Cambrian Explosion - Proof of Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
A belief that you are not plugged into the Matrix requires faith.
[/quote]

Yes, it does. Any explanation of the beginning requires religious faith-that’s why these things have no place in schools(especially government schools). [/quote]

Emphasis mine, and relevant: No it doesn’t. At least not under any common definition of the word “religious.”

Anyway, epistemologically necessary uncertainty (against which scientific evidence is collected and set up) and religious faith are two very different things, and only one of them doesn’t belong in a science classroom.[/quote]

Religion, as defined by Merriam-Webster, can mean…[/quote]

As for this ^, this is why I said “not under any common definition of the word ‘religious.’” This is not the definition that you and I are talking about. It is the broadest and most euphemistic way to define the word, and it has no bearing on anything that we’re talking about. There are few things that aren’t religions under that particular definition, and it is thus useless.

Edit: A glance at Webster’s “examples” reveals this instance of “religion,” which is intended to be illustrative of the (oblique and peripheral) definition you chose:

“Hockey is a religion in Canada.”

See what I’m saying? Should the word “hockey” disappear from public schools?

302

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
See what I’m saying? Should the word “hockey” disappear from public schools?[/quote]

I don’t think the word should, but I don’t think public schools should be teaching students about hockey.

303

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
See what I’m saying? Should the word “hockey” disappear from public schools?[/quote]

I don’t think the word should, but I don’t think public schools should be teaching students about hockey.[/quote]

And this has exactly nothing to do with evolution’s being taught in science classrooms.

304

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
See what I’m saying? Should the word “hockey” disappear from public schools?[/quote]

I don’t think the word should, but I don’t think public schools should be teaching students about hockey.[/quote]

And this has exactly nothing to do with evolution’s being taught in science classrooms.[/quote]

I agree that this topic doesn’t, but you asked a question regarding schools.

I really have no idea how the hypothesis of evolution was tested by researchers and turned in to the theory of evolution. Where is the strong evidence for something that has never been observed(macroevolution)?

Any debate about evolution vs. _________ is a religious debate. Both sides rely on faith. I think science(and everyone) would be better off leaving the question alone and dealing with what we have, not how or why we are here(at least from a scientific perspective…deal with the questions in their proper realm, if so desired).

305

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
See what I’m saying? Should the word “hockey” disappear from public schools?[/quote]

I don’t think the word should, but I don’t think public schools should be teaching students about hockey.[/quote]

And this has exactly nothing to do with evolution’s being taught in science classrooms.[/quote]

I agree that this topic doesn’t, but you asked a question regarding schools.
[/quote]

I did, but the point that I was making was about the definition of the word “religion.” The question was rhetorical.

But anyway: In order to argue that the word “religion” applies to scientific theories about the Big Bang, or evolution, or geological time, or any number of other well-evidenced things scientists could spend months explaining and rigorously affirming–in order to argue that the word “religion” is correctly applied to any of this, you have to use a definition so loose and peripheral and strange as to render the entire endeavor an act of ludicrous casuistry.

306

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I did, but the point that I was making was about the definition of the word “religion.” The question was rhetorical.

But anyway: In order to argue that the word “religion” applies to scientific theories about the Big Bang, or evolution, or geological time, or any number of other well-evidenced things scientists could spend months explaining and rigorously affirming–in order to argue that the word “religion” is correctly applied to any of this, you have to use a definition so loose and peripheral and strange as to render the entire endeavor an act of ludicrous casuistry.[/quote]

That’s fine, and why I don’t usually participate in evolution vs. _______ debates. I just don’t believe(again, I can’t, and won’t, say this is certainly true) that there is any more observable evidence of evolution than there is for any other explanation of the universe and life.

307

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I just don’t believe(again, I can’t, and won’t, say this is certainly true) that there is any more observable evidence of evolution than there is for any other explanation of the universe and life. [/quote]

It doesn’t sound like actually looking into the matter would do you harm. Also, see the many threads that have–recently–featured a particular challenge regarding abiogenesis/evolution and Genesis 2:7, which are directly analogous.

308

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
About the universe’s contingency

It’s not self contingent, science does not even support this notion. It has a source, and origin, a reason for being that is not itself. If it were, scientists wouldn’t be trying to figure out where it came from. It’s circular reasoning which is fallacious.
[/quote]

This isn’t entirely true. There is a school of thought that the Universe (as defined by smh) has always existed. The Big Bang description of a “singularity” isn’t exactly as it’s described in layman’s terms. Simply, no one knows what it is or what it looked like.

Further, we cannot go back pass this time, but if we could, it’s very possible the Universe was expanded and something caused it to contract into what we refer to as the “singularity”. When it contracted as much as it could, it expanded again and here we are.

Check this out. It was very eye opening.

[/quote]

Well, first I have addressed this issue many times, the universe didn’t have to have a finite temporal beginning. Something being temporally eternal doesn’t answer the question, ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’. If you notice, the question isn’t concerned with when something began, nor even what it is, only that something is and the other option is ‘nothing is’.
The ‘eternal universe’ objection has been around a long time and it has an answer, which is called contingency. Contingency deals with causation in a non-temporal sense. It doesn’t deal with existence in the form of and cause then effect temporal order. It deals with existence by necessity.
So rather than ‘X and Y, therefore Z’, it is rather ‘If Z, then it must have X and Y’.
So rather than looking at the universe in the sense that it had a beginning, we look at the universe in the sense of ‘What does it take for the universe to exist?’ We’re not looking at the problem in the sense of time, we’re looking at it in the sense of what must the universe have to exist, it may or may not include ‘a beginning’.
The ‘Eternal Universe’ objection isn’t a relevant objection. The universe is contingent upon things, like matter and energy, for instance to exist. And matter and energy is contingent upon other thing to exist, etc. The problem ends up being the same, you either have an infinite regress, which is logically impossible, or you have a Necessary Being on which existence itself depends.
The only interesting thing in the video is the notion that the universe is expanding into pre-existing space. Since the common contention is that space and time are defined by matter and energy, I don’t know where they derived the theory that space already exists and the universe is expanding into it, like water filling a pool. I thought that was an ancient theory debunked by General Relativity, but I suppose it’s possible. I am not saying it’s not.

But the answer to ‘What if the universe is eternal?’ is the same as it always has been, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t explain ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’. Lot’s of things exist eternally, all of metaphysics is not definable in a temporal sense and is hence, time eternal. Eternal universe doesn’t resolve the problem, it’s just another cog in the causal chain.

309

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

-Things exist uncaused that are not the Uncaused-cause.
-An infinite regress is possible.

The former point, I think can be worked out as false. But it does take work.
[/quote]

As we touched on about a page ago, this was the question around which that other sprawling thread revolved. It wasn’t proved then, and I contend that it will continue to go unproved by either relying on circularity or relying on equally unprovable assertive maxims. If you look into what, for example, Craig writes about the causal principle, you will note that this contention of mine is consistent with his choice of words on the subject (i.e., if I am recalling correctly, you will note the absence of the words “logical impossibility”). This from one of the most confident theist philosophers in the public eye, bar none. And, glancing around at the work of others, you will find similar evidence (“GOD IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE” is a line often tossed around: Note the absence of words like “only” or “proved” or “must.”)
[/quote]
Well, if you are talking about ‘the universe’ that contention holds true. Craig uses that for his defense of the Kalam Cosmological argument and it’s a version I dislike for many reasons. You are starting with an assumption, like you say, that ‘the universe exists’, which is not something that is deductively provable.
I prefer to start with something like ‘Anything we can know to exist is contingent on something else for it’s existence.’
From here we can eliminate a lot of contentious assumptions, because what we can ‘know’ eliminates ‘what we think’. What can know is that we are consciously aware of, say consciousness itself. But knowing consciousness, requires awareness, and hence you have a contingency on consciousness, which is awareness and for awareness, you need something that can be aware, and on and on down the causal chain we go…
But now we don’t have to deal with the universe or stuff in general on which there are multiple theories, but no solid conclusions. We know we are aware of something, for that we need consciousness, for that we need something that can be conscious, etc.

Yes, I agree. Anything in the natural world requires assumptions including material causation. That’s why I prefer not to deal with physical assertions.

[quote]
Of course, all this talk is really just that. If we really want to duke that one out again, we should just get into it.[/quote]

Well, in that case, I think I just threw the first punch… :slight_smile:

310

The only possible position to take regarding the univers’s beginning or lack of a beginning is simply: I dont know.

You cant think Your way too knowing how it all started.

In short its a futile excercise.

311

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

-Things exist uncaused that are not the Uncaused-cause.
-An infinite regress is possible.

The former point, I think can be worked out as false. But it does take work.
[/quote]

As we touched on about a page ago, this was the question around which that other sprawling thread revolved. It wasn’t proved then, and I contend that it will continue to go unproved by either relying on circularity or relying on equally unprovable assertive maxims. If you look into what, for example, Craig writes about the causal principle, you will note that this contention of mine is consistent with his choice of words on the subject (i.e., if I am recalling correctly, you will note the absence of the words “logical impossibility”). This from one of the most confident theist philosophers in the public eye, bar none. And, glancing around at the work of others, you will find similar evidence (“GOD IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE” is a line often tossed around: Note the absence of words like “only” or “proved” or “must.”)
[/quote]
Well, if you are talking about ‘the universe’ that contention holds true. Craig uses that for his defense of the Kalam Cosmological argument and it’s a version I dislike for many reasons. You are starting with an assumption, like you say, that ‘the universe exists’, which is not something that is deductively provable.
I prefer to start with something like ‘Anything we can know to exist is contingent on something else for it’s existence.’
From here we can eliminate a lot of contentious assumptions, because what we can ‘know’ eliminates ‘what we think’. What can know is that we are consciously aware of, say consciousness itself. But knowing consciousness, requires awareness, and hence you have a contingency on consciousness, which is awareness and for awareness, you need something that can be aware, and on and on down the causal chain we go…
But now we don’t have to deal with the universe or stuff in general on which there are multiple theories, but no solid conclusions. We know we are aware of something, for that we need consciousness, for that we need something that can be conscious, etc.

Yes, I agree. Anything in the natural world requires assumptions including material causation. That’s why I prefer not to deal with physical assertions.

[quote]
Of course, all this talk is really just that. If we really want to duke that one out again, we should just get into it.[/quote]

Well, in that case, I think I just threw the first punch… :)[/quote]

I missed this somehow. Will read through and respond by tomorrow.

312

[quote]florelius wrote:
The only possible position to take regarding the univers’s beginning or lack of a beginning is simply: I dont know.

You cant think Your way too knowing how it all started.

In short its a futile excercise. [/quote]

Yes sir. In the end, this is what I believe too. Because the human mind cannot be uncoupled from the nagging possibility: Ceci n’est pas une pipe.

313

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The only possible position to take regarding the univers’s beginning or lack of a beginning is simply: I dont know.

You cant think Your way too knowing how it all started.

In short its a futile excercise. [/quote]

Yes sir. In the end, this is what I believe too. Because the human mind cannot be uncoupled from the nagging possibility: Ceci n’est pas une pipe.[/quote]

I am also ignorant of the French Language( LOL ). What is "[i]Ceci n’est pas une pipe[i/] in English?

314

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The only possible position to take regarding the univers’s beginning or lack of a beginning is simply: I dont know.

You cant think Your way too knowing how it all started.

In short its a futile excercise. [/quote]

Yes sir. In the end, this is what I believe too. Because the human mind cannot be uncoupled from the nagging possibility: Ceci n’est pas une pipe.[/quote]

I am also ignorant of the French Language( LOL ). What is "[i]Ceci n’est pas une pipe[i/] in English?[/quote]

It is Rene Magritte’s answer to, “Un seul verre d’eau s’allume au monde.”

315

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The only possible position to take regarding the univers’s beginning or lack of a beginning is simply: I dont know.

You cant think Your way too knowing how it all started.

In short its a futile excercise. [/quote]

Yes sir. In the end, this is what I believe too. Because the human mind cannot be uncoupled from the nagging possibility: Ceci n’est pas une pipe.[/quote]

I am also ignorant of the French Language( LOL ). What is "[i]Ceci n’est pas une pipe[i/] in English?[/quote]

It is Rene Magritte’s answer to, “Un seul verre d’eau s’allume au monde.”[/quote]

This is not a pipe.

316

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The only possible position to take regarding the univers’s beginning or lack of a beginning is simply: I dont know.

You cant think Your way too knowing how it all started.

In short its a futile excercise. [/quote]

Yes sir. In the end, this is what I believe too. Because the human mind cannot be uncoupled from the nagging possibility: Ceci n’est pas une pipe.[/quote]

I am also ignorant of the French Language( LOL ). What is "[i]Ceci n’est pas une pipe[i/] in English?[/quote]

It is Rene Magritte’s answer to, “Un seul verre d’eau s’allume au monde.”[/quote]

This is not a pipe. [/quote][/i]

…and, A single glass of water lights the world.

317

Good article, and part of a very good series. Definitely relevant to what was, until recently, the central debate hereabouts:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/the-case-for-soft-atheism/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0#more-153026

“I agree that no theistic arguments are compelling, but I don’t agree that they all are logically invalid or have obviously false premises. I think the best arguments (especially, sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument) are dubious only in the sense that they use premises (e.g., any contingent thing requires a cause) that are not obviously true but that a rational person might properly believe. But settling our disagreement on this would require a thorough discussion of particular arguments.”