RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Philip]

Hugh Farey: Do "all things require a prior thing"? Possibly.

OK, stop right there. We have absolutely no evidence of that there were anythings that had no origin - in fact, mountains of data show the opposite. But, for arguments sake, let's say that is possible. Then those "things" are necessarily eternal. And they were once not physical - that is, if you believe what mainstream science believes about the beginning of the universe.

Hugh: ... but not necessarily. Is that "prior thing" necessarily "eternal, supremely powerful, superintelligent"? By what reasoning?

Because of what showed up, with what power, scale, their incredible characteristics, and immediately obeying highly specific parameters, showing sophistication and design. And NOT things that always existed and evolved as such, but that INSTANTLY became physical and showed such awesome characteristics. If you are merely here to argue against that with metaphysical speculations and theories - well, that's not evidence! As well, to assert that there were eternal, uncreated things - well, you can't believe what Scripture teaches and believe THAT! "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3) Of course, perhaps you don't believe what Scripture teaches?

[Audie]

Really, there is a necessary gap between ALL things that once did not exist, that were not derivative of some prior thing. And this could not happen without some eternal, supremely powerful, SuperIntelligence. And that is true, regardless of whatever processes came into existence.

I think your principles are right, but some of your derivations, which you present as axiomatic, are not necessarily so. The question of why there should be something rather than nothing is valid, but the answer is not necessarily as obviously as you present. Do "all things require a prior thing"? Possibly, but not necessarily. Is that "prior thing" necessarily "eternal, supremely powerful, superintelligent"? By what reasoning? You are perfectly correct that things "before" Science or rationality cannot be explained in scientific or rational terms, but that does not mean that they can "only" be explained by "an eternal, supremely powerful Super Intelligence". As it happens, I think that of the various philosophical speculations, an understanding of "God" is the most appealing to me, as it is to you, but I think we should acknowledge that other explanations are no less possible.

I've seen no interest in my question about what time is, or how an inability to understand time relates to the cosmo argument.

Maybe it doesnt. To me tho, in order to talk about eternity or 'first" or prior, in the grand terms of the discussion, you kind of need to know what time is.

Einstein referred to it, I think, as a useful fiction?

What do you think, the the nature of time somehow relate to this talk of origins? Can a person really do better than merely asserting things about
a "first cause' if 'first" has no actual meaning in this context?

[Kurieuo]

I've seen no interest in my question about what time is, or how an inability to understand time relates to the cosmo argument.

Maybe it doesnt. To me tho, in order to talk about eternity or 'first" or prior, in the grand terms of the discussion, you kind of need to know what time is.

Einstein referred to it, I think, as a useful fiction?

Lady Min, in case you missed it, Jac did open a thread some time back in response to your questions on time here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 2&p=213010

Since you prefer not to entertain God talk, you may want to ignore such parts. Perhaps substitute whatever you think is eternal in the equation where the discussion drifts off towards such.

Hope you're doing well.

[hughfarey]

We have absolutely no evidence of that there were anythings that had no origin - in fact, mountains of data show the opposite. But, for arguments sake, let's say that is possible. Then those "things" are necessarily eternal. And they were once not physical - that is, if you believe what mainstream science believes about the beginning of the universe.

Not necessarily. As it happens, I concur with you, and think that the universe did indeed begin with the Big Bang, but there are plenty of alternative suggestions about cyclic or bubbling universes - physical entities but beyond our power to investigate - which go on forever. Lack of evidence about what happened "before" the Big Bang is not in itself evidence that there wasn't a "before" or that time started with the Big Bang.

Because of what showed up, with what power, scale, their incredible characteristics, and immediately obeying highly specific parameters, showing sophistication and design.

I agree that our only way of characterising the initial circumstances that resulted in the big bang and the subsequent evolution of the universe is by looking at the results, but again we must be careful of not becoming too anthropocentric. We do not know if ours is in fact the only possible universe, or whether there are billions of other universes, either of which would deny that it was anything 'special'. And even if somehow we could demonstrate that of all the possible universes, we were the only one which actually occurred, we would still not know if our version was a good one, or a specially 'chosen' one, except from an anthropocentric point of view. Are the characteristics of this universe particularly awesome? By what comparison, since we only know one?

I think the point I'm making is that Audie is unlikely to be convinced, or even slightly swayed, from her position, by mere assertion. Those who think the Big Bang was the beginning of everything must accept that just because their view is philosophically satisfying to them, it is not necessarily the only sensible one, or that others can't have a different one. I don't know that Audie has a different view, or indeed any view at all - if I did, I might try to persuade her that my view was better! - I think her main purpose here is simply to point out that Biblical theism is not as unassailable as some people think it is.

(Am I right, Audie?)

[Audie]

xx

[Audie]

We have absolutely no evidence of that there were anythings that had no origin - in fact, mountains of data show the opposite. But, for arguments sake, let's say that is possible. Then those "things" are necessarily eternal. And they were once not physical - that is, if you believe what mainstream science believes about the beginning of the universe.

Not necessarily. As it happens, I concur with you, and think that the universe did indeed begin with the Big Bang, but there are plenty of alternative suggestions about cyclic or bubbling universes - physical entities but beyond our power to investigate - which go on forever. Lack of evidence about what happened "before" the Big Bang is not in itself evidence that there wasn't a "before" or that time started with the Big Bang.

Because of what showed up, with what power, scale, their incredible characteristics, and immediately obeying highly specific parameters, showing sophistication and design.

I agree that our only way of characterising the initial circumstances that resulted in the big bang and the subsequent evolution of the universe is by looking at the results, but again we must be careful of not becoming too anthropocentric. We do not know if ours is in fact the only possible universe, or whether there are billions of other universes, either of which would deny that it was anything 'special'. And even if somehow we could demonstrate that of all the possible universes, we were the only one which actually occurred, we would still not know if our version was a good one, or a specially 'chosen' one, except from an anthropocentric point of view. Are the characteristics of this universe particularly awesome? By what comparison, since we only know one?

I think the point I'm making is that Audie is unlikely to be convinced, or even slightly swayed, from her position, by mere assertion. Those who think the Big Bang was the beginning of everything must accept that just because their view is philosophically satisfying to them, it is not necessarily the only sensible one, or that others can't have a different one. I don't know that Audie has a different view, or indeed any view at all - if I did, I might try to persuade her that my view was better! - I think her main purpose here is simply to point out that Biblical theism is not as unassailable as some people think it is.

(Am I right, Audie?)

Close enough.


Assertions, no, tho I may be susceptible to a long string of adjectives in bold all caps blue font.

[Philip]

Hugh, it matters not a whit whether or not the Big Bang was THE very beginning of all that exists. But SOMETHING was, as that is just pure logic. But I'm more interested, per your Christian beliefs, as to what you make of what I asked (below):

"... to assert that there were eternal, uncreated things - well, you can't believe what Scripture teaches and believe THAT! "ALL things came into being through Him, and apart from Him NOTHING came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3) Of course, perhaps you don't believe what Scripture teaches?

[hughfarey]

Hugh, it matters not a whit whether or not the Big Bang was THE very beginning of all that exists. But SOMETHING was, as that is just pure logic.

No; its not logic at all. It's supposition. There is no logical reason to decide that everything had a beginning, or for that matter that everything is eternal. These are philosophies, not science.

But I'm more interested, per your Christian beliefs, as to what you make of what I asked (below):
"... to assert that there were eternal, uncreated things - well, you can't believe what Scripture teaches and believe THAT! "ALL things came into being through Him, and apart from Him NOTHING came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3) Of course, perhaps you don't believe what Scripture teaches?

As I said, twice, I favour the idea that the universe did have a beginning, and that it was brought into being by an entity outside of time, which I understand as God. But I also understand that this is an unsupported assertion - except by Scripture and Tradition, which may be good enough for me, but is not logical, so one cannot fault people who hold to different ideas.

[RickD]

Philosophy is not logical?

[abelcainsbrother]

The reason why science has dropped the ball in so many ways is because it abandoned philosophy,you cannot think and express yourself logically without philosophy and science is and should not be excluded just because scientists reject philosophy and don't choose to think logically while doing science.It causes them to keep going the wrong way not thinking logically which produces bad science.

[Kurieuo]

Philosophy is not logical?

No, only science is. Philosophy are for pussies who like their bellies rubbed.

[RickD]

Philosophy is not logical?

No, only science is. Philosophy are for pussies who like their bellies rubbed.

[Kurieuo]

Actually, I just discovered Audie's philosophy is much similar to that of a cat:

[abelcainsbrother]

Hugh, it matters not a whit whether or not the Big Bang was THE very beginning of all that exists. But SOMETHING was, as that is just pure logic.

No; its not logic at all. It's supposition. There is no logical reason to decide that everything had a beginning, or for that matter that everything is eternal. These are philosophies, not science.

But I'm more interested, per your Christian beliefs, as to what you make of what I asked (below):
"... to assert that there were eternal, uncreated things - well, you can't believe what Scripture teaches and believe THAT! "ALL things came into being through Him, and apart from Him NOTHING came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3) Of course, perhaps you don't believe what Scripture teaches?

As I said, twice, I favour the idea that the universe did have a beginning, and that it was brought into being by an entity outside of time, which I understand as God. But I also understand that this is an unsupported assertion - except by Scripture and Tradition, which may be good enough for me, but is not logical, so one cannot fault people who hold to different ideas.

We must go with our understanding of science now and the big bang is king and there is nothing for the foreseeable future in science that is even close to changing it. On the one hand you imply we cannot impose God in science because it is supposition,but then you allow yourself to suppose by suggesting other theories in science that not all scientists agree on and agree about. This is typical with modern day scientific thinking we are not allowed to insert God into but yet they are free to speculate about unpeer reviewed scientific hypothesis's that are less tested and proven than the big bang. I wish science would drop this thinking. I mean they do not even have to choose one God,they could just consider a higher-power,but no! We can't do that!

[RickD]

Actually, I just discovered Audie's philosophy is much similar to that of a cat:

Oh, you mean cats.

I think something got lost in translation, from "down under".