20
   

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

 
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Apr, 2018 11:31 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
But having identified human language rather than thought as the key discriminator, we are then obliged to consider language, including assigning 'thinghood' to aspects of the world, aka conceptualization as (human) species specific. That point deflates all concepts to a human communicative requirements, rather than representative of an independent reality, and that includes the concept of 'design'. Thus the word 'design' as used by IDers, is merely a noise they make which assumes a pictorial context of 'a anthropomorphic designer with a human purpose'.


Could you expand on this statement.

Quote:
It is, in essence, an excuse for intellectual indolence. It has no scientific status whatsover because it not refutable in principle (Popper's Criterion)


Are you assuming that matter always existed or, it popped into existence spontaneously?

And then, are you assuming our ability to perceive matter spontaneously popped into matter of our bodies one day when humans developed complex language to escape from faster and stronger predators, to store food for winter and cover our hairless bodies when it got cold?

Is truth always falsifiable?

Can you falsify that matter can appear from nothing, or that matter always existed?

Are consistent patterns ever considered to be evidence for valid scientific theories even if they are not falsifiable?

Quote:
So unless IDers are prepared to 'come clean' about their covert assumption of an anthropomorphic deity with an anthropocentric 'purpose', they are just making incoherent noises.


I feel the following quote from wiki more accurately describes my views of man, and how he obtained his intelligence from God. While, you seem to ascribe an anthropocentric view of God since you believe God is a figment of my imagination.

wiki: Image of God
Quote:
The Image of God (Hebrew: צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים‎, translit. tzelem Elohim; Latin: Imago Dei) is a concept and theological doctrine in Judaism,[1] Christianity, and Sufism of Islam,[2][3] which asserts that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Philosophers and theologians have debated the exact meaning of the phrase for millennia. Ancient Jewish scholars such as Saadia Gaon and Philo argued that being made in the Image of God does not mean that God possesses human-like features, but rather the statement is figurative language for God bestowing special honor unto humankind, which He did not confer unto the rest of Creation. Likewise Maimonides argues that the faculty of reason enables one to become most God-like when that person develops the capacity to partially grasp the nature of God’s ultimate reality.

In Christian thought, the Image of God is intimately linked to the idea of Original Sin. The Image that was present in Adam at creation was partially lost with the Fall of man, and that through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, humans can be reunited with God. Christian writers have stated that despite the Image of God being partially lost, each person fundamentally has value regardless of class, race, gender or disability. Regardless of the exact meaning of being made in the Image of God, the concept is a foundational doctrine of Christianity and Judaism.


I believe in God because, I am logically assuming that the "idea" of order, always precedes the "creation" of order in matter. I think that is logical because that is the pattern we observe when new information (creative information) enters the universe today. And, I am assuming that pattern has followed back in time to when somebody came up with the idea, "Let's make some matter so we can use it to store information so we can create and share our ideas with other intelligent beings".

So, I do not believe in God because I have an emotional need for Sentana's Sky Daddy. I do believe in God because there is a vast amount of ancient information stored in a our very large universe which, would quite logically require an ancient and highly capable being to think of all that information and then create and manipulate all the matter in the universe to store the information of the universe for us to interpret for thousands or even millions of years.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 01:54 am
@brianjakub,
Thank you for coming clean !

You asked me to expand on assigning 'thinghood' etc. The central issue is that languing]is now considered to a behavioral interaction in which 'subject' and 'object' are mere complementary 'states of affairs' and not independent entities in which subjects observe and are separated from objects. This view is the essence of the Copenhagen convention in quantum theory, and is more generally the nonrepresentationalism position in the philosophy of language.
Thus uttering words like 'order' is not taken to be representative of some independent reality , but merely indicative of the pattern seeking aspects of human mental processing. i.e . 'order' is not 'out there' ...it is a statement of confidence is prediction of some future interaction we call 'observation'.
And the analysis holds for words like 'materiality' which denotes an expected type of interaction. There are no 'objects possessing properties existing in their own right'...there are only 'focusings of attention which we internalise as 'things'. It is the abstract permanence of words that gives the impression of permanent 'things'.
Of course this non dualust view of subject-object is not apparent in our everyday transactions, but MUST be considered in questions of existence (ontology) in which the status of the word 'observer' is immediately up for grabs. (Elsewhere I have pointed out that what humans call 'dead insects' do not existfor starving frogs - and are we not merely a different species our own specific 'universe' ?)
BTW science is not about the seking of 'truth' , it is about successful prediction and control involving a network of interconnected theories all of which must be open to refutation. 'Truth' is in essence about agreement between humans as to 'what is the case' in particular contexts. ID is not 'scientific', it is merely a statement of agreement between some humans indulging in limited metaphysical speculation based on lay fixations on dualism.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 02:11 am
@brianjakub,
Do you believe the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only correct interpretation of physics?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 02:24 am
@brianjakub,
There you go with that word 'correct' !
I believe that interpretation is the most useful as measured by its results, and most satisfying from a contemporary (nondualistic) philosophical point of view.
Right and wrong don't apply to 'science' except in contextual prediction situations
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 03:37 am
@fresco,
Can contemporary society use a (dualistic) philosophical point of view if society determines the results are the most satisfying and then ask the scientific community to do the same when considering theories and research when using public funds provided by said society?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 03:39 am
@fresco,
Can contemporary society use a (dualistic) philosophical point of view if society determines the results are the most satisfying and then ask the scientific community to do the same when considering theories and research when using public funds provided by said society?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 05:18 am
@brianjakub,
'Society' is a nebulous personification. The question is rhetorical. What actually goes on is usually 'vested interest' based research in focal contexts which allow for a limited subject-object approach. Those contexts are sometimes suggested by abstract theorization often involving mathematical creativity. Simplistically, theory promotes 'observer states' receptive of 'object states'. 'Data' or 'information' are never context neutral.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 06:00 am
@fresco,
That applies to your point of you also so what's the point ? Your point is more valid because Fresco said it and popper agrees?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 06:16 am
@brianjakub,
Good science would expect the participants to be skeptical of their own work while similarly maintaining skepticism of others.

Ive found, in my field, the overlapping and compounding of evidence helps in developing answers that are often applications "ready" and therefore "less wrong".
Weve had entire working hypotheses in science that were later proven dead wrong, Like the entire working system of "basin development" and synclinal theory. This led to some interesting requirements (like gravity would hqve to be suspended for millions of years as basins developed). With the gradual unfolding of global tectonics (finally synthesized into a working theory after about 30 years of compounded evidence). We now have a theory that <While it still may have some flws< is "less wrong" than the earlier (Eardly) geosynclinal theories. AND, it has given us entirely new systems of geophysics ,minerals location, and evolution based upon tectonics, emplacement of aligned mid oceanic lava deposits , which resulted in entirely new thinking about biogeography.
All of these were "Built up" by discovering mounds of overlapping evidence that was often introduced via research from totally unrelated arenas. Often, the very falsifiability of a means of research was used to develop subsequent work plans for xpeditions, lab work and yes, needed funding. The example of how the discovery of the intermeidate relative fosil of fish and tetrapod amphibians was developed entirely on a Popperian kind of statement.

"From what we know about the evolution of tetrapods from specific lobe finned fish the place that suc ancestral forms should have existed is in a limited area of Devonian sediments"
Geologic mapping is sufficiently globally mature so we actually know where sedimentary rocks of this certain age are to be found. It took the scientists about 4 years before they made the discovery . Since there were many families of devonian fish and jut ONA that had the characteristics that the scientits would seek, these teams took a big chance with funding and being "less wrong" but it pid off. I know one of the palleontologiwts who worked on the team and hed been busy looking for similar species in the red cliff of NE Pennsylvaia for many yqrs before the final expedition.
Hed been off in the Pa Hills by being a few ten million years early.

However, saying all that, I dont think that your denial of my way of interpretation comes from a careful analysis of scientific evidence . It comes more from an emotional commitment that (as Ken Miller said it) cannot believe that human nature derives from nature alone. Science challenges the belief in the "specialness " of our species.



Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 06:28 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
However, saying all that, I dont think that your denial of my way of interpretation comes from a careful analysis of scientific evidence . It comes more from an emotional commitment that (as Ken Miller said it) cannot believe that human nature derives from nature alone. Science challenges the belief in the "specialness " of our species.


This cannot be emphasized too much. This is precisely what BJ has been trying to peddle in his silly statements from an authority which he does not in fact possess. He is just trying to push the old narrative of man as a special creation, for a purpose which constitutes what he means by design in so-called intelligent design. He is fundamentally dishonest about the "design" and the putative "intelligence" behind it.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 06:51 am
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:
I do believe in God because there is a vast amount of ancient information stored in a our very large universe which, would quite logically require an ancient and highly capable being to think of all that information and then create and manipulate all the matter in the universe to store the information of the universe for us to interpret for thousands or even millions of years.

This is a good summary of your argument. However, it is unsupported by evidence. It also begs the question of where the even more complex entity came from which you posit created the information.

In order to convince any skeptic of your argument you must address both of those challenges, and I don't even think you can get by the first one much less the second.

brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 07:37 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
However, saying all that, I dont think that your denial of my way of interpretation comes from a careful analysis of scientific evidence . It comes more from an emotional commitment that (as Ken Miller said it) cannot believe that human nature derives from nature alone. Science challenges the belief in the "specialness " of our species.
Your assumption is wrong. I have no emotional stake in this. I came up with my ideas by developing an understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics and the second law of thermal dynamics . I ran the clock backwards and came to the conclusion that the universe must of had perfect order at one time and the big bang was a transition to a perfect universe and there was a quantum creation event (QCE) that preceded the big bang to establish the structure of the higgs field and matter.. While studying inflation theory I found that Alan Guth had come to that very same conclusion in a letter to some magazine (I wish I could remember which one). This of course would have thrown a monkey wrench in his atheistic world view so he said, in the letter, he was going to spend his life proving that alternative wrong. I assumed that since the bible agreed with that loigical scientific assumption that there must be some scientific truth to the bible and I might see if the scientific evidence can support Guth's proposition

Since I decided to assume that there was a God I could establish order in matter and the higgs field any way I wanted., I imagined a a structure to the higgs field and matter that was necessary to fulfill the constants in physics by, assuming a geometrical arrangement to the virtual particles of space and real particles of matter.

So, Guth needs to be a good scientist like you said:
Quote:
Good science would expect the participants to be skeptical of their own work while similarly maintaining skepticism of others.
The problem is the geometric construction can only be put in place by an intelligent being that can control every particle of space at once to construct the higgs field and atoms.

I will now quote you because you and I agree here
Quote:
Ive found, in my field, the overlapping and compounding of evidence helps in developing answers that are often applications "ready" and therefore "less wrong".
Weve had entire working hypotheses in science that were later proven dead wrong, Like the entire working system
In other words the working hypothesis that matter came into existence after the big bang needs to be tossed and an alternative QCE followed by a transitional inflation event needs to be pursued where inflation is only happening in matter and the higgs field where it interacts with matter (where it is warped). This inflation of matter and the higgs field around matter makes gravity the result of thgis change in spatial density in matter and the surrounding higgs field (or basically wind in the higgs field). The question is what caused the big bang transition event that introduced gravity and the cionstants we observe..

Quote:
Like the entire working system of "basin development" and synclinal theory. This led to some interesting requirements (like gravity would hqve to be suspended for millions of years as basins developed).


I am looking for evidence of that because I think the earth existed before the big bang transition event and gravity was negligible in that perfect universe. Where can I get more information about that?
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 07:40 am
@rosborne979,
There are scientists that claim the universe always existed. I think it is less wrong to assume there was a spiritual entity that alwys existed that created the physical universe we are a part of. It is much easier to imagione a spiritual being existing outside of time than a physical universe existing outside of time er existing eternally.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 08:07 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Your assumption is wrong. I have no emotional stake in this. I came up with my ideas by developing an understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics and the second law of thermal dynamics . I ran the clock backwards and came to the conclusion that the universe must of had perfect order at one time and the big bang was a transition to a perfect universe and there was a quantum creation event (QCE) that preceded the big bang to establish the structure of the higgs field and matter


Its easy to hide tiny thinking with important sounding words. Creationists run to QM in order to try to claim some "high ground" of understanding.

brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 08:44 am
@farmerman,
And you run to the fossil record and phenotypes and genotypes.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 08:46 am
@farmerman,
You are assuming simple thinking. In the end I have got to get my thoughts down in writing in a way that people will read. But most atheist take scientist won't even read it because they have preconceived notion's that this popped into existence Without any guidance. Problem is there is too much order to the Higgs field and the space inside and Atom to allow for the Constance to be the same everywhere all the time for that to be true.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 08:49 am
@farmerman,
Interesting thing is that the geometric Construction up space is much easier to understand and visualize Than the math that describes it. That is similar to aerodynamics it is much easier to visualize how air lift awa that is similar to aerodynamics it is much easier to visualize how air lift a wing And to understand the math describing the aerodynamics of lift
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 11:08 am
@farmerman,
bj seems to ignore the fact that his 'faith' in his god is based on his emotion. I believe in my god because ........... His faith is not based on science, the most reliable foundation for our knowledge about what we call "life." Scientists have studied the age of this planet with what is now available in terms of the age of our environment. Most scientists agree that this planet is 4.5 billion years old.

Answers
Relevance
Best Answer: our earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
well its a mystery that whether all the planets have been created at once, but according to the big bang theory there was a large explosion resulting in the formation of planets.
noone can say this is true or not..
Alien · 1 decade ago

The christian religion was created only 2 thousand years ago. Humans have created thousands of religions since homo sapiens were able to use their imagination to create gods in most cultures around the world. The oldest religions: https://theculturetrip.com/asia/articles/the-8-oldest-religions-in-the-world/
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 12:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The Christian religion is a relationship with the creator of the universe. So the Christian religion started when the first man existed and started having a relationship with the creator. The creator of the universe took on the body of flesh 2000 years ago. That is not the beginning of the relationship. It's the beginning of the intimate physical relationship. My faith in God is not based on emotion. It's based on science. I think I understand from a scientific point of view Haole creator created the universe better than you understand how the big bang created the universe. It's hard to imagine an explosion turning in the order.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2018 03:49 pm
@brianjakub,
You think your 'creator' can acount for the pseudo problem of 'something from nothing'. That fails on two counts
1. on the (dualistic) basis of the well known infinite regress which requires you to account for the creation of the creator.
2. on the (non dualitic) basis outlined above, that asigning 'thinghood' (or nothinghood) is a human cognitive process.
The second of these might force you into the fallback position that 'Man was created in the image of God' thereby allowing 'things' to have 'devine origin', but the non anthropocentric and more elegant intellectual position on this is to reverse it...i.e. the thing called 'God' is evoked for Man's purposes'.

But neither of these failures of a 'creator concept' would have any force for a believer who abandoned the scientifically untenable notion of 'a prime mover' and stuck to the concept of 'God' as 'a source of morality' (or similar). And that is the move made by some 'scientific believers' who understand the mythology of 'creationism'.
Nor will they have any impact on simplistic creationists such as yourself who have predicated their self integrity in 'the comfortable earplugs' of parochial faith.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/06/2021 at 09:39:03