|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2005 : 15:22:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
Where would you draw the line? Which outcomes are from a designer? Which are purely natural?
Well I could ask the question, is the 'will' of man purely natural? Man has become a 'designer' of sorts himself, and almost instintively views himself as somewhat above the natural. And indeed he does have a wee bit of transcendence over the merely natural (imo). That is, he is somewhat free of a strict causality, by his will decisions. A little god of sorts. Of course by definition ultimate Deity would be ultimate volition, under no subservience to another principle.
The physical lawful mechanism of the universe would represent a subset of God's 'habits' so to speak. There, some theology for ya, at not extra charge.
So as you can see, as one who sees all things sourced and unified in Deity, I am not disposed to any strict separation of 'designer outcomes' and 'natural outcomes'.
The phenomenon of 'will' may not contradict known physical laws, but it does take good advantage of the tiny uncertainties inherent therein, producing potentially large effects which appear to be highly improbable.
Mark
??? So is "free will" evidence of a designer??? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 17:02:46 [Permalink]
|
Subjectmatter:
...but ID certainly doesn't belong in philosophy! The study of philosophy is necessarily systematic...
I agree that it's not on the same side of philosophy as symbolic logic, scientific inference etc. (call that the "right side") but philosophy deals with alot more, since most things aren't discretely, readily, or completely quantifiable (e.g. bioethics, in my opinion, lies "in the middle"... it tries to use tools from the "right" but has to wrestle with the "left" (more abstract side including ethics and such, without formal structure)... I think the concept of/mention of ID might well fit into a corner somewhere on the "left" side. It would be great if we could fit everything into rigid structures, but we can't do it. As for religions, well, that's another matter- not philosophy at all, in my opinion.
Markie:
...but it is merely a belief that material mechanism is *soley* responsible.
But we have no testable evidence for any of the mechanisms you refer to (i.e ID.) For that matter, why don't we teach that "Quantum tunneling is one explanation as to why transistors work- demons continually regulating the currents upon orders from Satan to help accelerate a coming of The Apocalypse through these devices has also been mentioned." Lotsa supporting theory/evidence for the former, none for the latter.
...Is reality simply layer upon layer, ad infinitum? Perhaps, but I rather sense that...
I can't sense it, but I can't sense radio waves, either, and we use them all the time, so obviously they exist. Until Man figures out a way to indirectly measure, detect these things so I can understand them, they're interesting opinions, but I can't accept them
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 11:28:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree that it's not on the same side of philosophy as symbolic logic, scientific inference etc. (call that the "right side") but philosophy deals with alot more, since most things aren't discretely, readily, or completely quantifiable (e.g. bioethics, in my opinion, lies "in the middle"... it tries to use tools from the "right" but has to wrestle with the "left" (more abstract side including ethics and such, without formal structure)... I think the concept of/mention of ID might well fit into a corner somewhere on the "left" side. It would be great if we could fit everything into rigid structures, but we can't do it. As for religions, well, that's another matter- not philosophy at all, in my opinion.
But even ethics must be totally free from contradictions, otherwise it is nothing more than worthless, meaningless ramblings of madmen. Further many ethical philosophers claim that a formal logical structure can and will be devoloped one day. They speak of the formalisation of the intuition of value, which is really the nly weak point in the Kantian account of ethics; there are no contradictions, but part of the sufficient condition of the existence of any kind of ought-system rests on the unreliable logical groud of intuition.
quote:
Interesting. Among other things I could ask, do thoughts have "form"? Yet they seem to change as they interact with matter.
Personally I don't conceive of ultimate Deity having 'form' because of course that would imply a 'space' context of sorts which frames Deity and hence would be comparable to Deity, which is self contradictory.
Mark
You misunderstand what I mean by 'form'. Entirely my fault, I should have defined it for you. A 'Form' in the philosophical sense is precisely that which does not exist in space or time - therefore timeless, eternal and unchanging - and does not exist in matter either. A form is only manifest in the relationship between the active subject, the self, and the external world in terms of the noumenal reality.
As such, thoughts are not 'forms', as thoughts are perceived - therefore part of the external world. What is not part of the external world is the intention to form the thought. The intention to form the thought must, however, be determined by the memory system of the active subject. The memory system is in turn defined by the totality of all perception by the active subject as well as any a priori knowledge.
You also failed to address the actual argument; god must be timeless, therefore god must be unchanging - therefore god cannot be intentional as intention necessarily requires change over time. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
| Edited by - Subjectmatter on 09/28/2005 11:29:39 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 19:37:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.More importantly, we have no reason to believe that step two is not sufficient. Do you have a good, scientific reason we should think that all the known mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to take us from a primordial cell to the biodiversity we see today?
That's a good question. I can't think of any other scientifically discernable mechanism that evolution would use. Therefore I can't produce a good scientific reason to suspect that all the known mechanisms are insufficient. Bummer.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 20:01:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks ??? So is "free will" evidence of a designer???
To me, yes. To me it ups the ante of the quality of the Designer Deity. I mean, if the designer creates the universe to produce creatures with volition and personableness, it is hard to think that such Deity itself wouldn't have those same qualities, but in greater and more perfect measure.
I think it was Kant who said something to the effect that personal relationships are not a means but an end to themselves. I agree. In other words, it is of ultimate value. To say that the Ultimate Designer of All is impersonal, as Einstein did, is not too bright. hahahahaha
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 20:47:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter You also failed to address the actual argument; god must be timeless, therefore god must be unchanging - therefore god cannot be intentional as intention necessarily requires change over time.
I must admit that I my head was spinning so fast from your post that I didn't perceive your 'actual argument'. I assume that you are conveying that a timeless God cannot be intentional, that is volitional.
For starters, I take issue with the premise that change is measured by time. In fact, I believe that the reality of time is *derivative* from the reality of change, rather than visa versa. Time may have been created as a technique to 'sequentially order' change which was otherwise eternally occurring, trapped in the circle of the Eternal Now. Thus there has always been volition in Deity. The introduction of time would merely extend its mode of operation.
existentially yours,
Mark
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 00:25:09 [Permalink]
|
Subjectmatter:
...but part of the sufficient condition of the existence of any kind of ought-system rests on the unreliable logical groud of intuition.
Yea, that makes it necessarily kind of muddy, but I suppose that's the best that can be hoped for. RE contradictions, I see what you mean, but RE development of a formal structure that would be flexible and have adequate scope, hard for me to imagine, but you're obviously more familiar with the topic, and up-to-date than I (been decades, and my knowledge base is rudimentary in these things- enough to be practical.) When it came to linking logical structures to worldly questions, I never felt that confident in a capacity for exactitude. I mean, the trivial example of a contradiction is "This statement is false" and the problem isn't as simple as eliminating self-reference or syntactic, it has to do with the way we define things like "True" "False" "Right" "Wrong" "Good" "Bad"... makes it hard to deal with the world in deductive terms. Keeping that kind of thing in mind, I tend not to be too harsh in citing some degree of contradiction unless it's blatant. But maybe the way I think about these things is somewhat antiquated and underinformed from the perspective these days(likely).
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 00:43:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
For starters, I take issue with the premise that change is measured by time. In fact, I believe that the reality of time is *derivative* from the reality of change, rather than visa versa. Time may have been created as a technique to 'sequentially order' change which was otherwise eternally occurring, trapped in the circle of the Eternal Now. Thus there has always been volition in Deity. The introduction of time would merely extend its mode of operation.
I like that view of time... I mean, it's untestable (as far as I can imagine) but it kind of seems to make so much sense in a way, even though I can't really understand it, you might be right. We have infinite spatial dimensions (not just the 3 we're familiar with) which we know exist (quantum mechanics wouldn't work otherwise) so things transpiring in these 3 correlate with concurrencies in all the others, not just the "time" dimension. Maybe there's a lot more going on than we can sense, and "time" as we percieve it, is just a tool inherent to our brains- a way for our limited biologies to order, or help us "make sense of" what little we can perceive. Comes in kinda' handy, though.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 10:45:10 [Permalink]
|
cuckoo
cuckoo
cuckoo
...........................
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 14:31:52 [Permalink]
|
| Yea, maybe, idunno. I try to be open minded. Before I get back to the grind, lemme shoot a few sentences as to why I have so much trouble accepting that rigid logical structures can apply to ethics, although I might be underinformed. Consider that by definition, Lying is a special case of Deception, Deception is a special case of Manipulation, and Manipulation lies in the Universe of all human behaviors. Looking at definitions, it seems to make good sense. Yet you can tell the absolute truth, and be extremely deceptive (I blabbed about this stuff and gave a few examples in a short webpage, http://religion.freewebpage.org/105.htm but I know ya'll heard it all before.) And I don't think the solution lies in adding rules to the definitions, or the logical structures- the stuff's too gray... I think it's too hard to put a logical handle on the stuff- if we could, computers could make all of our decisions. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 09/29/2005 14:42:56 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 15:36:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks ??? So is "free will" evidence of a designer???
To me, yes.
Yet, in the post just before this you stated:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W
More importantly, we have no reason to believe that step two is not sufficient. Do you have a good, scientific reason we should think that all the known mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to take us from a primordial cell to the biodiversity we see today?
quote:
Originally posted by markie
That's a good question. I can't think of any other scientifically discernable mechanism that evolution would use. Therefore I can't produce a good scientific reason to suspect that all the known mechanisms are insufficient. Bummer.
It seems to me like you've drawn an arbitrary line of what is evidence of a designer and what is evidence of natural processes.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Science has shown convincingly that evolution has occurred, but it is merely a belief that material mechanism is *soley* responsible.
You're indicating that there might be more than material mechanisms involved. But if there was, why would you (apart from making a totally arbitrary decision) conclude that there were any material mechanisms at all? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 17:40:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawksIt seems to me like you've drawn an arbitrary line of what is evidence of a designer and what is evidence of natural processes .... You're indicating that there might be more than material mechanisms involved. But if there was, why would you (apart from making a totally arbitrary decision) conclude that there were any material mechanisms at all?
In a nutshell I see the universe as consisting of those things which science can detect and measure (material mechanisms), and those things it can't, like 'mind'. *Each* are evidence of a designer (to me), in different phases.
I realize as well that science's job is not to relate evidence to a designer, but rather simply to see how one piece of material evidence relates to another.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 09:46:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
For starters, I take issue with the premise that change is measured by time. In fact, I believe that the reality of time is *derivative* from the reality of change, rather than visa versa. Time may have been created as a technique to 'sequentially order' change which was otherwise eternally occurring, trapped in the circle of the Eternal Now. Thus there has always been volition in Deity. The introduction of time would merely extend its mode of operation.
existentially yours,
Mark
Change and moving through time are identical, that is how time is defined. It is analytically true, - a tautology - to say that as something changes, it must moove through time.
If the angelic volition you speak of changes, as it must else it cannot be volition, then it moves through time. And change means interaction with parts of itself; i.e. it cannot be simple, it must be compound, interaction means that it is composed of, or a principle of, matter, because that is the definition of matter.
If it is the question of volition necessarily involving change you disagree with, then I offer the following: something which is unchanging cannot know or believe anything, as believing something is an action and knowledge is defined - more exhaustive definitions are more correct, but this will suffice for the argument at hand - as true, justified belief. If it cannot know or believe anything then it cannot intend anything as you must at least know what it is that you are intending.
Further, on another line of thought, if this 'deity' does not interact with the universe, then in what sense does it exist? If it 'designs' the universe, then it does interact with matter, meaning that it is matter, meaning that there must be principles that govern how it interacts with other matter. If there are no principles guiding it, then the interactions do not happen in a specific way, meaning that they do not happen at all. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 19:28:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
Originally posted by markie
For starters, I take issue with the premise that change is measured by time. In fact, I believe that the reality of time is *derivative* from the reality of change, rather than visa versa. Time may have been created as a technique to 'sequentially order' change which was otherwise eternally occurring, trapped in the circle of the Eternal Now. Thus there has always been volition in Deity. The introduction of time would merely extend its mode of operation.
existentially yours,
Mark
Change and moving through time are identical, that is how time is defined. It is analytically true, - a tautology - to say that as something changes, it must moove through time.
If the angelic volition you speak of changes, as it must else it cannot be volition, then it moves through time. And change means interaction with parts of itself; i.e. it cannot be simple, it must be compound, interaction means that it is composed of, or a principle of, matter, because that is the definition of matter.
If it is the question of volition necessarily involving change you disagree with, then I offer the following: something which is unchanging cannot know or believe anything, as believing something is an action and knowledge is defined - more exhaustive definitions are more correct, but this will suffice for the argument at hand - as true, justified belief. If it cannot know or believe anything then it cannot intend anything as you must at least know what it is that you are intending.
Further, on another line of thought, if this 'deity' does not interact with the universe, then in what sense does it exist? If it 'designs' the universe, then it does interact with matter, meaning that it is matter, meaning that there must be principles that govern how it interacts with other matter. If there are no principles guiding it, then the interactions do not happen in a specific way, meaning that they do not happen at all.
SubjectMatter, it is not the issue of volition involving change I have issue with; it is the matter of the fundamentality of time itself and of change itself. You are theorizing that the two are inseparable as a tautology, while I theorize that time is a derivative phenomenon from an absolute reality of changeableness.
Consider a photon of light travelling at light speed across the universe. According to relativity, it doesn't experience time. Yet even though it is apparently frozen in time it simulataneously experiences a near infinity of space change.
What I'm saying is that as creatures of time-change progression it is only natural to project our time sensibilities to what absolute and timeless reality might be like. Personally I think we are waaay out of our depth considering things which are 'out of time'.
Mark
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 22:16:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Consider a photon of light travelling at light speed across the universe. According to relativity, it doesn't experience time...
I don't doubt that time exists, and I really doubt the time travel stuff is possible (I think Special and General Relativity tastefully offset each other) but I don't think we fully understand the nature of time. Magnetism effects gravity, and gravity bends the fabric of space, and that changes time as we understand (can perceive) it. How much can we bend it, and what's that mean? Physicists seem to concur that the wormhole bit is possible, so it seems like it can have the hell bent out of it, making change of position as we understand it at far over the speed of light possible. Quarks are coming in and out of existence, even in a perfect vacuum, and there are an infinite number of other spatial dimensions, so suppose a photon (or a person) was traveling not through space, but through other dimensions. Would it be sitting still in time relative to our world? Do particles travel through other dimensions in a finite period of time, thus have speed, or just disappear and appear, throwing a monkey wrench into our basic concept of time? I mean, yea, as far as we're concerned, everything we can deal with has a delta-t attached to it (and I keep my watch handy) but I can't confidently say we've even scratched the surface of what's out there- too much weird stuff goes on.
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 09/30/2005 22:22:57 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
