Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

What is or is not a fact very often is a matter of opinion.

True, which is why empirical evidence is so important.

Statements, whether considered true or false, that make a single point are neither logical nor illogical.

Examples: God exists. The universe evolved. God does not exist. The universe did not evolve.

It takes the relationship of more then one statement to determine what is or is not logical as in math.

1+1=2 is a logical construction. 1+1=3 is an illogical construction

One unicorn plus one unicorn equals two unicorns is a logical construction regardless if unicorns exist or not.

If there is no God then a virgin cannot give birth, is a logical statement.

If there is a God then a virgin can give birth, is also a logical statement.

If there is no God then a virgin can give birth, is an illogical statement.

God encoded DNA, is a logical statement.

Right. So when you say you follow logic you mean logic that appears to support your predetermined beliefs.

Anyone can do that, here: From a mindless nothing a God cannot exist. That's my logic, yours may differ. You could have saved time and effort if you'd just said you follow your own logic.

 

[noguru]

Mindless energy has no intelligence or "free will",

I agree. But I think we ought to be careful about trying to force our human ideas of intelligence and "free will" on the rest of nature.

which is what "God freely actualizes" means.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to demonstrate how your use of this has any basis in reality.

You constantly violate the first law of rational thought/logic, the law of identity or definition. You like to change the meaning of the words I use to mean something other then what I am intending and then accuse me of being "logically incoherent and not cohesive".

No, you are wrong. I do not violate the first law of rational thought, identity. My mind is capable of rational thought, because of the empirical method which allows me to demonstrate I have a mind and rational thought. Without the physical seat of this mind, I would not be able to demonstrate rational thought. Can you demonstrate this mind/thought can occur without a physical seat? If not then you need to stop repeating this error of rational thought. If you cannot identify that it exists independent of a physical seat, then just admit it. And stop diverting attention with sleazy appeals to emotion.

"So then you think eternal things can evolve", is a good example. Movement as freedom of though does not mean the evolution of mind from where thoughts originate.

Movement happens to both mindless things as well things with minds.

Both being rational and irrational happens to things with minds. We have empirical evidence that supports both these claims.

If the empirical evidence contradicts your idea of the first law of rational thought then that is just the way it is. You cannot change reality with your unsubstantiated proclamations. Perhaps your idea on this is inaccurate.

Random movement of thoughts do not evolve into a mind because without a mind thoughts cannot exist.

--Dave

Thoughts cannot exist without a mind.

Random is not the same as irrational.

When you get these simple concepts sorted out in your own mind come on back and you can discuss these things like an adult.

 

[DFT_Dave]

True, which is why empirical evidence is so important.

Right. So when you say you follow logic you mean logic that appears to support your predetermined beliefs.

Anyone can do that, here: From a mindless nothing a God cannot exist. That's my logic, yours may differ. You could have saved time and effort if you'd just said you follow your own logic.

I agree with you, but your point is non sequitur.

The proposition is that God eternal and therefore there's no point to asking where he came from.

If someone proposed that matter is eternal I would not ask where did matter come from. I would ask how infinite regress could make that possible.

If one said that matter is eternal and infinite regress does not occur I would say that's illogical.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

I agree with you, but your point is non sequitur.

The proposition is that God eternal and therefore there's no point to asking where he came from.

If someone proposed that matter is eternal I would not ask where did matter come from. I would ask how infinite regress could make that possible.

If one said that matter is eternal and infinite regress does not occur I would say that's illogical.

--Dave

So in your view eternal energy and infinite regress are mutually exclusive?

And in order to resolve this gap in our understanding of the universe, you think inserting your idea of God will suffice?

 

[gcthomas]

Dave, having proximate rather than ultimate free will says nothing about responsibility. If the decisions are unconscious rather than conscious they are still our decisions, and we remain responsible for them.

With responsibility intact the rest of your pseudo-logic collapses, leaving no evidence for the soul than you'd like us to have them.

Logic isn't going to help resolve an empirical question. You're going to need to present some physical evidence.

 

[6days]

Logic isn't going to help resolve an empirical question. You're going to need to present some physical evidence

Evidence is God's Word. We have first hand testimony! We believe the physical evidence overwhelmingly corroborates the the truthfulness of the testimony.

 

[Hedshaker]

I agree with you, but your point is non sequitur.

The proposition is that God eternal and therefore there's no point to asking where he came from.

But you're using your own logic again. Even if it had been established that your god exists, which it has not, you still have no way of ascertaining that he/she/it is eternal, whatever eternal means in this scenario.

If someone proposed that matter is eternal I would not ask where did matter come from. I would ask how infinite regress could make that possible.

Energy cannot be destroyed and cannot be created but can change form, remember? Can you prove, without resorting to personal logic and faith beliefs, that this has ever been different? Bearing in mind that it's plausible and logical that energy forms have existed that we do not know about now.

If one said that matter is eternal and infinite regress does not occur I would say that's illogical.

It's a good job no one is saying that then.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I agree. But I think we ought to be careful about trying to force our human ideas of intelligence and "free will" on the rest of nature.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to demonstrate how your use of this has any basis in reality.

No, you are wrong. I do not violate the first law of rational thought, identity. My mind is capable of rational thought, because of the empirical method which allows me to demonstrate I have a mind and rational thought. Without the physical seat of this mind, I would not be able to demonstrate rational thought. Can you demonstrate this mind/thought can occur without a physical seat? If not then you need to stop repeating this error of rational thought. If you cannot identify that it exists independent of a physical seat, then just admit it. And stop diverting attention with sleazy appeals to emotion.

Movement happens to both mindless things as well things with minds.

Both being rational and irrational happens to things with minds. We have empirical evidence that supports both these claims.

If the empirical evidence contradicts your idea of the first law of rational thought then that is just the way it is. You cannot change reality with your unsubstantiated proclamations. Perhaps your idea on this is inaccurate.

Thoughts cannot exist without a mind.

Random is not the same as irrational.

When you get these simple concepts sorted out in your own mind come on back and you can discuss these things like an adult.

Asking physical evidence for what is not physical is irrational.

You presuppose that nothing else exists other than what is physical, so no evidence is possible in your mind.

Finite man is a combination of matter and spirit, infinite God is spirit only. I'm not saying that matter is not the location, or seat as you put it, of our thinking.

But that part of our being that makes us free, imaginative, rational and thoughtful is from spirit, not the random movement of mindless atoms.

Writing a thought in a random placement of words makes it irrational/illogical.

Placement a we words random if in write of thoughts our.

Randomness is a movement away from order to less order. Evolution is randomness toward greater order which is irrational.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, having proximate rather than ultimate free will says nothing about responsibility. If the decisions are unconscious rather than conscious they are still our decisions, and we remain responsible for them.

With responsibility intact the rest of your pseudo-logic collapses, leaving no evidence for the soul than you'd like us to have them.

Logic isn't going to help resolve an empirical question. You're going to need to present some physical evidence.

Asking for physical evidence for what is not physical is nonsense.

There's no such thing as "proximate" free will.

Guess you didn't read that critique of B. F. Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity. You probably don't even know who Skinner is and what he wrote about.

Logic resolves all questions.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Asking for physical evidence for what is not physical is nonsense.

The presence of an immaterial soul that interacts with matter is an empirical question. Physics can tackle anything that interacts with matter, material or not.

There's no such thing as "proximate" free will.

Try a dictionary. Proximate is a standard adjective, and it is appropriate here to refer to the sort of free will I suspect actually exists - an approximate one that only approaches the ultimate ideal you think exists. That is approaches the ideal means we can operate society as if it did exist. Moral responsibility still remains with each individual, even without a soul.

Guess you didn't read that critique of B. F. Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity. You probably don't even know who Skinner is and what he wrote about.

Which one? Rand's or Chomsky's? I've got Slater's book about Skinner on my shelf, but I'd expect you'd have to look that up, pompous twit.

Logic resolves all questions.

--Dave

NO, it doesn't. Not on its own. You need empirical evidence to make sure that what is logically plausible is actually real.

 

[Hedshaker]

You need empirical evidence to make sure that what is logically plausible is actually real.

Short, to the point and sweet as a nut.

:thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Hedshaker & gcthomas,

Sweet as a nut, from a nutcase. We don't need empirical evidence to find that God is logically plausible and actually real. So what gives? You will get wind of His Empire soon enough. Then you will have a lot of 'splaining to do. Is that proximate enough for you?

God Be With You Too, In Spite Of Yourself,

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

So in your view eternal energy and infinite regress are mutually exclusive?

And in order to resolve this gap in our understanding of the universe, you think inserting your idea of God will suffice?

Eternal evolution and expansion are not possible.

Whatever is eternal must have a potential to create without something else causing it to do so, that would imply free will and intelligence--God

--Dave

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

DFT_Dave is just what this thread NEEDED!!

Our Good God Is Great Indeed!!

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

The presence of an immaterial soul that interacts with matter is an empirical question. Physics can tackle anything that interacts with matter, material or not.

Try a dictionary. Proximate is a standard adjective, and it is appropriate here to refer to the sort of free will I suspect actually exists - an approximate one that only approaches the ultimate ideal you think exists. That is approaches the ideal means we can operate society as if it did exist. Moral responsibility still remains with each individual, even without a soul.

Which one? Rand's or Chomsky's? I've got Slater's book about Skinner on my shelf, but I'd expect you'd have to look that up, pompous twit.

NO, it doesn't. Not on its own. You need empirical evidence to make sure that what is logically plausible is actually real.

I would think we could only get proximate moral responsibility if we are only proximately free. We could also say there exists only proximate evil along with proximate good.

Do you have "empirical evidence" that I am "actually" a pompous twit? If you don't then you have no reason to believe in the existence of pompous twits.

So, unless you have empirical evidence to prove I'm actually a pompous twit, I would like an ultimate ideal apology. A proximate apology would make me think you are only proximately sorry for the slander.

--Dave :rotfl:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DFT_Dave,

Good for you!! God must be with you!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear All,

DFT_Dave is just what this thread NEEDED!!

Our Good God Is Great Indeed!!

Michael

I'm not sure it needs cheerleaders though Michael.:think:

 

[DFT_Dave]

"In the traditional view, a person is free. He is autonomous in the sense that his behavior is uncaused. He can therefore be held responsible for what he does and justly punished if he offends. That view, together with its associated practices, must be re-examined when a scientific analysis reveals unsuspected controlling relations between behavior and environment."--B. F. Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1972​

We have empirical evidence that a person has been murdered.

Can we have empirical evidence for the motive of a person who killed someone? How do we empirically prove my environment made me do it, unless we have already assumed that environment forms our behavior? And who's to say what is and what is not bad vs good behavior?

--Dave

 

[noguru]

"In the traditional view, a person is free. He is autonomous in the sense that his behavior is uncaused. He can therefore be held responsible for what he does and justly punished if he offends. That view, together with its associated practices, must be re-examined when a scientific analysis reveals unsuspected controlling relations between behavior and environment."--B. F. Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1972​

We have empirical evidence that a person has been murdered.

Can we have empirical evidence for the motive of a person who killed someone? How do we empirically prove my environment made me do it, unless we have already assumed that environment forms our behavior? And who's to say what is and what is not bad vs good behavior?

--Dave

It is obvious that environment makes us do things. This does not remove our responsibility to follow the law.

It is obvious that murder is wrong. If a person does not respect life they have no right to force that on other people. A person that does not respect life ought to take their own life, and not that of others.

 

[gcthomas]

"In the traditional view, a person is free. He is autonomous in the sense that his behavior is uncaused. He can therefore be held responsible for what he does and justly punished if he offends. That view, together with its associated practices, must be re-examined when a scientific analysis reveals unsuspected controlling relations between behavior and environment."--B. F. Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1972​

We have empirical evidence that a person has been murdered.

Can we have empirical evidence for the motive of a person who killed someone? How do we empirically prove my environment made me do it, unless we have already assumed that environment forms our behavior? And who's to say what is and what is not bad vs good behavior?

--Dave

Generally we leave that to the courts. In that case they usually judge whether the psychological disposition is temporary and reversible (not responsible), or a permanent feature of that person's character (responsible).

Isn't that what happens in your country?