RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Veritas -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/24/2008 11:35:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica

Greetings favorable Real_Solitude! Do you know, by scientific probability, the mathematics for what you are saying exists in the universe?

No, Real_Solitude does not know the probability, neither do I, neither does anyone. The best science can tell us is that in a sample of one, things are as they are. Empirically this gives us a probability of 1.0 but with such a small sample we have a very high degree of uncertainty.



cybrjewls -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/25/2008 1:05:20 AM)

Greetings fair Veritas! Please notice that the statement: 'It exists, because it exists' is not science. Quite illogical to be unreasoning toward the probability of the math when mathematics is called the Queen of the sciences. For alot of things can be learned and explained mathematically in chemistry, physics, biology etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica

Greetings favorable Real_Solitude! Do you know, by scientific probability, the mathematics for what you are saying exists in the universe?

No, Real_Solitude does not know the probability, neither do I, neither does anyone. The best science can tell us is that in a sample of one, things are as they are. Empirically this gives us a probability of 1.0 but with such a small sample we have a very high degree of uncertainty.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/25/2008 9:20:18 AM)

quote:

mathematics is called the Queen of the sciences.
Actually prophetica, theology was called "Queen of the sciences" for centuries until "science", falsely-called, was hijacked by humanistic naturalism. Math is the language of science, not a true scientific "-ology" itself.



cybrjewls -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/25/2008 3:54:05 PM)

Greetings drmark! Thank you for the correction. I believe that you are correct to say that math is a language that science is taught in. However, science purports to limit itself to describing the behaviors of perceived physical phenomenon. I don't believe that science, in and of itself, supports faith based on the belief that no God exists. Nor does it seek to contradict that The One does exist. For it is limited in its scope, though the applications can be useful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

mathematics is called the Queen of the sciences.
Actually prophetica, theology was called "Queen of the sciences" for centuries until "science", falsely-called, was hijacked by humanistic naturalism. Math is the language of science, not a true scientific "-ology" itself.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/25/2008 4:16:01 PM)

quote:

However, science purports to limit itself to describing the behaviors of perceived physical phenomenon.
No prophetica, that would be scientism which "purports to limit itself" to naturalism, thus becoming another humanistic philosophy. Real science is knowledge gained by systematic study and methodology, regardless of the implications to naturalism.

quote:

I don't believe that science, in and of itself, supports faith based on the belief that no God exists.
Again, you've confused science with naturalistic scientism which has evolved over the last 150+ years. Real science certainly does support the exceedingly probable existence of God, whereas scientism rejects any belief which is antagonistic to its underlying faith of humanistic naturalism.



Dred -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/25/2008 5:43:52 PM)

quote:

Actually prophetica, theology was called "Queen of the sciences" for centuries until "science", falsely-called, was hijacked by humanistic naturalism. Math is the language of science, not a true scientific "-ology" itself.


Actually, you are both right. Gauss is known for first calling mathematics "the queen of sciences" and many have repeated that. Theology has also been often referred to as the queen of sciences. Math usually is considered a science in itself, though arguments can be made that it is more like an aesthetic art. It is the only science in which certainty exists. Obviously, we all believe many things which cannot absolutely be proven.

Few atheistic evolutionists have really considered the probabilities involved and assume that a few billion years is plenty of time for things that appear improbable. Those few who have considered the probabilistic difficulties are often resorting to multiple universe theories at this time. Specifically, that theory is that every quantum possibility takes place in some alternate universe. It appears impossible to prove or disprove such an idea. If it were true, anything we observe could have happened by random chance. However, it also implies a universe in which a guy in a red cape has been flying around rescuing people for the last 20 years. No miracle could prove the existence of God if such a quantum theory were true. There is a vanishingly small probability that the molecules in any coffin of any cemetery could rearrange themselves into a healthy, living human being in an instant. If every possible quantum event is realized in some universe, we would expect such things to happen as a matter of course (though in a minority of universes).

That theory has some current popularity and seems reasonable enough for single quantum events, even making quantum events less mysterious.

No one will be forced intellectually to believe in God. One is convinced when one encounters Him.

Ed



Real_Solitude -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/26/2008 3:26:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
And atheist say they don’t have a religion.

Notice the reverence that atheist hold toward a scientific hypothesis.

There's a distinct difference between religion, as an institution and a faith, and religiousness, as a sense of awe and wonderment. The natural world is beautiful when seen through the naked eye, but that splendor is pale in comparison to the wonders that science has revealed. A sunset is beautiful, but knowledge of the Realeigh effect has enhanced the view, in my mind. In the same vein, creatures are interesting, but evolutionary theory has brought me a deeper appreciation for their interactions with each other and their environments.
Simply observing something using my senses is nice, but is a truly grand experience to be able to lean how it happens, and what goes into making it happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Isn't it convenient that evolution cannot be falsified! In truth, it's not even a hypothesis, because a hypothesis could be tested.

Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian?


quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Oh, come on, Nothingman, the Law of Causality is as "proper" as it gets. Feel free to post any example of a resulting event not being caused by an event greater than the result. Thus, if you believe the universe is a real event, then only Creator God could have caused it. Case closed!

Are you using God in a big "G" sense, or the little "g" sense? Also, are we simply going to ignore the problem of infinite regress? Or the counter arguments to the Cosmological Argument?



Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/26/2008 3:35:55 PM)

quote:

Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian?


I always love this example, facetious as it is.

For one thing it would not falsify evolution; it would simply indicate that the particular apocryphal creature didn't evolve, or somehow got where it was by some unknown process.

Indeed, the only way such a creature could come to exist in the Cambrian would be through a miracle - so basically you are saying the only falsification scheme for evolution is the existence of the miraculous, aka, evolution is a de facto atheistic belief, a metaphysical construct, and requires something other than science to be disproved.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/26/2008 5:32:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
For one thing it would not falsify evolution; it would simply indicate that the particular apocryphal creature didn't evolve, or somehow got where it was by some unknown process.


At the very least, that would falsify evolution as the universal theory about all life on earth. Isn't that good enough?

Sure, evolution might linger on in the same way that Newton's 'Law' of Gravity lingers on, even though we know it does not apply universally.

The Pre-Cambrian rabbit would be like the anomolous precession of the orbit of Mercury. Did the orbit of Mercury falsify Newtonian gravitation?

In a sense, yes. Newton's theory gave the wrong answer, so the formula was wrong. At the same time, there were a bajillion other observations that were consistent with Newton's theory. So a new theory would have to explain all of the old data, and also the anomolous data. This, of course, is what Einstein succeeded in doing.

So the rabbit would falsify evolution, but it wouldn't suddenly destroy all the other evidence that points to evolution. All of that would still have to be incorporated and explained by a new theory.



Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/26/2008 5:39:26 PM)

quote:

At the very least, that would falsify evolution as the universal theory about all life on earth. Isn't that good enough?

Sure, evolution might linger on in the same way that Newton's 'Law' of Gravity lingers on, even though we know it does not apply universally.

The Pre-Cambrian rabbit would be like the anomolous precession of the orbit of Mercury. Did the orbit of Mercury falsify Newtonian gravitation?

In a sense, yes. Newton's theory gave the wrong answer, so the formula was wrong. At the same time, there were a bajillion other observations that were consistent with Newton's theory. So a new theory would have to explain all of the old data, and also the anomolous data. This, of course, is what Einstein succeeded in doing.

So the rabbit would falsify evolution, but it wouldn't suddenly destroy all the other evidence that points to evolution. All of that would still have to be incorporated and explained by a new theory.


Well, first off, universal evolution is already falsified. We don't think the first life form 'evolved', science proposes that a number of organisms arose as a result of the direct transfusion of genetic material between organisms creating new organisms, and obviously a number of organisms exist today almost solely as the result of intelligence.

We also know now that incredible informational complexity existed long before evolution ever supposed it could or should, rendering obsolete the notion that evolution is the progress from simple organisms to more complex ones.

So if such notions could falsify evolution they already would have; evolution of course skips along, primarily assumed rather than proven.



Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/26/2008 5:44:27 PM)

One more thing that i missed while i was laughing at the Cambrian rabbit:

quote:

Are you using God in a big "G" sense, or the little "g" sense? Also, are we simply going to ignore the problem of infinite regress? Or the counter arguments to the Cosmological Argument?


Infinite regression is never an argument against a designer anymore than it would be an argument against any cause, because presumably no matter what cause you propose (chance, natural law, intelligence) there always exists the possibility that a cause came before. It is than an unscientific argument because science can only consider proximate causes, not infinite one, particularly when those causes conceivably exist outside of our universe.



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/27/2008 3:40:05 PM)

"Neither pure chance nor the pure absence of chance can explain the world"...

-Hartshorne

Atheistic evolution doesn't make sense because there is order in this world while pure teleology doesn't as well, for there is freedom and disorder (evil). A middle ground must be forged that synthesized these two facts about life, and I'm starting to come around to the idea that order implies an orderer while the disorder implies that order's forbearance of coersive influence. In other words, there is a God, but what about the idea that it is not omnipotent? What about a God that is limited in his power? I think this is the most sensical understanding of God and needs to be taken seriously...



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/27/2008 3:48:52 PM)

quote:

Are you using God in a big "G" sense, or the little "g" sense? Also, are we simply going to ignore the problem of infinite regress? Or the counter arguments to the Cosmological Argument?


Why don't you state what those counterarguments are and why they are valid? Posting a link to a website with a layman's history of the cosmological argument isn't saying anything. I could just post a link to an elaberate cosmological argument by, say, Plantinga; would that in itself prove anything other than there the argument exists? Have you even read the literature of which you are using to make your point? The cosmological argument, as well as the teleological and ontological arguements, are still in dispute and far from conclusive. I doubt they ever will be, for they are arguments and not proofs. They can only make one side of the issue stronger or weaker and that depends largely on the individual's perception of the veracity of any given argument.



Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/27/2008 3:49:12 PM)

quote:

"Neither pure chance nor the pure absence of chance can explain the world"...

-Hartshorne

Atheistic evolution doesn't make sense because there is order in this world while pure teleology doesn't as well, for there is freedom and disorder (evil). A middle ground must be forged that synthesized these two facts about life, and I'm starting to come around to the idea that order implies an orderer while the disorder implies that order's forbearance of coersive influence. In other words, there is a God, but what about the idea that it is not omnipotent? What about a God that is limited in his power? I think this is the most sensical understanding of God and needs to be taken seriously...


Or, as Christians believe, a God who has allowed there to exist evil and disorder as a product of creating a universe in which humans can operate as free moral agents. This isn't ultimately a limit on His power, but instead one part of plan which takes the existence of evil and disorder into consideration.



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/27/2008 6:49:59 PM)

First of all, what Christians believe regarding metephysics is in itself a debate. I know many different Christians who perceive of varying concepts of metaphysics and conceptions of God and his relationship to us. But yes, what you state is the traditional view point...I just have a fundamental problem with it as it seems to fall apart upon the problem of evil. Ultimately there must be a limit of his power for a morally perfect agent would always do the moral action if it is within his capibility. Now I can see how some evil could be used as a "tool" for good, as a lesson. But it is clear that there simply is an adundence of useless evil of the most dispicible kind that is absolutely senseless and of no utilitarian benefit. And that I cannot accept within the idea that God is all-powerful AND all-good. Something has got to give...



Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/27/2008 7:03:27 PM)

quote:

First of all, what Christians believe regarding metephysics is in itself a debate. I know many different Christians who perceive of varying concepts of metaphysics and conceptions of God and his relationship to us. But yes, what you state is the traditional view point...I just have a fundamental problem with it as it seems to fall apart upon the problem of evil. Ultimately there must be a limit of his power for a morally perfect agent would always do the moral action if it is within his capibility. Now I can see how some evil could be used as a "tool" for good, as a lesson. But it is clear that there simply is an adundence of useless evil of the most dispicible kind that is absolutely senseless and of no utilitarian benefit. And that I cannot accept within the idea that God is all-powerful AND all-good. Something has got to give...


Well, if it is true that the world is populated by moral free agents, and that in order to be moral free agents they must be allowed to do evil, then it is no lessening of God’s power to allow such agents to exist if indeed it is good and right for moral free agency to exist; it satisfies both His goodness and power.

Also of use is stepping back a bit and considering that those moral agents, and the world in which they find themselves, are all the product of the mind of God – not only the product of, but were understood by Him for all eternity – He knows the exact manner of every being that exists, existed, or ever will exist. And He knows the exact response of every person in every conceivable circumstance that could possibly exist.

Knowing this, it is possible for Him to construct a world that preserves the greatest freedom as well as the greatest good in accordance with His ultimate will.

That would be this world; it could be no other way.



Dred -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/27/2008 10:50:39 PM)

quote:

Now I can see how some evil could be used as a "tool" for good, as a lesson. But it is clear that there simply is an adundence of useless evil of the most dispicible kind that is absolutely senseless and of no utilitarian benefit. And that I cannot accept within the idea that God is all-powerful AND all-good. Something has got to give...


What if evil is being used as a tool to finally turn the stomachs of those who observe it as well as those who commit it--to eventually horrify some who would otherwise not reject evil in 'moderation'?



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/27/2008 11:55:47 PM)

quote:

Well, if it is true that the world is populated by moral free agents, and that in order to be moral free agents they must be allowed to do evil, then it is no lessening of God’s power to allow such agents to exist if indeed it is good and right for moral free agency to exist; it satisfies both His goodness and power.


That is a good argument but the only issue I take with it is that the world you're describing is a deistic one, which isn't a feasible option for me (or for you, I assume). A world where God creates us as morally free agents that are able to do both good and evil I am ok with in itself. My problem is that the inconsistency becomes apparent when we simultaniously conceive of God as a relational and effective agent within that very world. Your decription only works with a God that is wholly unaffecting or interfering with the world, for if he does interfere(act, effect etc) then we are back to quare one regarding the POE.

quote:

Also of use is stepping back a bit and considering that those moral agents, and the world in which they find themselves, are all the product of the mind of God – not only the product of, but were understood by Him for all eternity – He knows the exact manner of every being that exists, existed, or ever will exist. And He knows the exact response of every person in every conceivable circumstance that could possibly exist.

Knowing this, it is possible for Him to construct a world that preserves the greatest freedom as well as the greatest good in accordance with His ultimate will.

That would be this world; it could be no other way.


Leibniz's arguement "the best of all possible worlds"...Indeed I think that if one is going to accept the classical theistic conception of God then this line of reasoning is the way to go. I just don't think its persuasive enough...



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/28/2008 12:02:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dred

quote:

Now I can see how some evil could be used as a "tool" for good, as a lesson. But it is clear that there simply is an adundence of useless evil of the most dispicible kind that is absolutely senseless and of no utilitarian benefit. And that I cannot accept within the idea that God is all-powerful AND all-good. Something has got to give...


What if evil is being used as a tool to finally turn the stomachs of those who observe it as well as those who commit it--to eventually horrify some who would otherwise not reject evil in 'moderation'?


Sure...but you really think that that is the reason evil exists? I wholly agree that evil can be a means to make one's moral sensibilities more acute and that good can come from this. But this is simply not the case even half the time. There is countless evil that occurs that no one witnesses, no one is "bettered" by...the most that this is able to occur that one is able to take an evil occurance and try to make the best out of it. But that doesn't mean evil had a purpose for good; its just the best one can with a bad deal. How does an innocent child's molestation benefit anyone...?



Dred -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/28/2008 11:11:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dred

What if evil is being used as a tool to finally turn the stomachs of those who observe it as well as those who commit it--to eventually horrify some who would otherwise not reject evil in 'moderation'?


Sure...but you really think that that is the reason evil exists? I wholly agree that evil can be a means to make one's moral sensibilities more acute and that good can come from this. But this is simply not the case even half the time. There is countless evil that occurs that no one witnesses, no one is "bettered" by...


Are you saying no one can be horrified by this evil because no one knows about it? Then how do you know about it? How can this pointless, unwitnessed evil horrify us away from the notion of a traditional God if it cannot horrify us away from evil itself?

quote:



the most that this is able to occur that one is able to take an evil occurance and try to make the best out of it. But that doesn't mean evil had a purpose for good; its just the best one can with a bad deal. How does an innocent child's molestation benefit anyone...?


Actually, that is probably the easiest example with which to illustrate what I'm talking about. Take John Couey (of Jessica's Law fame) along with many famous monsters like him. These guys aren't born the monsters they become. They play with the thrill of perversion for years before it takes hold of them in such a way, even before they act it out. How many might, by viewing Couey, be horrified at the perversion that is growing and taking hold in themselves? If God stopped all our evil at a moderate level, it would never look so bad and we might never come to fully reject it so that we could be the much better people God intended. If God stopped all evil before its true ugliness could come to light, how many would reject evil entirely? My belief is that all sin, no matter how minor it seems now, enslaves the sinner. It takes them places they never intended to go. Some must go much farther than others and witness much more evil than others before their hearts are turned away in guilt and horror and they cry out to their maker for help. Perhaps God intends to save many more of His sentient creatures than we imagine. Could He have the power and the time to wipe every tear from the eyes of his suffering children after He saves us? Could all our suffering seem trivial compared to the joy that will be revealed to us when we have the perspective of many more years? My 1 year old son can suffer greatly from missing out on a cookie he came to expect; I was probably the same at his age, but such a minor disappointment doesn't trouble me at all now that I'm much older.



Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/28/2008 12:57:34 PM)

quote:

That is a good argument but the only issue I take with it is that the world you're describing is a deistic one, which isn't a feasible option for me (or for you, I assume). A world where God creates us as morally free agents that are able to do both good and evil I am ok with in itself. My problem is that the inconsistency becomes apparent when we simultaniously conceive of God as a relational and effective agent within that very world. Your decription only works with a God that is wholly unaffecting or interfering with the world, for if he does interfere(act, effect etc) then we are back to quare one regarding the POE.


Why would God's complete knowledge of the possible choices of moral agents and the possible effects of the world they live in prevent Him from being "a relational and effective agent within that very world"?



Real_Solitude -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/28/2008 5:13:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman
Why don't you state what those counterarguments are and why they are valid? Posting a link to a website with a layman's history of the cosmological argument isn't saying anything. I could just post a link to an elaberate cosmological argument by, say, Plantinga; would that in itself prove anything other than there the argument exists? Have you even read the literature of which you are using to make your point? The cosmological argument, as well as the teleological and ontological arguements, are still in dispute and far from conclusive. I doubt they ever will be, for they are arguments and not proofs. They can only make one side of the issue stronger or weaker and that depends largely on the individual's perception of the veracity of any given argument.


If you failed to read the linked page, that's your fault. One section, the one linked, provided basic counter-arguments to the Cosmological Argument. It is not my job to spoon-feed you information that is readily available. I provided a link that gives a basic background to the argument, and counterarguments. If you want more than that, it's your job to search for it.
If you posted an elaborate cosmological argument by Plantinga I would (time permitting) read it, and weight the validity of it. I would then follow up by seeing what flaws other had found (or think they'd found) in the argument.
Yes, the cosmological argument is still in dispute, that was the whole point of my post. Dr.Mark was attempting to use the cosmological argument to prove that god exists. I responded by pointing out that there are counter-arguments, and thus, that the cosmological argument isn't sufficient proof for a god.
I'm not really sure what the point of you reiterating the fact that the cosmological argument is far from conclusive was, but since you did so in (apparent) hostility, I thought it deserved a response.

On another note, Jhud.
I know that "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" is a bad example. It was intentional. The basic point is that fossils being found in prior strata, with no explanation, would pose a challenge to one aspect of the TOE.
"We also know now that incredible informational complexity existed long before evolution ever supposed it could or should." Do you have recommended reading on this, preferably from a credible scientific source?



DanJames -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/28/2008 5:26:59 PM)

I'll risk looking really stupid, but if I believe something that's false, I suppose it's better to be corrected here than anywhere else. Aren't layers defined by the fossils they contain? I mean, if a rabbit was found in a Precambrian layer... then it wouldn't be a Precambrian layer. It would be a Cenozoic layer. Right? Or if a rabbit was found with a trilobite, then it would be assumed that the trilobite represents a population that survived long enough to be fossilized with the rabbit. It wouldn't be a challenge for evolution at all. I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong.



Jhud -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/28/2008 5:29:06 PM)

quote:

"We also know now that incredible informational complexity existed long before evolution ever supposed it could or should." Do you have recommended reading on this, preferably from a credible scientific source?


Credible enough?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/28/2008 5:52:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

I'll risk looking really stupid, but if I believe something that's false, I suppose it's better to be corrected here than anywhere else. Aren't layers defined by the fossils they contain? I mean, if a rabbit was found in a Precambrian layer... then it wouldn't be a Precambrian layer. It would be a Cenozoic layer. Right?


Not really. Precambrian and Cenozoic refer to different eras in the geologic timescale. So a layer of rock is PreCambrian if it's older than 540-odd million years. The age of the layers are determined through radiometric methods.

It's true that index fossils are often used to date layers of rock to a particular period, because it's a lot easier to spot a trilobite than it is to run a rock sample through an isotopic ratio mass spectrometer. But radiometric metric dating provides an objective measure.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI