind, for one.
I've not seen anyone on this thread who think that. I've not read the likes of Dennett, etc. stating they think that. Another Strawman Chris? Surely not, you're above that kind of petty tactic aren't you?A mechanistic explanation of mind would expect the mechanism to look a lot like the brain with it's intrinsic chemistry. You might like to educate yourself with the basics of neural network programming to realise that, even though they run on a digital computer, they're not digital.
paulrockliffe said:
Have we worked out who invented God yet?
Actually, that would be fascinating to know - who was the first creature was who concluded that the most rational explanation for whatever it was he was trying to understand, or manipulate, was a concept which we have come to call a god.Perhaps there was some evolutionary benefit to them having done that, e.g. being seen as the wise person who was the only one who could commune with this 'god', thereby guaranteeing their pick of the opposite sex to make the next generation of godists.
And how seriously stupid must the rest of the species have been to go "Yep, OK - we believe you !!", rather than pointing and laughing at the nutter in the corner of their cave... Talk about missed opportunity !!
Nick M said:
Actually, that would be fascinating to know - who was the first creature was who concluded that the most rational explanation for whatever it was he was trying to understand, or manipulate, was a concept which we have come to call a god.
Perhaps there was some evolutionary benefit to them having done that, e.g. being seen as the wise person who was the only one who could commune with this 'god', thereby guaranteeing their pick of the opposite sex to make the next generation of godists.
And how seriously stupid must the rest of the species have been to go "Yep, OK - we believe you !!", rather than pointing and laughing at the nutter in the corner of their cave... Talk about missed opportunity !!
But did the very first gods have 'priests' associated with them? I would have thought it was more likely that the first 'gods' were the ones that did things like making rain fall and therefore didn't speak to people as such. They were probably spoken to, but then that was probably done by the leader of the tribe/group/whatever.Perhaps there was some evolutionary benefit to them having done that, e.g. being seen as the wise person who was the only one who could commune with this 'god', thereby guaranteeing their pick of the opposite sex to make the next generation of godists.
And how seriously stupid must the rest of the species have been to go "Yep, OK - we believe you !!", rather than pointing and laughing at the nutter in the corner of their cave... Talk about missed opportunity !!
It is an interesting subject though. Whoever first figured out they could control people by claiming to be the mouthpiece of a god or gods was probably very, very clever, it would have been a fine line between people believing you and people thinking you were crazy.
ChrisGB said:
Engineer1 said:
Moonhawk said:
The argument "proves" no such thing. You have simply drawn a conclusion that is convenient to your beliefs.
Can you demonstrate that "prime movers", "pure acts" etc even exist - or are you simply assuming they must to suit your argument? How about giving an example (a real example - not one derived from a philosophical thought exercise).
Can you demonstrate that "prime movers", "pure acts" etc even exist - or are you simply assuming they must to suit your argument? How about giving an example (a real example - not one derived from a philosophical thought exercise).
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 15th April 10:49
The problem is ChrisGB is a true Christian his belief is part of him so he forces everything to fit round GOD, because if it doesn't then he has been living a lie, his afterlife insurance policy is a sham, the Sundays spent in church a waste, the things during a teenagers experimental stage sex, drugs, rock and roll etc that were declined because they would upset God are now regretted. Basically if we attack his assertion therefore God we ae attacking his whole being.
So why not deal with that instead?
xRIEx said:
ChrisGB said:
durbster said:
ChrisGB said:
blissful ignorance of the fact that this scientism is blatantly and obviously not possibly true, because scientific method is just a method, not some idea or meta-method that can prove itself. To justify believing in scientism, you need to engage in rational thought and get into philosophy and metaphysics to work out how it could be that this method gives all truth.
Or you could merely look at the computer you're typing this guff on, and the internet which allows people from all corners of the globe to join together and develop RSI from relentlessly facepalming while reading this thread.Science has proved itself over and over and over. The scientific method has done more for mankind than any religion ever has.
Book a flight on your smartphone, get on the plane, fly to Australia and then explain to me how science is "just a method".
But there is plenty against this brain-dead silliness insisting without any possibility of demonstrating it, logically or empirically, that scientific method is the ONLY way of knowing (scientism) or that matter is the ONLY thing that exists, or that nature is ALL there is, or that EVERYTHING is reducible to atoms or strings etc. These are all patently false yet believed in blindly as the default cultural positions of many Westerners.
The fundamentalist error is to then say : therefore this method is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING, which is easily refuted - prove it using scientific method! Whoops!
Can you show me one single thing that can only be known by a method other than the scientific method, and cannot be shown by the scientific method?
1.exactly the quality of my feeling when I read your post and the private associations it has for me, reminding me of the taste of bad apple juice from the 80s, or whatever it might be. Unavailable to scentific method, and to any ideology piggy backing on that third person method (scientism, materialism, naturalism, eliminativism, reductionism), available to first person perspective only.
2. Scientific method can't show that thoughts are about something, final causality can.
3. Scientific method can't show that formal thinking is purely material, hylemorphism can show it isn't.
4. Scientific method can't show that there is no other type of knowledge, philosophy can show there is.
5. Scientific method can't show that there is the God of monotheism, logic and philosophy, eg. In prime mover argument, can.
IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
And bring on the "obviously the brain isn't a digital computer" posts now. Who could ever have thought so? Err, well, the atheists looking for a purely mechanistic explanation of mind, for one.
I've not seen anyone on this thread who think that. I've not read the likes of Dennett, etc. stating they think that. Another Strawman Chris? Surely not, you're above that kind of petty tactic aren't you?A mechanistic explanation of mind would expect the mechanism to look a lot like the brain with it's intrinsic chemistry. You might like to educate yourself with the basics of neural network programming to realise that, even though they run on a digital computer, they're not digital.
Searle says the position he refuted is one that holds that "brain processes are computational", full stop. If this view wasn't widespread and seriously defended, he would not have addressed it, and sci-fi movies like AI, the Machine, etc. would be left on drawing board as too silly.
But you are right I would normally be attacking silliness in this thread rather than elsewhere
ChrisGB said:
Err:
1.exactly the quality of my feeling when I read your post and the private associations it has for me, reminding me of the taste of bad apple juice from the 80s, or whatever it might be. Unavailable to scentific method, and to any ideology piggy backing on that third person method (scientism, materialism, naturalism, eliminativism, reductionism), available to first person perspective only.
2. Scientific method can't show that thoughts are about something, final causality can.
3. Scientific method can't show that formal thinking is purely material, hylemorphism can show it isn't.
4. Scientific method can't show that there is no other type of knowledge, philosophy can show there is.
5. Scientific method can't show that there is the God of monotheism, logic and philosophy, eg. In prime mover argument, can.
Again your argument is my way of thinking can prove my way of thinking.1.exactly the quality of my feeling when I read your post and the private associations it has for me, reminding me of the taste of bad apple juice from the 80s, or whatever it might be. Unavailable to scentific method, and to any ideology piggy backing on that third person method (scientism, materialism, naturalism, eliminativism, reductionism), available to first person perspective only.
2. Scientific method can't show that thoughts are about something, final causality can.
3. Scientific method can't show that formal thinking is purely material, hylemorphism can show it isn't.
4. Scientific method can't show that there is no other type of knowledge, philosophy can show there is.
5. Scientific method can't show that there is the God of monotheism, logic and philosophy, eg. In prime mover argument, can.
Science is able to identify what is being thought about FMRIs are being used for this.
durbster said:
ChrisGB said:
The fundamentalist error is to then say : therefore this method is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING, which is easily refuted - prove it using scientific method! Whoops!
Nobody has said that. The scientific method is merely the best way we know of so far, and it has proved that with the examples I showed earlier.The best way I've heard it described is that science is building a map of the world we inhabit. A map of Bristol is not actually Bristol but it describes it in sufficient enough detail that we can travel around it without issue.
You keep flogging the dead horse of equating science to fundamentalism but it's a non-starter because science readily acknowledges there is a lot we don't know - the majority of the universe is a total mystery after all. Fundamentalism says, "this is how it is.", whereas science says, "this is probably how it is, because...".
I'm happy to accept we could be hundreds of years away from truly understanding consciousness and there are many exciting discoveries yet to be made, but no matter how you try to twist it, each answer we've found so far has moved us further from the Gods we used to know.
Each answer moves us further from the Gods? This was all over by the time of Aristotle, who developed a complete system for understanding the world that removed any need to attribute explanations to gods. This is old news.
On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing in science that isn't accepted by classical theism.
ChrisGB said:
On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing in science that isn't accepted by classical theism.
Because it is one thing to convince people there is an imaginary man in the sky who sill judge them when they die but to also try and convince them of things they can go out and physically test themselves is stretching it too far, a religious leader with no followers is indistinguishable from a Lunatic. Nick M said:
paulrockliffe said:
Have we worked out who invented God yet?
Actually, that would be fascinating to know - who was the first creature was who concluded that the most rational explanation for whatever it was he was trying to understand, or manipulate, was a concept which we have come to call a god.Perhaps there was some evolutionary benefit to them having done that, e.g. being seen as the wise person who was the only one who could commune with this 'god', thereby guaranteeing their pick of the opposite sex to make the next generation of godists.
And how seriously stupid must the rest of the species have been to go "Yep, OK - we believe you !!", rather than pointing and laughing at the nutter in the corner of their cave... Talk about missed opportunity !!
The atheist view might go like this:
"Unfortunately, virtually everything we now know about nature scientifically once was unknown, and someone had presumed a supernatural explanation. It was always, every time, left to those who wouldn't settle for "God Did It" to soldier on and discover the actual naturalistic explanations."
The theist response might go like this:
"This is a completely inaccurate picture of the history of science.
First, we never have discovered the "actual, naturalistic explanations" for anything in science. We've discovered explanations, but they are not "naturalistic" in the metaphysical sense, since science doesn't deal with metaphysics on that level. We find models, we find examples, we find phenomena and forces and more - each and every one of which is incomplete as science gives them to us. Once we decide whether these operations and models are wholly naturalistic, etc, we're off into the land of metaphysics.
Second, "God did it" is not an explanation - in and of itself - that gets displaced by scientific knowledge. A belief that 'God created humans' is compatible with evolutionary explanations, because evolution is just one more tool for God to 'do' things. Now, far more direct claims - 'God uses lightning to smite the wicked' - could be disproven, by (but not exclusively) scientific models. But those sorts of claims are far, far fewer in number when it comes to the history of science. More common are vague or entirely "natural" explanations or models that were displaced."
(With thanks to crudeideas.blogspot.com)
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff