Bob "But really, it's Catholic morality that these criminals have violated."
Then how is it that the pope, the very pinnacle of this catholic morality:
1. Instructed bishops how to handle child sex and abuse claims, and not to report cases to civil authorities under threat of dismissal
2. He would maintain 'exclusive competence' over the handling of allegations
3. Imposed an oath of secrecy on victims, witnesses and those probing abuse claims and
4. Warned that anyone breaking this oath would be summarily excommunicated?
This is the man who along with JP2 instituted systemic concealment of the rot in the church and crimes against humanity. To even suggest that the priests who committed these crimes acted alone and against catholic morality, is nothing short of denial of the evidence that is presented in the 4 Irish commission reports, not to mention all the other formal investigations. The cover-up was systemic and systematic guided by official edict from the Vatican. Indeed there is currently a warrant out for 7 priests in relation to these child sex criminal cases and countries are unable to extradite them from the Vatican where the pope provides them sanctuary against national and international law.
The priests may have singularly committed these crimes but the Vatican is clearly aiding and abetting their fugitive status by not bringing them to justice. The vatican has shown itself to be nothing but a harbinger of further revelations of systemic international protection of child sex offenders.
Within the ambit of Catholic morality, from god's representative on earth and down, church leaders have acted with depraved indifference towards the victims, their families and society, and their primary function has always been to protect the church at whatever cost.
Catholics, right around the world, are sitting on their hands. The one significant resolution that would help in routing out this rot and demonstrate unequivocally to the world that the church is serious about ridding this canker, is to impeach the pope.
This is a travesty unfolding on the catholic god's watch. Where the hell is he? Why hasn't he come back and turned over the tables in the temple?
"This is a travesty unfolding on the Catholic God's watch."
But without acknowledging the validity of morality as taught by the Catholic Church (and all other Christian churches), there is no travesty, and without acknowledging the reality of "God's watch", the offending criminals have little or nothing to be worried about/ashamed of. You continue to make zero sense, Papalinton.
"To even suggest that the priests who committed these crimes acted ... against catholic morality". I'm not suggesting any such thing - I'm declaring it. I'll say it again: These criminal pedophiles acted in a manner absolutely 100% contrary to all Catholic teaching and Christian morality. They can find nothing in Christ's teachings, or in the teaching of His apostles, or of their successors, that can offer even the slightest support, justification, or excuse for their actions. Their only hope (as is the case for the rest of us as well) is to throw themselves upon the infinite mercies of God.
Or let me word my question(s) to you in another way. If, as you claim, these criminals were acting in accordance with the "very pinnacle" of Catholic morality, then what do they have to be ashamed of? Why should we bother to condemn them?
You see? Your accusation makes no sense. In fact, you are excusing the actions of these people!
What does any of this tangent shit have to do with Wither or not there is a God?
Or your bogus claims about how Genesis was interpreted originally or your weird unsubstantial claims of how doctrine develops?
I think you are in Red Herring mode because you are too proud to admit you don't know what you are talking about. So you change the subject.
In fact even if Bob & I both choose to be Atheists tomorrow(not likely because of any of your lame arguments) why should either of us buy into your attacks on the Holy Father?
American leftwinger Alan M. Dershowitz defends Pope Benedict from your slanderous charges.
Like most brain dead Gnu's you see arguing about religion as an extension of politics. But if I stop believing in God tomorrow I would still be right wing like Conservative Atheist SE Cupp or the late Dave Stove.
In fact it seems Bob & I don't share the same politics. But we are both orthodox sons of the Church.
Anyway your politics bore me & even if Benedict was morally no better than Alexander VI or Sergius III & 15 year old teenage mistress it doesn't really support Atheism.
When the fundies pull out the "Oh yeh What about the inquisition!" their best worst argument I often try to remind them of how much the Protestants in the 16th century morally sucked as well. Luther telling Phillip of Hess it was OK to practice bigamy. Zwingli one of the lights of the Reformation living in sin with a woman he wasn't married too. Then "marrying" her then confessing to have cheated on her.
Well why should I spare you? What about the RATIONALIST RESPONSE SQUAD? Kelly one of their former Atheist apologists had her child taken away by social services and she now spends her time these days as a Legal Prostitute. There founder has been in jail. Richard Dawkins once spoke positively of these people till they tried unsuccessfully to blackmail him.
What a mess. In fact Madelene Murry O'Hair the Atheist gadfly of the 70's embezzled money from her Atheist organization.
Richard Dawkins is suing for fraud his former webmaster whom he dedicated THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH.
This must happen because they don't believe in God....or maybe not.
Anyway you want to throw muck? I live in New York and have seen NYC politics up close. I'm so not impressed.
You just throw much because you are too lazy to do any real learning.
>This is a travesty unfolding on the catholic god's watch. Where the hell is he? Why hasn't he come back and turned over the tables in the temple?
Stop treating the Catholic God (aka The One True God) like some gay* theistic personalist "deity" who has moral obligations to us.
The Catholic God doesn't owe us anything. He is not a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent. I explained this before! Geez pay attention!
*BTW when I call the Theistic Personalist view of "god" gay I don't mean homosexual gay. I mean the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD graphics card on my Notebook sucking so bad it can't even play an old Atari game even at low settings, gay.
I would never insult homosexuals by comparing them to such a blasphemous and asinine view of God.
One Brow said: Is it possible for matter to exist under any set of rules, or the nature of being matter such that the rules we understand are necessary given the existence of matter? I think the latter is quite possible. (...) Again, it depends on whether the somethings that can come out of nothing have necessary properties.
Per Ove says: What you seem to be saying is that every time something comes out of absolutely nil and nothing in spontaneous creation, you point to ceartin (sets of) necessary rules. So either these rules are there from the beginning, and you do not start with nothing. Or you start with nothing, and the rules are something like yellow paint “to sharpen it up a bit”.
Papalinton said: For Hawking, at least he is utilizing known facts and predictable effects such as gravity, the discovery of matter observably popping in and out of existence at the quantum level and is attempting use what rules are known to extrapolate to the cosmic level.
Per Ove says: But you don't think that matter observably popping in and out of existence at the quantum level comes out from not just vacuum but absolutely nothing, do you?
Papalinton said: At the very least, Hawking is thinking outside the theological box, as are the very many genuine physicists and cosmologists, exploring the universe through the new and fresh eyes of science, basing their theories on known scientific principles and facts, and not on the old and tired premise, 'In the beginning ....'.
Per Ove says: To say that something is the reason for its own creation is not just to think outside some theological box. That's to think outside the box of logic. I agree, however, that this is creative, and also that it is not boring at all.
Papalinton said: Barr can only see science through the lens of theism, a conditioning not unknown throughout history [Bruno, Galileo, et]. And the inordinate indoctrinative power of theism continues to be a speed bump to human progress and understanding of the natural world.
Per Ove said: A speed what? Since Bruno was not a scientist at all; and since Galilei was jailed basically because of political and also personal reasons and probably is the only scientist that by the church has been accused or judged for scientific theories; and since the church accepted scientific development (including round Earth btw), and supported universities and science since at least the 12th century, you think that church has opposed science and been a bump? Please explain yourself ;-)
"If, as you claim, these criminals were acting in accordance with the "very pinnacle" of Catholic morality, then what do they have to be ashamed of? Why should we bother to condemn them? "
A dishonourable and deliberate misconstrual of my comment. It saddens me enormously. Please reread the comment. The intent of the question, Bob, how is it that the pope, who is revered and idolized by catholics, regarded as the sacred example of the pinnacle of catholic morality, can conscionably threaten all in the church by issuing the instructions to suppress and keep secret the depth and scale of the abuse. This outrageous bahaviour is just not right Bob, in any walk of life, religious or secular. Seven priests on warrant for questioning by law enforcement agencies, sequestered and insulated by the Vatican. If they have nothing to hide, if they are innocent, why do they remain international fugitives?
Per Ove Stige "Per Ove says: But you don't think that matter observably popping in and out of existence at the quantum level comes out from not just vacuum but absolutely nothing, do you? "
POS, you seem to have completely forgotten your own wonderful contribution to this thread; the bank account analogy. Of course, matter and quantum gravity doesn't come out of nothing. Things pop in and out of existence [or more correctly, become observable] because what is currently considered as empty space or vacuum, is indeed filled with dark matter and dark energy. It seems dark energy and matter constitute the bulk of 'stuff' in the universe. And we are on the threshold of beginning to understand and predict it, and very close to observing it and measuring it. And still not one sniff of nor any effects attributable to a god.
POS, you asked, "A speed what?"
A 'speed bump' is a raised mound constructed across a street or road. It is a vehicle calming device that is designed to keep vehicle speeds down particularly in suburbs and residential neighbourhoods. You know really know it when you have hit a 'speed bump' at high speed.
Paplinton said: Of course, matter and quantum gravity doesn't come out of nothing. Things pop in and out of existence [or more correctly, become observable] because what is currently considered as empty space or vacuum, is indeed filled with dark matter and dark energy. It seems dark energy and matter constitute the bulk of 'stuff' in the universe. And we are on the threshold of beginning to understand and predict it, and very close to observing it and measuring it.
POS says: Sure. But this doesn't explain the origin of dark energy and matter. Why are there something rather than nothing.
Papalinton said: A 'speed bump' is a raised mound constructed across a street or road.
POS says: Sure. And your [Bruno, Galileo, et] was such a bump in this discussion. If you are planning to discuss that topic other places, good sites to start with could be http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno ;-)
Per Ove Stige said... What you seem to be saying is that every time something comes out of absolutely nil and nothing in spontaneous creation, you point to ceartin (sets of) necessary rules. So either these rules are there from the beginning, and you do not start with nothing. Or you start with nothing, and the rules are something like yellow paint “to sharpen it up a bit”.
I don't see how rules can exist without the universe to which they apply, but they are there from the beginning of the universe, and coexist with it. I'm trying to see how the "yellow paint" analogy applies, frankly. Are you saying that I am claiming some sort of property list for self-creating universes as a property that would have applied prior to the existence of the universe? I don't see myself as doing that.
Per Ove Stige said... To say that something is the reason for its own creation is not just to think outside some theological box. That's to think outside the box of logic.
If your choice of logic no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your logic.
@ One Brow Well, you are not just talking of arbitary rules, are you, but a «property list for self-creating universe», where not any set of rules are possible, aren't you. And if you are not claiming some sort of property list for self-creating universes as a property prior to the existence of the universe, you actually claim it for every time something comes into being from absolutely nothing; or else anything can happen (and here I made a few suggestions of anything), and you don't think anything can happen, do you. To get the result, you have to add some more. And this list may be called some yellow paint.
One Brow said: If your choice of logic no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your logic.
POS says: Sure. You don't leave logic and say that reality can come from nothing.
Per Ove Stige said... And if you are not claiming some sort of property list for self-creating universes as a property prior to the existence of the universe, you actually claim it for every time something comes into being from absolutely nothing;
Why not? Perhaps only one such list is possible, many two, maybe a million, maybe an coutably or uncoutably infinite number. Since something has come out of nothing at most one time AFAICT, on what basis would be speculate about the possibilities?
Now that the universe exists, at no part of it is there "nothing", so there's no way for us to see it happen again.
or else anything can happen (and here I made a few suggestions of anything), and you don't think anything can happen, do you.
I have no idea if anything else could have happened. All I'm sure is that when you have one event, you have one result. To make a philosophical statement based on the idea that something could, or could not, have happened in the instant of universe creation is wild speculation.
POS says: Sure. You don't leave logic and say that reality can come from nothing.
If your logic doesn't reflect reality, it's the logic that must go; the reality will not conform itself to our choice of logic.
POS "POS says: Sure. But this doesn't explain the origin of dark energy and matter. Why are there something rather than nothing."
Give us a break. Science has only just begun to understand dark matter and energy in the last decade or so. Don't be so impatient. But it is inevitable we will increase our knowledge and understanding of this stuff in years to come.
Look at the comparison with religion. Religion has been around for thousands of years and it still hasn't arrived at any form of understanding. Christians at the Muslims throats, muslims at the Hindus throats and all of them at the Jews throat. Each little parochial belief system all trying to push each other off the pitcher's mound in the game of life.
How pathetic and unedifying. And even among one team[?] there are some who say there is a triune god, there are others who say that is bullshit; there are some who believe in a literal Adam and eve, and others who think that is bunkum and should only be read as allegory; there are some who believe jesus was god incarnate and some who think he was just a man endowed with the spirit.
POS, this is what is at stake at the coal face: either we continue putting our lives at risk by imagining something that is pure mythology is the basis of our existence, or we grow up and dispense with the pacifier. These religions have been banging on about all this stuff for millennia, and still no closer to arriving at the facts or the truth. The bewildering smorgasbord of religions available to pick and choose, in exactly the same fashion christians go church hunting to find one that comports to their personal fancy and to their personal whims where the thoughts of god are exactly like their own.
Put physics and astronomy together and you get cosmology. They all intertwine, supporting. Put physics and chemistry together and you get biology. All the diverse areas of the sciences coalesce to form a common narrative about the universe. Put christianity and islam together and you get a war. Put Hinduism and Islam together and you get a war. It is pretty clear POS, religion not only offers no certainties, but offers no knowledge, either.
Notice the unprincipled way Yachov changes what a person says to suit his own purpose:
PapaL: "how is it that the pope, who is revered and idolized by catholics, regarded as the sacred example of the pinnacle of catholic morality, .."
Yachov: "Good grief! Not the old "Catholics worship the Pope & substitute Him for Jesus" nonsense!"
" ...and substitute him for jesus... "
Lying for jesus and calculated strawman arguments is emblematic of the hollowness and empty rhetoric of catholic morality. Yachov you show a disdain for truth and honesty and your moral compass is broke.
Your the ex-fundie Christian turned fundie Atheist who is claiming the Pope is "revered and idolized by catholics, regarded as the sacred example of the pinnacle of catholic morality."
Lying for Jesus? Everything you just said is heresy of the first rank against the Catholic Faith!
Idolatry is the worst sin look it up in the Catholic Encylopedia. Yet you say we idolize the Pope?
You cannot attribute to a living man what can only be given to God or at best a Saint.
I have news for you Gnu'toid a living reining Pope by definition can't be any of those things to us. Only Jesus can or at best Mary & or one of the Saints(subordinate to God).
You are beyond ignorant not to mention arrogant and dishonest for trying you are my or Bob's equal in Catholic teaching or knowledge.
The Pope is a sinner like the rest of us. He goes to confession like the rest of us. If he dies in mortal sin he will go to Hell like the rest of us. Or did you never read Dante's Inferno? He portrays some Pope in Hell. Nobody batted an eyelash. Nobody screamed heresy.
Wow you are beyond clueless Paps!
Don't you have any pride at all man? Or do you enjoy looking foolish?
Crude, Bob, etc. Haven't read through all the comments. I didn't see anyone mention the necessary nature that this mysterious first cause must have.
It must have a nature such that it has the ability to actualize (bring into existence) rational beings with free will and concepts such as morality, purpose, beauty, goodness, etc. This is in addition to actualizing matter and energy itself. A "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things - at least there's no reason to think they do.
Therefore, there is no reason to seriously consider these as possible explanations for what exists.
These stupid tangents still have nothing to do with you inability to rationally justify your own Atheism or rationally critique Catholicism or western classic monotheistic religion in general.
Also in light of the counter articles I cited I still have no reason to believe your charges against Benedict even if I deny God tomorrow.
Even if I did believe your propaganda knowing what I know I would no more abandon the True Faith over Benedicts sins then I would over Alexander VI sins or Sergius III's sins.
The Five Ways, the philosophical arguments, the historical arguments, science etc are not dependent on Benedicts moral behavior.
Pope's can & do sin mortally otherwise we would not let them go to confession.
So why do you even think this is an intelligent argument?
You need to be honest with yourself and that is not happening here.
SteveK "It must have a nature such that it has the ability to actualize (bring into existence) rational beings with free will and concepts such as morality, purpose, beauty, goodness, etc. This is in addition to actualizing matter and energy itself. A "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things - at least there's no reason to think they do."
The most important point in your comment above is: "This is in addition to actualizing matter and energy itself." Everything above that statement is 'teleological intentionality'. It is pure theology, a secondary add-on function of human activity that appropriated all those existential genetic adaptations developed primarily as part of the suite of survival mechanisms. These genetically derived survival mechanisms ensured the human organism had a better than even chance of propagating its own kind. The brain is an agency detection device. We have a propensity to see agency everywhere even in the most mundane of natural events. Theists through their religious practices and thought processes remain grounded in ignorance of this human predisposition towards teleology to detect all sorts of imagined agents and personify the forces of nature, and ascribe human attributes such as morality, purpose, beauty, goodness, etc. to them.
Of course a "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things". You are perfectly right. And nor do they need to have that requirement. And you are right on the money with such a keen observation, ".. there's no reason to think they do."
All that can be said about your statement, "It must have a nature such that it has the ability to actualize (bring into existence) rational beings with free will and concepts such as morality, purpose, beauty, goodness, etc.", is that a claim made without evidence is a claim that can be rejected without evidence.
Looks more like philosophy to me. Aristotle reasoned the metaphysical description of change in answer to Parmediades and Heracledes. Actuality is a philosophical term.
Wow Paps your really don't know Philosophy from Theology from Science from a hole in the head!
You where a teacher? What a Gym teacher?
Don't you feel even a little shame over your ignorance?
Looks more like philosophy to me. Aristotle reasoned the metaphysical description of change in answer to Parmediades and Heracledes. Actuality is a philosophical term."
Oh Dear! Once more a diehard christian faithhead has to rely on the greatest paganphilosopher known to prop up the christian faith.
No, its theology all right. Theology is the bastardized second-order form of philosophy that still draws its succour from mythology, you know things like virgin birth, walking on water, actual physical bodily levitation into the sky. You have to ask yourself, why would jesus need a physical body up in heaven anyway when everyone else is supposedly only ethereal, their corpse still in the ground. Even the big daddy himself, is just some timeless, incorporeal thing without a body. And we know that everyone's bodies stay in the ground , no matter how 'divine' they are because we have irrefutable evidence for that. Catholic priest John Newman's corpse was dug up recently and reburied elsewhere by the pope during a visit to England. What imaginable use would he [jesus] need a physical body up in the sky? Where would he go to the toilet? How does he sustain that physical body up in the sky? And how does he sit on a throne on the right hand of god anyway? Which is the right side of god and how does he [god] sit in his own throne being the incorporeal entity that he is? Oh! I get it. This is all supposed to be read as allegory, a metaphor. Then why would jesus need an actual physical body to act out in a metaphor up in the sky?
The story just does not hang together, folks. It is such a ludicrous and ridiculous spin to think that christianity, of all the 'fundamentals' it could have used, has pinned its whole edifice on this most indefensible of arguments known to be imagined. It is a tall story, steeped in mythology.
Paps, >> All that can be said about your statement....is that a claim made without evidence is a claim that can be rejected without evidence.
Not true. Step back for a moment and think. Nothing I said is rooted in theology. It's rooted in logic and experience. Here's a truism:
1) It was possible for X to exist before X actually came to exist.
Said in the negative...
2) X cannot come to exist if it is impossible for X to exist.
From this truism (1), it follows that: It was possible for rational beings with free will and concepts such as morality, purpose, beauty and goodness to exist before these things actually came to exist.
In other words, the potential for these things to exist - this potential must have been part of reality from the very inception of reality.
That's the nature I'm talking about. That nature is a reality where this possiblility existed.
As far as I know "vacuum fluctuations" and "gravitational whateveritis" do not have the potential to create rational beings, therefore I am free to reject anyone who offers this an an explanation for why rational beings exist. It doesn't pass the logic nor the experience test.
Steve K "As far as I know "vacuum fluctuations" and "gravitational whateveritis" do not have the potential to create rational beings, therefore I am free to reject anyone who offers this an an explanation for why rational beings exist. It doesn't pass the logic nor the experience test."
Well obviously they do have that potential because we are here, visibly. If it will help a theist come to grips with the new findings just substitute the word 'god' with 'vacuum fluctuations' or 'gravitational whateveritis' and presto! you will understand the gist of Hawking's position. Remember we absolutely know for a fact that science is very close to proving the existence of 'vacuum fluctuations' and 'gravitational whateveritis' and that they actually operate in the universe because we can observe and predict their effects. The existence of an 'uncaused cause' cannot claim even an equivalence of observation and prediction. It remains an idea only, and idea with its boundaries immutably inscribed within theism, a wholly philosophical and theological concept with no merit or value whatsoever that can be transferred into any other field of human investigation and which is substantiated by observable or predictive causal effects.
It is just so much more logical and reasonable to speak plainly, using concepts and words that must meet the absolute minimum standard of holding up against the test of falsifiability. If it unable to do so, the concept or idea is thrown out. To posit a 'goddidit' simply does not meet that minimum standard of verification. Period.
Steve, your foray into Xs and Ys is an mental exercise. It is not proof of anything. The use of logic is not proof of existence.
Science has only just begun to understand dark matter and energy in the last decade or so. Don't be so impatient. But it is inevitable we will increase our knowledge and understanding of this stuff in years to come.
POS says: Sure. And both science and and philosophy is needed. We live all in a reality that has to be interpreted. Regarding this discussion, good examples are: The Copenhagen interpretation and different variants of it. The M-theory. And at the borders of today's science, reason can give us good reasons go believe what cannot (at least yet) be verified.
Pa: Look at the comparison with religion. Religion has been around for thousands of years and it still hasn't arrived at any form of understanding.
POS says: And as you know, the groups you mention have for centuries also been able to live side by side. Just as other ideologies, periodes of peace and periodes of slaughter. But we were discussing science, weren't we;-)
You say in your last comment that these things obviously have the required potential. You need to support that assertion with reasons that at least make sense. Give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring rational beings into existence.
And after you've done that, give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Good luck.
SteveK "And after you've done that, give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Good luck."
Tell you what. I'll trade you. Give me a reason to think a putrescent dead carcass fully three days dead, in the heat of the desert in the middle east can be revivified fully functional. Good Luck.
You see Steve, we know of the vacuum flux, we know of the existence of gravity, we know that dark matter constitutes the vast % of the universe and we know of the existence of dark energy because we have calculated its effect on gravity is sufficient to overcome it because the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. In fact the latest 2011 Nobel Laureate for physics has just demonstrated it. We know humans exist. We know life exists. And we know reasonably certain that gravity, dark energy and dark matter and visible matter are the constituents ingredients for the making and exploding of stars and galaxies. And we know in that mix life is capable of being started and sustained. It would be a fair bet that the existence of life and these natural forces mentioned are inextricably linked and we will eventually find the link.
And what we also do know is that an incorporeal non-entity that created the universe has never been proven. Positing a mythos about gods simply has no functional place in this equation. Never has, never will. The further we dig into the science, the smaller the gods become. The historical account of both christian theology and science shows unequivocally these are the ends of a balance scales; when one goes up the other goes down, the greater the knowledge, lesser the relevance and influence of mythology in the community.
Goodness gracious, theology, even with its longevity as a discipline once the premier area of scholarship, has never been seen to contribute to world affairs or humanity under the purview of the Nobel Prize awards. Yes, theologians have been honoured recipients of the Prize [such as Arch-Bishop Desmond Tutu a most fitting winner], but not for their scholarship but for their humanitarian efforts and always under the Peace Prize category.
And typically, religion, as it has customarily appropriated most of the universally humanitarian and good things created by humans, and rebranded them exclusively as their own, and always without the decency of attribution, now feels the need to sequester the name 'Nobel Prize' for its own grubby purpose. The Vatican has created its own Nobel Prize of Theology.
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31097
They were too lazy to think of their own name. Cheap.
Paps, >> It would be a fair bet that the existence of life and these natural forces mentioned are inextricably linked and we will eventually find the link.
So when you said the statement below, were you not telling us the truth? If you changed your mind in the past few days, that's fine too. Let me know which it is.
>>Paps said: Of course a "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things".
Your long string of "we know's" doesn't change the fact that you haven't offered anyone a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to produce a rational being or music, or beauty.
If you changed your mind in the past few days, and now think it does have that potential, what was the reason for the change?
>"And after you've done that, give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Good luck."
>Tell you what. I'll trade you. Give me a reason to think a putrescent dead carcass fully three days dead, in the heat of the desert in the middle east can be revivified fully functional. Good Luck.
Here is an idea. Let's take Paps' irrational approach and apply it across the board.
If a mere un-caused mindless intention-less vacuum fluctuation can produce music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Then could another one bring a body back from the dead?
I mean there would still be no gods but since there is no rational basis for reality at the beginning why assume rational regularity continues?
OTOH this is obviously a case of Paps in typical Fundie Gnu form trying to shift the burden of proof because he can't logically, scientifically or philosophically answer the question.
He New Atheism doesn't allow it.
This is what you get Paps for rejecting philosophy and listening to Gnu's instead of more sophisticated Atheists.
You have just jumped from one mindless fundamentalism to another. Nothing more.
SteveK It seems you have decided to join Yachov in a race to the bottom.
I have provided you, based on the best evidence available [that is consistent across the broad spectrum of scientific, historical, sociological, anthropological etc understanding] a rationale that simply swamps christian theology in the level and impact of explanatory power.
Your proclivity for wanting your mind [and Yachov's] manacled irrevocably to humanity's last bastion of superstition and the tradition of illusory mythology precludes you from any fresh take on a revised worldview, one that is more resonant with modern thought.
Your query, ""And after you've done that, give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Good luck." It is demonstrably clear that you have little comprehension of the import of these words and their meanings. Music, love, justice etc are not things that can be bestowed or traded, they are not items that can be given over by some god, you silly twat. They have to be learned, in a social setting. They are expressions of emotional states, a purely psychological condition that can and do directly influence physiological states. When frightened, the hairs on the back of your head rise, an old primitive adaptation identical to that of the cat or dog's capacity to lift its fur to make it look bigger and more frightening when cornered. Humans have the identical same but now residual physiological response to fear.
All animals have emotions, can display them, at various levels of cognition consistent with their biological demands. They are also analogical in construct, because to know and understand love one must also feel and experience hate to appreciate that sense of love when it occurs. No one knows what justice is until they understand what an unjust situation is. That is why the Stockholm Syndrome can be so easily invoked when one is deprived of personal liberty and treated abysmally. The sad irony though is that the victim experiences love and trusts the perpetrator precisely because of the existential nature of the abuse. So is this 'love' a god-given thing? I would hardly think so.
To posit that a god[s] hands these out as if little trinkets for good behaviour is as jejune and ill-formed in today's competition of ideas and is as preposterous as the base claim itself, 'god made everything'.
You see SteveK, christian theology lurches from one interpretation to another. In comparison science is providing a consistent narrative that increasingly stacks up as new research and investigation bring in the bacon. [cont]
Yachov immaturely says, "If a mere un-caused mindless intention-less vacuum fluctuation can produce music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Then could another one bring a body back from the dead? "
The most ancient and most primitive predilection known to humankind, is teleological intentionality, that [as 4 years old kids tell us] some rocks are sharp because they have a purpose, which is for animals to scratch their own back where they can't reach the itch. Yachov talks with the intellect of a four-year-old child, ""un-caused mindless intention-less vacuum fluctuation". His head is filled to capacity with gods, devils, ghosts, spirit worlds, all those things that go bump in the night. So powerful is this prehistoric propensity to see agency everywhere, to invoke purpose for even the most inane and mundane of situations, it is no wonder religion is singularly unable to break free from its primordial bond. Both are products of the remnants of our primeval past. Christian theology offers no resolve and offers no knowledge.
Music, love, logic, justice, goodness and the desire to exist are purely human emotional expressions of their psychological state at any one point in time. All living beings express them, humans particularly are capable of experiencing them to their fullest capacity. Even me, the atheist. But I only invoke ghosts and gods and spirit beings when I read Harry Potter. And I can drop them like hot cakes to free up more thinking room when I turn to something else.
SteveK, "A quick look in the mirror ought to give Paps all the reason he needs to think it's possible for non-life to be given life. Ironic."
No Steve. The irony is there right in front of your face. We know for an absolute fact that after death the body is reduced to all non-living, in organic constituents, such as carbon, oxygen, iron, sodium, calcium. In other words 'living' becomes 'non-living'. There is no reason to suggest the obverse is not true; organic elements made up by the combination and arrangement of inorganic, non-living, elements. It is that simple.
Any religious overlay on this narrative is just wishful thinking, personally-prescribed woo.
An ignorant comment, by a willfully ignorant person, and which I'd not even have seen by that Per Ove commented upon it --
"Science has only just begun to understand dark matter and energy in the last decade or so. Don't be so impatient. But it is inevitable we will increase our knowledge and understanding of this stuff in years to come."
Which is worse, the sheer ignorance or the 'Science!' fetishism? Or, is the ignorance a funcrion of the fetishism?
In truth, 'science' doesn't know a damned thing about any alleged "dark matter" and "dark energy". These are recently made-up terms for recently made-up speculations -- both done by actual human persons, not by some idealized impersonal 'science' -- they have not been discovered, they have not been observed, their effects have not been observed, nor have any experiments pointed to them -- they are place holders, nothing more. Worse, they are not place holders for unknowns, but merely for band-aiding a model which isn't alligning with observation.
Per Ove Stige: "To say that something is the reason for its own creation is not just to think outside some theological box. That's to think outside the box of logic."
One Brow: "If your choice of logic no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your logic."
This is exactly the same as to say "If your choice of truth no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your truth."
And, of course, 'reality' is, in part, just another term for 'truth'.
But, the deeper issue is, as I point out from time to time, these people don't give a damn about logic or reason or truth (either known truth or discovery of previously unknown truth).
a fool, who will not reason and will not learn (*): "Stop treating the Catholic God (aka The One True God) like some gay* theistic personalist "deity" who has moral obligations to us.
The Catholic God doesn't owe us anything. He is not a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent. I explained this before! Geez pay attention!"
How fortunate for us, then, that the Living God, the God "of Abraham, and Jacob, and Isaac" -- the only God -- is not this "Catholic God" ... any more than he is Allah. And really, is there any substantive difference between a so-called God who "is not a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent" and Allah?
(*) and whose "classical theism" serves the sole purpose of placing his "theology" outside of rational/critical evaluation -- he's very like the these "fundy" atheists who hang around here.
IlÃon writes: >Which is worse, the sheer ignorance or the 'Science!' fetishism? Or, is the ignorance a funcrion of the fetishism?
I read Vox Day too. Good call.
@Paps,
You have pretty much given up the argument and are reduced to sloganeering at this point.
>Yachov immaturely says......
I'm all for name calling and ridicule but if your aren't going to back it up with rational argument/rebuttal & just replace it with slogans then what is the point?
>All living beings express them, humans particularly are capable of experiencing them to their fullest capacity.
How do you know that? Have you never read Thomas Negal's "WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE A BAT?"?
The subjective experiences of animals are not by definition subject to empirical experimentation. They are subjective and Animals can't intellectively communicate them.
You can't even imagine what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine what it would be like to be Paps a human who is small, covered in brown/black fur with wings but you can't access a bat's cognitive functions.
Thus you can't say Animal emotions are the same as humans. Even Atheist Philosopher Dave Stove knew that.
>How fortunate for us, then, that the Living God, the God "of Abraham, and Jacob, and Isaac" -- the only God -- is not this "Catholic God" ...
You are entitled to your opinion but I don't agree.
>any more than he is Allah. And really, is there any substantive difference between a so-called God who "is not a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent" and Allah?
Maybe not but the "Revelation" in the Koran is false. Allah understood from the level of mere natural Theology is identical to the Christian and Jewish God.
A Protestant who believes the True God has obligations to us? That by nature we merit these obligations? That is a new one to me. I always heard Prots believe in Grace Alone. Thus by definition you don't merit anything from God.
>and whose "classical theism" serves the sole purpose of placing his "theology" outside of rational/critical evaluation -- he's very like the these "fundy" atheists who hang around here.
Meaning we don't grant the Empiricism of the Atheists like those who profess a Mechanistic "deity".
Guilty as charged. God can be rationally deduced & explained threw analogy. But God is a Mystery otherwise what is the point of Him?
Of course if Ilion has read Brian Davies he would know saying God is not a moral agent is not the same as saying God is not in some sense what morally good people are by nature.
But like Paps he seems sloganeering takes the place of rational argument.
Ilion go read THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL by Davies then formulate rational objections.
God is Being Itself not a being along side other beings only more uber. God is not a member of a moral community with us nor by definition can he be. Anymore than the can have perfect muscle tone just because He is Perfection Itself.
Son-of-WillfulIgnorance, You've already shown that you are no more willing to reason than the Paps is. Why would you imagine that I shall waste any of my time addressing your misrepresentations of what I've said? Especially when you'll just misrepresent something else?
>You've already shown that you are no more willing to reason than the Paps is.
What reasoning? You know what literature I've read if you are truly interest go read it and write a rebuttal.
You want to proclaim the Catholic view of God & religion is false? Knock yourself out! I wouldn't expect less from a convinced Protestant.
But if you really do disbelieve in Classic Theism and profess Theistic Personalism then get the relevant literature and learn the arguments for or against.
I've read Plantinga, Feser and Davies. I think the later two make the better arguments.
One problem with the Theistic Personalist God (among many) is such a being renders the Incarnation rather redundant since that being is essentially & unequivocally compared to a human mind only with the body abstracted away and given unlimited preternatural and supernatural powers.
Like Q from Star Trek only not as mischievous as John Delancy.
Thus it becoming man isn't really all that humbling an Act or much of a big deal. It's pretty much human anyway.
The Word of God from the Classic view becoming flesh and dwelling among us is a bit more of a profound bridging of the Transcendent and the mundane.
foolish "classical theist": "One problem with the Theistic Personalist God (among many) is ..."
... is that it's entirely a figment of your imagination. Well, and yours and Feser's, from whome you got it ... for, it doesn't seem you have enough imagination to come up with an idea not pre-approved by some authority figure.
>for, it doesn't seem you have enough imagination to come up with an idea not pre-approved by some authority figure.
Well I've always imagined that God is beyond my imagination and conception and yes I would not have figured any of this out on my own till I learned it.
I don't know everything. But I am open to learning.
I am by the Glace of God a Catholic Christian and thus a Classic Theist.
Reading the loose drivel emanating from our erstwhile resident neanderthals, Yachov and Ilion, vocal drool that masquerades as theological/philosophical discourse about the nature of their god.
Paps, Note that none of my arguments are dependent on theism being true. For some reason you can't help yourself in attempting to redirect the argument in that direction. Give it up.
All I have done is ask you to give me a reason, and all you have done in return is tell me what we know to exist. You say we know that vacuum fluxes, dark energy/matter, etc, etc exist. Great! But those are not reasons.
Just because something exists it doesn't necessarily follow that any of those things is the kind of thing that has within it the potential I've described.
For example: buckets of dirty water exist, but it doesn't necessarily follow that buckets of dirty water have the potential within it to bring rational beings into existence at some point in the future.
It could be true though. I mean, buckets of dirty water may be able to do this through a series of steps over billions of years. It's just that you and I have no reason to think this is true. The same line of reasoning applies to vacuum fluxes, etc. I need reasons to think vacuum fluxes can do what you claim.
So..I will grant you for the sake of argument (because I'm not an expert on the subject) that vacuum fluxes, dark matter, etc. etc. exist.
Please tell me why I should think that any one, or any combination of these things is the kind of thing that has within it the full potential to bring about things that came to exist later on - rational beings, love, justice, beauty music, etc?
I'm looking for a reason to agree with you, Paps. Can you give me one, or are these things like buckets of dirty water?
Papalinton wrote: ... now feels the need to sequester the name 'Nobel Prize' for its own grubby purpose. The Vatican has created its own Nobel Prize of Theology.
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31097
They were too lazy to think of their own name. Cheap.
POS googles prize theology ratzinger and says; Well, the prize has it's own name: Ratzinger Prize. And it is a project of the Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI Vatican Foundation. So where did the word Nobel come from here? The Vatican has announced the first three winners of the Ratzinger Prize for theological studies relating to the writings of Pope Benedict that it hopes will one day be looked on as equivalent to a Nobel Prize in theology.. It's pretty obvious there's some spin here, and that's maybe a bit cheap, so far we can agree; but spin is not very uncommon. And the foundation *have* thought of it's own name.
After our Galilei-Bruno bump and now this, I'd like to close with a good old country advice; If you plan to say something about Hypatia, the library of Alexandria, cats in the Middle Ages, or something about the church and science, or the church and the Middle Ages, or the church and aliens, you'd better check it out first.
Hi SteveK "All I have done is ask you to give me a reason, and all you have done in return is tell me what we know to exist. You say we know that vacuum fluxes, dark energy/matter, etc, etc exist. Great! But those are not reasons. "
The first living replicating cell has been made in the laboratory, Steve. I would say your analogy of a 'bucket of dirty water' turning into life is now possible. Exciting. Watch the video below:
"Such evolutionary processes could give rise to living entities, which are better suited to certain environments of technological interest than the biological ones first created some 4 billion years ago."
I took my news direct from the Vatican through Zenit, the official source from Rome. According to Zenit, the award is called the Nobel Prize of Theology. Check out the website here: http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31097 and tell me where it is called anything other than the Nobel Prize of Theology?
Additionally, even one of the two commenters on the UCANews site noted: "The concept is good, but it may be good to specify the name of the prize. Noble Prize is confusing."
Zenit is a creature of the catholic organisation. "ZENIT is promoted by the religious congregation of the Legionaries of Christ. Two Legionary priests offer consultation services and collaborate in writing the "Analysis" and "Liturgy" columns."
"If you plan to say something about, ....... you'd better check it out first." If you plan on defending christian theism through some pretense of a recourse to reason and logic, throw out the religion first.
As the wise Hippocrates [.c 460-377 BCE] Greek physician, noted, all that long ago [even long before jesus was a twinkle in Mary's eye]:
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine. And so it is with everything in the universe. Where prayer, amulets and incantations work it is only a manifestation of the patient's belief."
How prophetic! If one was to believe in prophecies this one surely is the mother of them. Everything he says has come to pass. So many orders of magnitude above the litany of cheap and unsophisticated retroacted and retrojected prophecies smattered throughout the bible.
IlÃon said... One Brow: "If your choice of logic no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your logic."
This is exactly the same as to say "If your choice of truth no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your truth."
I suppose if your undereducated and overly arrogant, they could indeed seem like the same thing. I offer no specific explanation for why you, in particular, see them as the same thing.
Any given logic is a tool for deducing true statements from other true statements. Changing the logic you use is like changing the hammer you pick from your toolbelt. Changing the truth is completely different.
Paps, >>> The first living replicating cell has been made in the laboratory, Steve. I would say your analogy of a 'bucket of dirty water' turning into life is now possible.
First, it didn't produce a rational being. Second, this non-life to life process requires something PLUS a rational being to guide the process.
We are talking about the beginning of the universe, remember? You said there were vacuum fluxes and gravitational whateveritis. You were going to give me a reason to think these things have the required potential.
That is good of you Steve to do for Paps but as we all know his beliefs have no rational basis.
He is never going to admit it. I have no problem admitting to Ilion I never would have thought of the distinctions between CT vs TP on my own till I learned it.
That is not to say there aren't Atheists who start with a process of reasoning and end with no God(or a doubt of gods) or that all Atheists believe they come to their conclusions based on emotion sans logic.
But Paps isn't one of these Atheists. All existing evidence suggests his views are based on his emotions(& some politics) not reason.
I too noticed one didn't have to postulate gods for or against to ask your question regarding the Vacuum Fluctuation.
The "Legionaries of Christ" is a corrupt organization the Holy Father is in the process of suppressing it. You will get no defense of them from me.
I know Pete Vere a Canadian Canon Lawyer who has documented much of their wickedness for years. I could tell you stories I learned from Pete about them more ugly then what the media has now figured out.
So what is your point? You don't have a rational, scientific, or philosophical answer for Steve so you will throw more mud?
If Stalin or Mao's wickedness in the name of Atheism can't make you a Theist again why should late Father Marcel & His wickedness make me an Atheist?
Ben: >>> That is good of you Steve to do for Paps but as we all know his beliefs have no rational basis.
He is not showing signs of clear thinking. I don't mind that he holds certain beliefs. I do mind that he holds them without any apparent reason for holding them. If he has reasons, he's not telling us or he's not explaining himself very clearly.
What is it about the synthetic cell experiment that makes you think vacuum fluxes (or ??) have within them the full potential to bring rational beings into existence though a series of events?
SteveK "What is it about the synthetic cell experiment that makes you think vacuum fluxes (or ??) have within them the full potential to bring rational beings into existence though a series of events?"
I'll try and go over it slowly. I will type slowly so that it provides the opportunity to reflect on that which I'm saying.
One must take a broader perspective and encompass all the bits of information that are coming to hand, Steve. If one limits their vision and views the world through only the lens of theism, all of the most important links are missed. Religion says only god can make living things. Science now makes organic self-replicating living things. Self-replication is a foundation stone of all living things. God says Adam and Eve were literally true. Science has demonstrably shown that the homo sapiens species never fell to 2. Evidence explicates that the bottleneck of human existence fell variously from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands. Epilepsy is now no longer considered as being 'possessed of the devil'. The simple fact that science has shown just washing your hands before eating has an enormous effect on improving one's health and hygiene. History shows what was once the purview of religion no longer holds in innumerable instances.
Apart from hydrogen, the most basic of all the elements, every other element formed resulted from varying degrees of galactic nuclear fission/fusion and the resulting explosion of innumerable stars and colliding galaxies. The range of basic elements known are constituents of both inorganic and organic matter. It is very reasonable and logical to understand the influence of vacuum flux and gravitational whateveritis, dark energy, dark matter and visible matter, reactively combine to make every element and every thing in the universe, and surprisingly even self-replicating organic compounds, of which even humans are but one particular form of combination of those basic elements. Trees are another. Ants are another.
Because we know humans express love, write music, have goodness etc etc, because we as humans play with them every day, and that living beings exist, then it is a fair proposition that the observable and known relationships and cosmic forces capable of making organic self-replicating entities [read humans] and humans can express love, goodness, music, then the potential must equally be there. In fact the full potential to bring 'rational beings' into existence and I might add, "irrational beings', because the vacuum flux or gravitational whateveritis is a non-discriminatory process, is quite unlike the nonsense of religious creation myths.
Ben Yachov "Denying gods doesn't really cure the fundie mindset."
i don't deny god. That statement implies there is a god to deny. What smug rubbish little minds play with.
I do not disprove in god[s]. I do not even disprove god[s]. I disregard god[s], dismiss[s], discredit god[s]. i am disinterested in god[s]. Gods are are figment of one's creative imagination. I much prefer to use my thought processes in a significantly more productive manner.
"To the absurd myths of God and an immortal soul, the modern world in its radical impotence has only succeeded in opposing the ridiculous myths of science and progress."
Paps, I read everything just as slowly and just as carefully as you typed it.I read it twice, in fact. :)
I'll skip over the non-essential stuff and get to the heart of it.
>> ... it is a fair proposition that the observable and known relationships and cosmic forces capable of making organic self-replicating entities [read humans] and humans can express love, goodness, music, then the potential must equally be there.
This isn't helpful, really because it's too generic a statement. I don't know whether to disagree or agree so I'll withhold judgement for now.
What is a cosmic force? What are the known relationships?
The synthetic cell experiment helped us understand the relationship between non-life and life. There are lots of relationships that we learned from that experiment, I suppose, but one undeniable relationship is this: rational beings must instantiate the process of creating life so that the cosmic forces can do their stuff.
This is a reason to reject any theory that non-life can produce life without rational beings.
SteveK " ... but one undeniable relationship is this: rational beings must instantiate the process of creating life so that the cosmic forces can do their stuff. "
Who says it's an 'undeniable relationship' and Why? it wasn't a rational being that instantiated the process of creating [evolution]. That is simply an argument from personal incredulity. And to talk as if the answer is a 'who' rather than a 'what' is little other than surrendering to our untutored and undisciplined primal response of imagining agency or intent for things, as yet not understood and for which yet require explanation. There is nothing out of the ordinary here, Steve, but to invoke some form of 'instantiation by rational beings' into the equation, as you have done, [and unsurprisingly as theism does], is simply a 'god of the gaps', no matter how the religiose try their hardest to paper over it.
To posit that 'rational beings must instantiate', or as the faithful put it, goddidit, is to put it mildly, is extraordinary. Not even science has found a need to factor in the 'goddidit' constant, among the other physics and cosmological constants. And it is prudent that until such a constant is verifiable and its effects measured, to leave it out.
Paps, >> Who says it's an 'undeniable relationship' and Why?
You're denying an obvious fact of the experiment? Geez!
>> it wasn't a rational being that instantiated the process of creating [evolution]
That's begging the question, Paps. Did the synthetic cell experiment give us any clues as to how life is created from non-life? I think so. What experiment can you cite where life was created without anyone instantiating and guiding the process? Take your time, please.
>> That is simply an argument from personal incredulity.
Your argument? I agree.
>> To posit that 'rational beings must instantiate', or as the faithful put it, goddidit, is to put it mildly, is extraordinary.
I've got science on my side - the results of the synthetic cell experiment. What do you have other than your vivid imagination and personal incredulity toward the facts?
Your faith in "itcandoitbyitself" is quite extraordinary - and counter to the findings of the experiments.
SteveK (who is gamely attempting the impossible (*) ;) ): "So..I will grant you for the sake of argument (because I'm not an expert on the subject) that vacuum fluxes, dark matter, etc. etc. exist."
Of course, one doesn't need to be an expert to know that one ought *not* believe that any such things as “dark energy” or “dark matter” exist; one simply applies reason – and a small knowledge of human psychology – to the facts of the matter.
And, the facts of the matter are these: 1) no scientist discovered, nor has any since observed, any entities bearing these names; 2) rather, some pseudo-scientist invented the concept(s) and all the other pseudo-scientists said, “Yeah! That’s a good ‘solution’ to the very real problem!” 3) and the very real problem is that observed reality isn’t behaving the way “the model” says/predicts it will;
4a) SO, rather than go back to first principles, and examine the presuppositions upon which “the model” relies (and which give its direction), and then build a new model on presuppositions which don’t run counter to what they have observed, 4b) or, rather than questioning the observations or the methodology and presuppositions underlying not only the interpretations of the observations, but also underlying the observations themselves, 4c) these pseudo-scientists (this being the reason they are pseudo- rather than true) have “reasoned” that “the model” must be correct, after all, and that therefore the error lies in reality.
And THAT is the sort of “reasoning” upon which most of the so-called atheists one will ever encounter habitually rely and to which they will always retreat when pressed with logical reasoning about, and criticism of, their irrational belief system.
(*) As the song says: “you can’t argue with a crazy man”; but neither can you argue with a man who willfully chooses irrationality. It’s logically impossible to reason with someone who will not reason.
>>> And to talk as if the answer is a 'who' rather than a 'what' is little other than surrendering to our untutored and undisciplined primal response of imagining agency or intent for things, as yet not understood and for which yet require explanation.
I've got an experiment that proves a 'who' is required. What data do you have that proves one isn't?
Given the uniformity of the laws of physics, one can confidently conclude - for now - that this is the case everywhere you go in the universe.
You aren't going to resort to special pleading in the case of pre-evolutionary life are you, Paps? That extraordinary claim would require a large amount of evidence to support it.
Now, it might be possible to do this without a 'who', but for now, all we can say is there is no reason to think it is possible. The facts - the science - doesn't allow us to go there.
Yet you post comments on an awful lot of religious themed websites? Wither it is Biologos or here?
Why?
For someone who is disinterested in gods you can't seem to get away from them. You can't seem to move on? Also you substitute rational argument with rhetoric and ridicule.
Does this actually produce any converts? Or does it just serve to reinforce stereotypes of Gnu's?
The later if you ask me.
But in the end you need to at least ground your disbelief in reason. So far like I said you have just traded one Fundamentalism for another.
Oh? Really? Where? (Rhetorical questions, actually. the answer is, of course, He didn't. Nowhere.)
But St. Augustine declared the story to be allegorical. As did Aquinas. As did Pope Benedict. And... well, let's just say all Orthodox (Catholic) theologians, and leave it at that.
But Papalinton insists the story must be taken literally. Hmm... I'll have to agree with the other posters here who accuse him of having a fundamentalist mindset. He seems really uncomfortable with the notion that one might actually have to think for one's self. He'd rather hurl ridiculous non sequiturs and quotes from Wikipedia into the ether, and endlessly tilt against strawmen, resolutely ignoring the very real logical arguments that he has proven himself time and again incapable of responding to.
Paplinton, I've tried. I gave you every benefit of the doubt. I tried to emphasize the occasional moments of sanity in your postings, and even defended you against some of the harsher comments directed against you on this site. But you have made zero attempt to respond in kind, or to mend your ways.
This latest comment of yours is just one more example of the complete and total disconnect between your "logic" and the Real World.
But what I really fail to understand is your motive behind getting on this site in the first place. I get the motivation behind those who spar with you - they're trying to save your immortal soul. Believe it or not, despite the harsh rhetoric, they love you. But what is yours? In your professed worldview, it makes no difference what a person believes, so why all the proselytizing? And why haunt a faith-oriented website, if (as you claim) you have no interest in God?
Not necessarily so. In Galatians, Paul explicitly writes that the Genesis story of Abraham's two sons is allegorical:
"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."
True, Paul is not speaking of Adam and Eve in this passage, but the principle is nevertheless laid down. Allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament are Orthodox readings. No literalism required.
"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36). -Pope Pius XII
"nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338). -Catecheism of the Catholic Church
"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390). -ibid
Careful about using the Catechism as "proof" in an argument. It's not Scripture, and it is possible for it to contain error.
(That said, I have the highest regard for the Catechism, and would be loathe to disagree with it without enormously good reason. And even then, I would do so with the utmost caution and reticence.)
But as to the reference to "our first parents", even that is by no means an argument in favor of a literal Adam and Eve. The Catechism could just as well be referring to our collective First Parents (which is, in fact, what I think it is doing). There is no theological necessity for a literal first couple, and zero scientific evidence either for or against one.
Bottom Line: If a person believes in a literal Adam and Eve, I have no quarrel with that. Nor do I have any problem with someone who regards the whole thing as an allegory. Both positions can be justified scientifically and theologically. My own belief is that it's an allegory, but I wouldn't be at all upset to find out I was wrong.
Bottom Bottom Line: Vacuum fluctuations will never get you to an uncaused creation (which is what this thread started out on).
>Careful about using the Catechism as "proof" in an argument. It's not Scripture, and it is possible for it to contain error.
On matters of faith and moral the CCC is authoritative & Catholics must give it assent.
(Not that I am accusing you of not doing this)
It can't contain error in so far as it gives authoritative teaching as to the limits & or acceptable boundaries of Catholic interpretation.
For example the CCC is not eliminating the possibility we could interpret Genesis in a fiat young Earth creationist manner but it is showing us that other interpretations are possible and permissible.
I don't agree with any of this. I think it is very wrong. Sorry brother.
>But as to the reference to "our first parents", even that is by no means an argument in favor of a literal Adam and Eve.
Denial of a real Adam and Eve is proximate to heresy since it is a denial of the fall and original sin not to mention the infallible teachings of Trent. It can't be reconciled with Tradition.
Denial of a real Adam and Eve has no scientific, philosophical, or theological justification even if we grant Evolution and deny biological mongenism is possible.
The burden of proof is on the Adam denier to prove otherwise.
Even Teilhard De Chardin said as much and he is no Pope Benedict.
>There is no theological necessity for a literal first couple, and zero scientific evidence either for or against one.
Rather it is a category mistake to claim it is a scientific question in the first place. Can you prove scientifically God is a Trinity? I think not. But it is clearly a theological necessity much like a literal resurrection.
>My own belief is that it's an allegory, but I wouldn't be at all upset to find out I was wrong.
Forgive me for saying the following but isn't that a Protestant either/or mentality?
Either you believe it is literalistically historical Adam or an allegory that contains no history?
Why can't it be both/and? The Beast in Revelations was Nero, a symbolic Monster with 7 heads and a future Anti-Christ. It's not hard my bother?
Adam and Eve really existed Bob and that has always been the Universal Teaching of the Church. A non-Adam none fall is a novelty.
Wither Adam was a pile of dust 5000 years ago made into a man or 50,000 years ago or an unsouled hominid given a soul 150,000 years ago. He was real and he fell.
It doesn't matter if His offspring mated solely among themselves or mated with other hominids that had no souls.
He was real & I don't think it is good for a Catholics to question that.
But that is between you & your bishop. I am not involved. I am not the Church. I can only speak my mind & dialog with you. Nothing more.
Consider this also Bob even extreme speculative theologians who have postulated Adam represents a group of humans not one man have either made Adam a head of a Human community that lead them into sin or the collective humans all sinned at some point.
The Fall was still seen as something that had happened in history.
So allegory doesn't remove all literal history from Genesis.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see no theological necessity for a literal first couple. The Fall of Man and his subsequent Redemption is not dependent on such. The first sin could easily have been (and probably was) a collective act.
But on the whole, this is one of those matters which I have "no dog in the fight". As I wrote earlier, it really doesn't affect what I believe. If tomorrow I learned that the majority of the OT was pure allegory with no historical basis whatsoever, that would be fine by me. But on the other hand, were I to learn that it was overwhelmingly literally true, that also wouldn't cause me to lose any sleep. None. It's really a giant non-issue to me.
Now as for anyone claiming there's allegory in the New Testament... well, them's fightin' words!
Because there is a difference between anecdote and data, between proof and incidence.
If an experiment requires hydrogen as part of the process, does that prove hydrogen is required?
That depends on whether the use of hydrogen was incidental or not. If the experiement was to see if a ballon design was stable in a high wind, it's quite likely hlium would have served the same purpose.
Further, an experiment is conduct by intelligent beings by its nature as an experiment. IF I experiment on falling bodies, does that mean intelligence is required for gravity to operate?
One Brow, >>> That depends on whether the use of hydrogen was incidental or not.
True. Were rational beings incidental in the cell experiment? That's the key question to ask and answer.
Could the same outcome be acheived without rational beings guiding the process, correcting errors, striving to ensure an outome, etc?
You tell me.
It seems clear to me that the experiement wasn't done to see IF a living cell could be be made - we know it can because we are living examples of it. It was done to see HOW it could be made. Now we know something about that.
>>> IF I experiment on falling bodies, does that mean intelligence is required for gravity to operate?
No. The outcome of a falling body can be acheived without a rational being guiding the process, correcting errors and striving to ensure that outome was reached. It just happens naturally and we observe it.
There's no allegory in Revelation. Symbology, yes. (I know, the difference is technical, possibly even straining at gnats, but nevertheless important when identifying literary types.)
My main point was that I stand firmly in Thomas Aquinas's camp - that there is but One Truth, not a Faith Truth and a Scientific Truth - just Truth. there are many paths to arriving at the truth (scientific method, revelation, reason, etc.), but in the end, Truth cannot contradict itself.
And an uncaused event within nature, be it a vacuum fluctuation or anything else, is a contradiction in terms.
Now I am not opposed to the idea of vacuum fluctuations. I recall quite well when I first heard of them, sometime around 2001 (maybe 2002). I thought then, and still think, that they could be a real possibility. I remember discussing the idea with a good friend of mine in England, who happened to be both an astrophysicist and an atheist, but even he scoffed at the notion that such events could occur outside of the context of an entire pre-existing universe. He was firm in insisting that said fluctuations could only come out of natural law.
I also utterly reject the notion of causelessness. We're at the point of repeating what was stated about 200 postings back, but an event within nature, following the "laws of nature" (itself an anthropomorphism), requires pre-existing laws. In other words, a cause.
So the atheist cannot dodge the embarrassing issue of there being something rather than nothing by such theoretical constructs as a vacuum fluctuation (which may or may not occur in the Real World). they remain a fascinating possibility, but of no greater consequence to philosophy or theology than any other purely natural occurrence.
B. Prokop said... ... but an event within nature, following the "laws of nature" (itself an anthropomorphism), requires pre-existing laws. In other words, a cause.
The "laws of nature", in and of themselves, can not be an efficient cause for an event if the event sometimes does not apply in identical circumstances. If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused.
One Brow writes: "If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused."
Only partially right. Q remains a prerequisite for X. therefore, in the absence of Q, X will never occur.
Besides, I'm not the one arguing here that natural law is sufficient cause for event X (a vacuum fluctuation, to be precise) to occur. It is Stephen Hawking. I myself will of course maintain that "quia in ipso condita sunt universa in caelis et in terra visibilia et invisibilia" (Col 1:16).
One Brow, >>> If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why do rational beings guiding the process matter?
Imagination doesn't trump reality. There are many, many outcomes that, as far as we know, cannot be accomplished without a rational being guiding the process.
Those are the "right conditions" you are looking for, and there are no other conditions that we know about that can produce the same outcome.
That might change in the future, but for now, we must stick with the facts.
One Brow, A question just occurred to me...why don't you ask this same question when it comes to other observed processes? Just because rational beings are involved, why does observed reality suddenly become difficult to understand? For example, why don't you ask this:
(Creating steam) If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why must heat/energy be part of the process?
Bob "I myself will of course maintain that "quia in ipso condita sunt universa in caelis et in terra visibilia et invisibilia" (Col 1:16)."
Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. In contrast, the first principle of religion is that you must fool yourself, finding in the universe only those things that support your beliefs, and harmonizing all possible observations with what you want to be true. Evolution? That’s God’s way of bringing about His Creation! The Holocaust? Evil is simply an inexorable and unavoidable byproduct of God’s gift of free will. Theology is merely an intellectual game of self-foolery. And many theologians are very good at it."
SteveK "Imagination doesn't trump reality. There are many, many outcomes that, as far as we know, cannot be accomplished without a rational being guiding the process."
bob "And an uncaused event within nature, be it a vacuum fluctuation or anything else, is a contradiction in terms."
That's theology talking. Just as the Thomist 'uncaused cause' is an imaginary theological literary device to wiggle in some room for a god to be interpolated.
Definitely not science. Definitely theo-logic, not real logic.
@ Papalinton, I think you understand that you checked just one source in our Nobel bump.
Papalinton wrote: As the wise Hippocrates [.c 460-377 BCE] Greek physician, noted, all that long ago (...) "Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine.
POS says; I'm not a physician, but I know this: While dissection of the human body to try to figure out how it works was forbidden in the Graeco-Roman world (with a few year exception in Alexandria), later also forbidden in the Arabic world; as far as I know this was not forbidden in Europe. And after Europe's recovery after the fall of the Roman Empire, there were even public dissections in Europe, with the first known d in what today is western Italy, not far from the Pope btw. In this way they found that Galenos' anatomy descriptions were wrong because he had used animals.
And at the universities, which was connected to the pope and not to the different kings and emperors, one of the main studies was medicine. The other three studies were theology, law and 'the free studies'.
But for all the students, mathematics and physics were compulsory.
"That is simply an argument from personal incredulity."
You can *always* tell that you're dealing with a third-rate mind when he (mindlessly) trots out this little chestnut and imagines he's made a telling point.
What Everyone's Favority Fool is saying is that one should be *credulous*, rather than critical. Though, of course, since he *is* a fool (i.e. intellectually dishonest), this credulity he recommends applies only to the incredible things he wishes to convince himself are true.
B. Prokop said... Only partially right. Q remains a prerequisite for X. therefore, in the absence of Q, X will never occur.
I agree, but that does not suffice to make Q a metaphyscial cause for for X. Soil is required to grow corn. Soil is not the cause of any particular corn plant.
Besides, I'm not the one arguing here that natural law is sufficient cause for event X (a vacuum fluctuation, to be precise) to occur. It is Stephen Hawking.
I believe Stephen Hawking accpet the notion of uncaused events. Therefore, my objection has no meaning to him. He would simply agree X is uncaused.
SteveK said... Imagination doesn't trump reality. There are many, many outcomes that, as far as we know, cannot be accomplished without a rational being guiding the process.
How can you authoritatively classify abiogenesis as among those outcomes?
Those are the "right conditions" you are looking for, and there are no other conditions that we know about that can produce the same outcome.
You might as well say that we have not witnessed a star forming from haydrogen, so we that process muct require a rational being.
That might change in the future, but for now, we must stick with the facts.
"No evidence" is not a fact.
A question just occurred to me...why don't you ask this same question when it comes to other observed processes? Just because rational beings are involved, why does observed reality suddenly become difficult to understand? For example, why don't you ask this:
(Creating steam) If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why must heat/energy be part of the process?
The difference between steam and liquid water is the energy level, therefore energy must be a part of the process. However, heat does not need to be. Humidifiers create steam without heat.
One Brow, >>> How can you authoritatively classify abiogenesis as among those outcomes?
Abiogenesis is not just an outcome, it's an outcome via a *specific* (naturalistic) process.
So I'm not saying anything about abiogenesis here. Abiogenisis is a theory in need of confirmation. It's a possibility. I'm merely taking what has been demonstrated at face value.
>>> You might as well say that we have not witnessed a star forming from haydrogen, so we that process muct require a rational being.
Why would I say that? Has anyone seen a rational being create a star? No. You are confused.
>>> "No evidence" is not a fact.
Are you saying the cell experiment is not a demonstration of rational beings creating life from non-life?
>>> The difference between steam and liquid water is the energy level, therefore energy must be a part of the process.
Okay, fine. The difference between non-life and life is energy as well -- guided and controlled energy that only a rational being can deliver. At least that's what the cell experiment has demonstrated.
>>> However, heat does not need to be. Humidifiers create steam without heat.
Notice that I said heat/energy. These things plug into the wall don't they?
I do: you're asserting that the One True Bureaucracy is infallible ... though, any rational and historically aware being knows how amusingly false the claim is.
I'm not sure if this conversation could be any more instructive of the mindset of certain people.
Science has demonstrated - for now - that the non-life to life process requires that rational beings be an integral part of the process.
Certain people are troubled by that demonstration because of their preconceived ideas about the origin of the first life long ago. Can't let those fundy religious people or those IDiots get a foot in the door.
This discomfort and a win-at-all-costs mentality causes them shift the focus of their argument to "what might be possible" instead of what actually is.
But notice, these people never argue this way when it comes to other demonstrated processes. Can you imagine these same uber-rational, pro-science people posting these comments?
- Well, gee, science hasn't demonstrated that heat/energy is *required* to turn water to steam. Maybe heat/energy isn't necessary.
- Well, gee, science hasn't demonstrated that our bodies "required* oxygen to live. Maybe oxygen isn't necessary.
When other people talk this way, they are labeled as irrational or anti-science or god-of-the-gap thinkers or fundy believers or -- well, you get the idea.
Yeah. Maybe naturalistic abiogenisis is possible. Maybe rational beings are not required to create life. Maybe pigs can fly. It's possible.
SteveK said... Abiogenesis is not just an outcome, it's an outcome via a *specific* (naturalistic) process.
Well, at least one.
Abiogenisis is a theory in need of confirmation.
If it were a theory, it would have been confirmed. It's a hypothesis, right now.
Why would I say that? Has anyone seen a rational being create a star? No. You are confused.
No one has seen a rational being create a cell, either. The closest is the insertion of new DNA into an existing cell.
Interestingly, by your logic, this means you can no longer deduce that a rational agent must be involved in the creation of a cell. I wonder if you will be that consistent.
Are you saying the cell experiment is not a demonstration of rational beings creating life from non-life?
As it happens, it is not.
More to the point, the ability to control a process in a lab, under human control, is not a fact in a discussion of whether that process occurs outside the lab.
One Brow, >>> The closest is the insertion of new DNA into an existing cell.
I took Paps at his word when he said the experiment was an example of creating the first living replicating cell. He said my analogy of going from a dirty bucket of water to life had now been demonstrated.
If Paps was wrong, then I too am wrong and will gladly retract.
"I took Paps at his word when he said the experiment was an example of creating the first living replicating cell. He said my analogy of going from a dirty bucket of water to life had now been demonstrated.
If Paps was wrong, then I too am wrong and will gladly retract."
The best possible spin one can put on his claim is that he was extremely mistaken and not at all concerned with not being mistaken.
So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it.
SteveK "So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it."
Hardly. Theists imagine they are back to demonstrating 'billions of times over'. One Brow and I among others have tried hard to break the spiral into irrelevancy. But religious ignorance of the 'faithful' is not for turning. The web of self-deception and mystical illusion is a hard nut to crack.
All that the theist opinion-based assertions here have demonstrated is how universally circular theism is, and most particularly, christian theism.
As William Pitt the Elder, British Prime Minister so astutely surmised:
"We need a religion of humanity. The only true divinity is humanity."
"So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it."
But, of course.
=== Here's another thought that most readers, especially those of the God-denial mindset, are going to have trouble grasping, despite that it's simple and straightforward (and is fully explained in this post) -- The fact that organisms routinely die is yet one more proof that atheism is not the truth about the nature of reality.
Here is the explanation: If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then the terms '(non-artificial) life' and 'biology' are co-extensive. For, to admit to any living entity which is both non-biological and non-artificial is to surrender the battle in one's denial of the reality of God. If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then 'biology' is fully explained by chemistry -- you know, the whole silly belief variously phrased as "life is just chemical reactions", and "Life Happens when the right chemicals come together in the right circumstance". For, to deny that "Life Happens" is to assert that biology is the result of some non-biological living entity. BUT, if 'biology' is fully explained by chemistry -- that is, if "life is just chemical reactions" -- then the fact that those chemicals normally and consistently stop reacting cannot be squared with the faith-requirement that "life is just chemical reactions". What? Do chemicals keep a count of the reactions they've undergone, and when they reach some limit they get tired and sluggish until they've taken sufficient rest?
"Here's another thought that most readers, especially those of the God-denial mindset, ........ [d]o chemicals keep a count of the reactions they've undergone, and when they reach some limit they get tired and sluggish until they've taken sufficient rest?"
SteveK "Again with the attempt to bring God into this? Give it up. How are billions of demonstrations not actual demonstrations? Do you have evidence demonstrating that I am wrong? You only need to point me to one case."
Of course it is about god.
I refer you to your original comment: "So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it."
So what is it that you are referring to re: 'prior life'? And I dread to think you are attempting to extrapolate the existence of a god through Venter's experiment of creating self-replicating organisms in the laboratory, as I had recently informed. Such a claim would simply be the application of the 'gap theory' model of christian theology.
>>> So what is it that you are referring to re: 'prior life'?
My apologies if I was not clear. Prior means "before". For example: A son (life) requires a Mom (life that existed before the son).
I think a revision is in order. What do you think about this?
It has been demonstrated that a life that comes to exist requires a life already in existence to be an integral part of the process.
>>> And I dread to think you are attempting to extrapolate the existence of a god through Venter's experiment of creating self-replicating organisms in the laboratory, as I had recently informed.
"But on the whole, this is one of those matters which I have "no dog in the fight". As I wrote earlier, it really doesn't affect what I believe. If tomorrow I learned that the majority of the OT was pure allegory with no historical basis whatsoever, that would be fine by me. But on the other hand, were I to learn that it was overwhelmingly literally true, that also wouldn't cause me to lose any sleep. None. It's really a giant non-issue to me."END QUOTE
and "I see no theological necessity for a literal first couple. The Fall of Man and his subsequent Redemption is not dependent on such. The first sin could easily have been (and probably was) a collective act."
Thus the point of disagrement is the theological necessity for a literal first couple vs a fall of a large collective group of people.
PS I knew playing that Jane Austin movie would put my little one to sleep.
Now I am going to watch some of it before turning in myself.
A "collective fall", sans individual sin, does nicely solve the problem that "liberals" have with the whole concept of sin -- it's really only someone else who is sinful.
SteveK said... So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it.
Abiogenesis can only be expected to occur when there is not life present. If life is present, it will consume the raw materials mcuh faster than any reasonable abiogenesis scenario indicates for the process. So, I have no expectatons of witnessing abiogenesis in non-laboratory conditions. That's very different from saying that prior life is essential. Prior life prevents abiogenesis.
Paps, >>>...Venter's experiment of creating self-replicating organisms in the laboratory
That's nothing! I've created 4 self-replicating organisms in my own lab. Most were created in my home lab, but I think the first one was created in our honeymoon lab.
SteveK said... One Brow:>>> Abiogenesis can only be expected to occur when there is not life present.
By definition!
No. By definition, abiogenesis could occur in the presence of life, as long as that life was not causal in the abiogenesis process. However, such an occurence is not possible by environment, an entirely different thing.
Where did you learn this?
Here and there. Microscopic beings eat at a microscopic livel.
I agree. I have no expectations of it either. There's no reason to think it can occur.
Einfachische: "The "laws of nature", in and of themselves, can not be an efficient cause for an event if the event sometimes does not apply in identical circumstances. If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused."
X is not uncaused. You ignorance of the full causes of X does not equal no cause of X.
A touching testimony of faith: "If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why do rational beings guiding the process matter?"
If 'life' is "just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions", why do organisms routinely die? Do those "right chemicals [which came] together in the right conditions" get bored with the whole thing and just kind of drift off to pursue other interests?
SteveK "It has been demonstrated that a life that comes to exist requires a life already in existence to be an integral part of the process."
Then you have not understood the basis on which the fact of evolution is premised.
And the more scientists discover about the constituent elements necessary to allow for abiogenesis to occur and under what are the optimal conditions, it is only a matter of time before we know how life started on this planet. And I suspect there will be an explosion of the possible ways it did, and why some methods will be successful and why the vast majority will be aborted a few replications in. Once understood, I suspect the process will seem obvious, pretty much as many of the discoveries in science has proven to be over time. I think of the amazement expressed as humanity pondered in awe of Einstein's theory of relativity. Now in hindsight it just seems so obvious.
And so it is with the Biological Sciences.
Each small step up Mt Probable redefines each literal truth of the bible to a metaphor. The process is inexorable as the historical trail informs us. I suspect the bible will eventually be characterized as a litany of metaphors and allegory strung together by elements of historical fact variously appropriated for the purpose of making the narrative seemingly cogent and based in reality.
Paps, >>> Then you have not understood the basis on which the fact of evolution is premised.
I don't need to understand theoretical premises. For now, I only need to understand what has been demonstrated in reality. Isn't that how science works?
You need to give me a reason to toss all of that empirical data out the window. Do you have a reason? I've asked you for reasons many times and each time you come up empty.
>>. And the more scientists discover about the constituent elements necessary to allow for abiogenesis to occur and under what are the optimal conditions, it is only a matter of time before we know how life started on this planet.
Faith masquerading as empirical science. I've heard there are scientist PhD-types that say it's only a matter of time before we know why the earth only appears to be 4.5 billion years old.
While you busily point them to the mountains of data that shows the earth is this old, let me point you to the mountains of data that shows new life always comes from an existing life.
If 'life' is "just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions", why do organisms routinely die? Do those "right chemicals [which came] together in the right conditions" get bored with the whole thing and just kind of drift off to pursue other interests?
For some reason, you seem to think this is an intelligent point.
No the chemicals don't get bored. many liveing things show no signs of age. Some plants are thousands of years old, and while they might die from environmental causes, show no signs of dying from internal causes.
There'a a whole science on aging, what happens, and why it happens, that is not based on chemicals getting bored. You can look it up if you want to.
SteveK "You need to give me a reason to toss all of that empirical data out the window."
I understand now why it is you do not throw out the entire christian artifice and its book. There is no empirical data supporting its claims on existence, so you are unable to throw it out the window. And whatever empirical data may be contained therein is miniscule and is there simply because it was appropriated in order that christians can hang their mythos on something to give it some element of credibility, to give it seemingly 'bona fide' status.
Look. We all know the tradition of the christian mythos is a construct of a committee group meeting. The whole edifice of christendom and most particularly Catholicism was established at a talkfest in Nicea in 325CE. The foundations of the christian fable were bolted to the floor, a fabricated construct that was decided on a head-count. Nothing more, nothing less. They said, "Look! we can only have one Hansel and one Gretel in our story. Anyone who disagrees with us will be chopped off at the knees, literally."
And from this confab arose the behemoth that almost devoured all of humanity.
Antirationalist: "The "laws of nature", in and of themselves, can not be an efficient cause for an event if the event sometimes does not apply in identical circumstances. If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused."
Antirationalist: "X is not uncaused. You ignorance of the full causes of X does not equal no cause of X."
Hater-of-Reason: "Nor does your metaphysics create a cause where none exists."
True enough: my metaphysics does not create the causes of things; rather, it recognizes the truth that there are no effects/events without causes.
On the other, and antirational, hand, you and your metaphysics are asserting the knowledge-repudiating and self-defeating claim (*) that there can be, and are, events without causes. But, you cannot have "just enough" acausality to protect your atheism from rational critical analysis -- either: 1) all events are the effects of causes; or, 2) no events are the effects of causes.
(*) for, your claim is itself an event ... which is, according to your metaphysical assertions, uncaused. ANd, when you randomly assert the opposite on some random other day, that too will be uncaused.
... consider this what this silly, silly (and vain), man has said as he attempts to side-step the importance of the question I have twice asked --
One Brow: "If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why do rational beings guiding the process matter?"
IlÃon: "BUT, if 'biology' is fully explained by chemistry -- that is, if "life is just chemical reactions" -- then the fact that those chemicals normally and consistently *stop* reacting cannot be squared with the faith-requirement that "life is just chemical reactions". What? Do chemicals keep a count of the reactions they've undergone, and when they reach some limit they get tired and sluggish until they've taken sufficient rest?"
IlÃon: "If 'life' is "just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions", why do organisms routinely die? Do those "right chemicals [which came] together in the right conditions" get bored with the whole thing and just kind of drift off to pursue other interests?"
One-thought-many-rationalizations: "For some reason, you seem to think this is an intelligent point.
No the chemicals don't get bored. many liveing things show no signs of age. Some plants are thousands of years old, and while they might die from environmental causes, show no signs of dying from internal causes."
Paps-In-Drag: "There'a a whole science on aging, what happens, and why it happens, that is not based on chemicals getting bored. You can look it up if you want to."
It never ceases to amaze me how blatantly people will affirm what I have just said even as they are asserting that it is false (or, as in this case, asserting that it is "not even false").
Papalinton said: The whole edifice of christendom and most particularly Catholicism was established at a talkfest in Nicea in 325CE.
POS says: After my advice to check statements about history better, and not just about Galilei and Bruno, and after you checked just one source about some prize, I'm a bit surprised of this. However, if you give me name of a historian who supports this, or if you give me your source, I'll come back to you.
Papalinton wrote to SteveK: I suspect the bible will eventually be characterized as a litany of metaphors and allegory strung together by elements of historical fact variously appropriated for the purpose of making the narrative seemingly cogent and based in reality.
POS says: Most churches never thought the Bible is so exactly that it can be used to reject scientific ideas. Ideas like a moving earth or a very old earth has some times been criticized, but usually on the basis of either reason or observations.
A good place to start for those who would like to know how the church fathers interpreted Genesis is Augustine's On Genesis. The Bible was not read literally at that time either, even a thousand years before the great discoveries.
Ilion was kind enough to refer to himself as "Antirationalist", so the least I can do is respond.
True enough: my metaphysics does not create the causes of things; rather, it recognizes the truth that there are no effects/events without causes.
It can make the assumption, but the assumpiton can be wrong, and by all evidence is wrong. There are events that, as far as we can determine their nature, are fundamentally uncaused. The assumptions built into a metahysics are also not proof otherwise.
1) all events are the effects of causes; or, 2) no events are the effects of causes.
Why not some events, according to the nature of the particular event? That is, events of types A, B, and C are uncaused, as that is their respective nature, while events of type a, b, and c are casued, as that is their respective nature?
One Brow, The reason uncaused events makes no sense is because it results in a contradiction.
If there is a reason for an event, then there is a real thing that explains the event. That real thing is found in the reason given. If there is no reason then literally "no real thing" explains the event - which is a contradition because it doesn't exist and thus can't be an explanation.
The cause can be external or an internal part of the thing itself. Reference the principle of sufficient reason.
For example, the nature of agency is the reason people can be the first cause of events.
With the contradition resolved, what remains to be resolved is the infinite regression of causality.
The conclusion of people smarter than me is that some real things must be a necessary part of reality. In other words, some real things must not require a reason or a cause to explain their existence because they must always exist. They always existed as a matter of necessity.
SteveK said... The reason uncaused events makes no sense is because it results in a contradiction.
"Contradiction" is very specific term for a sentence of the type "A & not-A".
If there is a reason ...
Already, we are sliding to an equivocal phrase. A "reason" is not a "cause". You can say "the reason the universe can exist uncaused is a property like gravity", and there is no internal contradiction.
The cause can be external or an internal part of the thing itself.
The cause of an event needs to act prior to the event (ontologically), a reason for an event does not.
One Brow, >>> "Contradiction" is very specific term for a sentence of the type "A & not-A".
I know. The reason for the uncaused event can be found in "no real thing" and "a real thing" at the same time and in the same way. Contradiction.
>>> Already, we are sliding to an equivocal phrase. A "reason" is not a "cause".
The way I am using the term is that a reason is a way of explaining why an object exists as it does. This concept is found in the 4 causes..
>>> You can say "the reason the universe can exist uncaused is a property like gravity", and there is no internal contradiction.
Your reason entails causality according to the 4 cause theory. Gravity explains why the universe exists as it does.
You can't just say it's uncaused without offering a sufficient reason why it is uncaused (see principle of sufficient reason again).
Necessity would be a sufficient reason, but we have no reason to think gravity is necessary to reality. We'd need a reason to think that before we could conclude that gravity explains the universe.
SteveK said... The reason for the uncaused event can be found in "no real thing" and "a real thing" at the same time and in the same way. Contradiction.
Since the "no real thing" is at time A and an efficient cause, while the "real thing" would either be a time B or a formal cause (depending on the particular event), there is no contradiciton.
The way I am using the term is that a reason is a way of explaining why an object exists as it does. This concept is found in the 4 causes.
However, that does not make a reason into a cause, unless you mean specifically a final cause.
Your reason entails causality according to the 4 cause theory. Gravity explains why the universe exists as it does.
However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.
You can't just say it's uncaused without offering a sufficient reason why it is uncaused (see principle of sufficient reason again).
The princikple of sufficient reason is an assumption you make to build into a formal system. It has no proof, and it ceases to be a useful model for reality, there is not need to keep it.
Necessity would be a sufficient reason, but we have no reason to think gravity is necessary to reality. We'd need a reason to think that before we could conclude that gravity explains the universe.
However, gravity may well be necessary within the universe. How could you tell, one way or the other?
One Brow, >>> Since the "no real thing" is at time A and an efficient cause, while the "real thing" would either be a time B or a formal cause (depending on the particular event), there is no contradiciton.
We aren't talking about 2 causal events, just the one event.
>>> However, that does not make a reason into a cause, unless you mean specifically a final cause.
Pick one or more of the 4 causes as the reason an object exists as it does. They're all causes.
Additionally, can you cite an example where what you are saying is true?
>>> However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.
You're making my argument for me. Gravity is not the reason it came to exist.
>>> It has no proof, and it ceases to be a useful model for reality, there is not need to keep it.
Ha! Notice you are giving me reasons (not sufficient though) to deny the principle of sufficient reason. By giving me reasons to deny it, you confirm its necessity.
>>> However, gravity may well be necessary within the universe. How could you tell, one way or the other?
It's a real possibility, I agree. How could you tell? I don't think you could. I don't see how anyone could ever come to discover that something was necessary - that something could not possibly fail to have existed. What would such a reality look like or act like?
That's why I said we have no reason to think gravity is necessary.
SteveK said... We aren't talking about 2 causal events, just the one event.
Since we are discussing the possiblity of uncaused events, and different uncaused events can have different natures, I am trying to be inclusive about the varieties of uncaused events. Since the "no real thing" discusses an ontologically prior thing/act, while for uncaused events we attirbute the lack of causality to either an ontologically prior form or to having a form no ontologically prior, there is no contradiciton between the "no real thing" and the existence of areason.
Pick one or more of the 4 causes as the reason an object exists as it does. They're all causes.
Events are not objects.
Additionally, can you cite an example where what you are saying is true?
Radioactive decay is uncaused. The actual spin of a particle (as oppose to the existence of spin). Hawking says the universe itself seems to be uncaused, at least potentially.
>>> However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.
You're making my argument for me. Gravity is not the reason it came to exist.
Again, you equate "reason" to "cause" inappropriately.
Ha! Notice you are giving me reasons (not sufficient though) to deny the principle of sufficient reason.
The principle of sufficient reason is not something that can be affirmed or denied, so how could I be giving you reasons to deny it? The principle of sufficient reason is either relatively useful in helping to form a model of a phenomenon, or not relatively useful.
By giving me reasons to deny it, you confirm its necessity.
Theists do seem to love arguments like that.
That's why I said we have no reason to think gravity is necessary.
By which you seem to mean, we have no reason to think gravity is necessary nor any reason to think it is contingent, and no guess in one direction is any better than in the other direction. I'm OK with that.
Events must involve real things. Call them objects or just real things.
>>> Radioactive decay is uncaused.
It may look that way to you. Just because you can't pinpoint or understand the cause doesn't mean it is uncaused. That's what is often referred to a "god of the gaps" thinking, isn't it? Do you want to go there?
>>> Again, you equate "reason" to "cause" inappropriately.
Not really. I took your statement about gravity and offered a logical conclusion based on that statement.
For example, Suppose you said X *cannot* cause a pot of water to exist as steam. We can then say to someone who tells me it's possible - that we have no reason to think X can bring steam into existence from a pot of water.
>>> The principle of sufficient reason is not something that can be affirmed or denied, so how could I be giving you reasons to deny it?
You were attempting to give reasons.
>>> The principle of sufficient reason is either relatively useful in helping to form a model of a phenomenon, or not relatively useful.
Here's the problem. Without the PSR, no reason is needed to justify a conclusion. You do have reasons behind every valid conclusion that you form, but it's not necessary. Congratulations, you've just lumped rational thought in with irrational thought.
>>> Theists do seem to love arguments like that.
Thinking people love arguments like that.
Let's say you are correct. Without the PSR nobody need reasons to accept the PSR as being true either - and therefore both arguments are valid and sound.
Nobody also needs reasons to deny arguments in favor of the law of non-condradition. In fact, all forms of argument are valid and sound because the PSR can be denied.
Looking at the methods of science...if we think we have found something without explanation, we spend a lot of intellectual energy trying to determine or prove to ourselves the explanation for there being no explanation.
If the PSR doesn't hold, then all of that scientific time and energy is not necessary. We can just conclude that no reason is needed to explain anything. And when we so find a reason, we can deny it without reason.
This is the epitome of anti-rationalism. And you support this? I hope you will reconsider.
SteveK said... Events must involve real things. Call them objects or just real things.
Events are real, but are not things nor objects. they have no material cause, for example.
It may look that way to you. Just because you can't pinpoint or understand the cause doesn't mean it is uncaused. That's what is often referred to a "god of the gaps" thinking, isn't it? Do you want to go there?
My understanding is that radioactive decay is uncaused, by the the nature of radioactive decay. I am not using "uncaused" to mean "unpredictiable".
Not really.
Yes, really. A reason need not be a cause.
For example, Suppose you said X *cannot* cause a pot of water to exist as steam. We can then say to someone who tells me it's possible - that we have no reason to think X can bring steam into existence from a pot of water.
I did not understand your point here.
You were attempting to give reasons.
I was describing its character. I suppose you could call that "giving reasons" loosely. However, since I had no intent to affirm or deny, I was not using the principle of sufficient reason.
Here's the problem. Without the PSR, no reason is needed to justify a conclusion.
You can choose any number of other conditions on which to base affirmation or denial, some of which may be either stonger or eaker than the PSR, some orthogonally related. You choose what is useful for your needs.
Thinking people love arguments like that.
No, thinking people dislike simplistic aphorisms that cover up meaning rather than uncover it.
Without the PSR nobody need reasons to accept the PSR as being true either - and therefore both arguments are valid and sound.
The PSR is a tool to use in argumentation, or not. It is not the subject of argumentation.
In fact, all forms of argument are valid and sound because the PSR can be denied.
Normally, you choose the acceptable forms of argumentation before you begin an argument.
You spent a couple of paragraphs assuming that without the specifically choosing the PSR, we could not do science. This is laughable.
@ One Brow and SteveK As an awed amateur, I still try to follow your discussion about something from nothing. It's said that radioactive decay might be a causeless event. Now I've found two articles written not by amateurs saying something more.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ writes about quantum mechanics in section 4.4: Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says what the probabilities of various results are. [...] At the microscopic level the world is ultimately mysterious and chancy.
So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading.
You'd better read the section yourselves rather than me trying to make an extract.
Earlier I mentioned that reality always is interpreted, so also in quantum mechanics. One of my questions is if this might be one of the reasons the disagreement.
(Cont.) If radioactive decay is causeless, to me it seems strange that it has a regular rate. Anyway, strange things can happen, especially in QM. But I found another article, at arxiv.org.
arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0834 P.4: The spooky arguments in favor of ‘uncaused change’ (Mortensen 2002) with reference to radioactive decay demonstrate simply the common misunderstanding of the processes of spontaneous emission (see details at the end of Section 3.2)..
In section 3.2, radioactive decay is dissussed from p. 27 on.
P. 28: ...likewise, radioactive decay of nuclei is directly caused by zero oscillations of vacuum nuclear fields. “...There is no such thing as truly spontaneous emission; its all stimulated emission”.(Griffiths 1987b).
Lunch is over. But the discussion about (im?)possible uncaused events probably not.
Per Ove: "If radioactive decay is causeless, to me it seems strange that it has a regular rate."
I'd thought of mentioning that, too; but I long ago gave up trying to reason with unreasonable persons.
Those who assert that there are uncaused events are generally doing several things; without trying to go into the psychology of why they assert causelessness, they are, non-exhaustively: 1) asserting that ignorance of the cause or causes is evidence of causelessness; 2) denying causality in general; 2a) declining to understand that if one event is uncaused, then probably all events are uncaused; 2b) or, in any event, if there actually even one uncaused event, then we could never know that any event is caused; 3) THUS, this odd insistence upon uncaused events is just another way of asserting that knowledge by humans is utterly impossible, it is a way of "scientifically" asserting that truth cannot be known.
That there are uncaused events is known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Copenhagen_interpretation, Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.
This is confirmed by the two recent articles quoted above. The article at arxiv.org is from 2008, and the article at plato.stanford.edu was given a substantive revision Thu Jan 21, 2010.
So articles and theories from 1980s about QM should probably be read with this in mind.
370 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 370 of 370Bob
"But really, it's Catholic morality that these criminals have violated."
Then how is it that the pope, the very pinnacle of this catholic morality:
1. Instructed bishops how to handle child sex and abuse claims, and not to report cases to civil authorities under threat of dismissal
2. He would maintain 'exclusive competence' over the handling of allegations
3. Imposed an oath of secrecy on victims, witnesses and those probing abuse claims and
4. Warned that anyone breaking this oath would be summarily excommunicated?
This is the man who along with JP2 instituted systemic concealment of the rot in the church and crimes against humanity. To even suggest that the priests who committed these crimes acted alone and against catholic morality, is nothing short of denial of the evidence that is presented in the 4 Irish commission reports, not to mention all the other formal investigations. The cover-up was systemic and systematic guided by official edict from the Vatican. Indeed there is currently a warrant out for 7 priests in relation to these child sex criminal cases and countries are unable to extradite them from the Vatican where the pope provides them sanctuary against national and international law.
The priests may have singularly committed these crimes but the Vatican is clearly aiding and abetting their fugitive status by not bringing them to justice. The vatican has shown itself to be nothing but a harbinger of further revelations of systemic international protection of child sex offenders.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex23.htm
Within the ambit of Catholic morality, from god's representative on earth and down, church leaders have acted with depraved indifference towards the victims, their families and society, and their primary function has always been to protect the church at whatever cost.
Catholics, right around the world, are sitting on their hands. The one significant resolution that would help in routing out this rot and demonstrate unequivocally to the world that the church is serious about ridding this canker, is to impeach the pope.
This is a travesty unfolding on the catholic god's watch. Where the hell is he? Why hasn't he come back and turned over the tables in the temple?
The answer? ....... He is not here.
"This is a travesty unfolding on the Catholic God's watch."
But without acknowledging the validity of morality as taught by the Catholic Church (and all other Christian churches), there is no travesty, and without acknowledging the reality of "God's watch", the offending criminals have little or nothing to be worried about/ashamed of.
You continue to make zero sense, Papalinton.
"To even suggest that the priests who committed these crimes acted ... against catholic morality". I'm not suggesting any such thing - I'm declaring it. I'll say it again: These criminal pedophiles acted in a manner absolutely 100% contrary to all Catholic teaching and Christian morality. They can find nothing in Christ's teachings, or in the teaching of His apostles, or of their successors, that can offer even the slightest support, justification, or excuse for their actions. Their only hope (as is the case for the rest of us as well) is to throw themselves upon the infinite mercies of God.
Or let me word my question(s) to you in another way. If, as you claim, these criminals were acting in accordance with the "very pinnacle" of Catholic morality, then what do they have to be ashamed of? Why should we bother to condemn them?
You see? Your accusation makes no sense. In fact, you are excusing the actions of these people!
Paps,
What does any of this tangent shit have to do with Wither or not there is a God?
Or your bogus claims about how Genesis was interpreted originally or your weird unsubstantial claims of how doctrine develops?
I think you are in Red Herring mode because you are too proud to admit you don't know what you are talking about. So you change the subject.
In fact even if Bob & I both choose to be Atheists tomorrow(not likely because of any of your lame arguments) why should either of us buy into your attacks on the Holy Father?
American leftwinger Alan M. Dershowitz defends Pope Benedict from your slanderous charges.
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pope/
The Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003 weights in:
http://carlosechevarria.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-defense-of-pope-benedict-xvi.html
And others:
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/article_021e266c-6507-11df-8b8e-001cc4c002e0.html
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/04/in-defense-of-the-pope
Like most brain dead Gnu's you see arguing about religion as an extension of politics. But if I stop believing in God tomorrow I would still be right wing like Conservative Atheist SE Cupp or the late Dave Stove.
In fact it seems Bob & I don't share the same politics. But we are both orthodox sons of the Church.
Anyway your politics bore me & even if Benedict was morally no better than Alexander VI or Sergius III & 15 year old teenage mistress it doesn't really support Atheism.
Additional:
@Paps
When the fundies pull out the "Oh yeh What about the inquisition!" their best worst argument I often try to remind them of how much the Protestants in the 16th century morally sucked as well. Luther telling Phillip of Hess it was OK to practice bigamy. Zwingli one of the lights of the Reformation living in sin with a woman he wasn't married too. Then "marrying" her then confessing to have cheated on her.
Well why should I spare you? What about the RATIONALIST RESPONSE SQUAD? Kelly one of their former Atheist apologists had her child taken away by social services and she now spends her time these days as a Legal Prostitute. There founder has been in jail. Richard Dawkins once spoke positively of these people till they tried unsuccessfully to blackmail him.
What a mess. In fact Madelene Murry O'Hair the Atheist gadfly of the 70's embezzled money from her Atheist organization.
Richard Dawkins is suing for fraud his former webmaster whom he dedicated THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH.
This must happen because they don't believe in God....or maybe not.
Anyway you want to throw muck? I live in New York and have seen NYC politics up close. I'm so not impressed.
You just throw much because you are too lazy to do any real learning.
>This is a travesty unfolding on the catholic god's watch. Where the hell is he? Why hasn't he come back and turned over the tables in the temple?
Stop treating the Catholic God (aka The One True God) like some gay* theistic personalist "deity" who has moral obligations to us.
The Catholic God doesn't owe us anything. He is not a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent. I explained this before! Geez pay attention!
*BTW when I call the Theistic Personalist view of "god" gay I don't mean homosexual gay. I mean the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD graphics card on my Notebook sucking so bad it can't even play an old Atari game even at low settings, gay.
I would never insult homosexuals by comparing them to such a blasphemous and asinine view of God.
Give me some credit eh?
One Brow said:
Is it possible for matter to exist under any set of rules, or the nature of being matter such that the rules we understand are necessary given the existence of matter? I think the latter is quite possible.
(...)
Again, it depends on whether the somethings that can come out of nothing have necessary properties.
Per Ove says:
What you seem to be saying is that every time something comes out of absolutely nil and nothing in spontaneous creation, you point to ceartin (sets of) necessary rules. So either these rules are there from the beginning, and you do not start with nothing. Or you start with nothing, and the rules are something like yellow paint “to sharpen it up a bit”.
Papalinton said:
For Hawking, at least he is utilizing known facts and predictable effects such as gravity, the discovery of matter observably popping in and out of existence at the quantum level and is attempting use what rules are known to extrapolate to the cosmic level.
Per Ove says:
But you don't think that matter observably popping in and out of existence at the quantum level comes out from not just vacuum but absolutely nothing, do you?
Papalinton said:
At the very least, Hawking is thinking outside the theological box, as are the very many genuine physicists and cosmologists, exploring the universe through the new and fresh eyes of science, basing their theories on known scientific principles and facts, and not on the old and tired premise, 'In the beginning ....'.
Per Ove says:
To say that something is the reason for its own creation is not just to think outside some theological box. That's to think outside the box of logic. I agree, however, that this is creative, and also that it is not boring at all.
Papalinton said:
Barr can only see science through the lens of theism, a conditioning not unknown throughout history [Bruno, Galileo, et]. And the inordinate indoctrinative power of theism continues to be a speed bump to human progress and understanding of the natural world.
Per Ove said: A speed what? Since Bruno was not a scientist at all; and since Galilei was jailed basically because of political and also personal reasons and probably is the only scientist that by the church has been accused or judged for scientific theories; and since the church accepted scientific development (including round Earth btw), and supported universities and science since at least the 12th century, you think that church has opposed science and been a bump? Please explain yourself ;-)
"If, as you claim, these criminals were acting in accordance with the "very pinnacle" of Catholic morality, then what do they have to be ashamed of? Why should we bother to condemn them? "
A dishonourable and deliberate misconstrual of my comment. It saddens me enormously. Please reread the comment. The intent of the question, Bob, how is it that the pope, who is revered and idolized by catholics, regarded as the sacred example of the pinnacle of catholic morality, can conscionably threaten all in the church by issuing the instructions to suppress and keep secret the depth and scale of the abuse. This outrageous bahaviour is just not right Bob, in any walk of life, religious or secular. Seven priests on warrant for questioning by law enforcement agencies, sequestered and insulated by the Vatican. If they have nothing to hide, if they are innocent, why do they remain international fugitives?
Per Ove Stige
"Per Ove says:
But you don't think that matter observably popping in and out of existence at the quantum level comes out from not just vacuum but absolutely nothing, do you? "
POS, you seem to have completely forgotten your own wonderful contribution to this thread; the bank account analogy. Of course, matter and quantum gravity doesn't come out of nothing. Things pop in and out of existence [or more correctly, become observable] because what is currently considered as empty space or vacuum, is indeed filled with dark matter and dark energy. It seems dark energy and matter constitute the bulk of 'stuff' in the universe. And we are on the threshold of beginning to understand and predict it, and very close to observing it and measuring it. And still not one sniff of nor any effects attributable to a god.
POS, you asked, "A speed what?"
A 'speed bump' is a raised mound constructed across a street or road. It is a vehicle calming device that is designed to keep vehicle speeds down particularly in suburbs and residential neighbourhoods. You know really know it when you have hit a 'speed bump' at high speed.
Cheers
Paplinton said:
Of course, matter and quantum gravity doesn't come out of nothing. Things pop in and out of existence [or more correctly, become observable] because what is currently considered as empty space or vacuum, is indeed filled with dark matter and dark energy. It seems dark energy and matter constitute the bulk of 'stuff' in the universe. And we are on the threshold of beginning to understand and predict it, and very close to observing it and measuring it.
POS says:
Sure. But this doesn't explain the origin of dark energy and matter. Why are there something rather than nothing.
Papalinton said:
A 'speed bump' is a raised mound constructed across a street or road.
POS says:
Sure. And your [Bruno, Galileo, et] was such a bump in this discussion. If you are planning to discuss that topic other places, good sites to start with could be http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno ;-)
Per Ove Stige said...
What you seem to be saying is that every time something comes out of absolutely nil and nothing in spontaneous creation, you point to ceartin (sets of) necessary rules. So either these rules are there from the beginning, and you do not start with nothing. Or you start with nothing, and the rules are something like yellow paint “to sharpen it up a bit”.
I don't see how rules can exist without the universe to which they apply, but they are there from the beginning of the universe, and coexist with it. I'm trying to see how the "yellow paint" analogy applies, frankly. Are you saying that I am claiming some sort of property list for self-creating universes as a property that would have applied prior to the existence of the universe? I don't see myself as doing that.
Per Ove Stige said...
To say that something is the reason for its own creation is not just to think outside some theological box. That's to think outside the box of logic.
If your choice of logic no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your logic.
@ One Brow
Well, you are not just talking of arbitary rules, are you, but a «property list for self-creating universe», where not any set of rules are possible, aren't you. And if you are not claiming some sort of property list for self-creating universes as a property prior to the existence of the universe, you actually claim it for every time something comes into being from absolutely nothing; or else anything can happen (and here I made a few suggestions of anything), and you don't think anything can happen, do you. To get the result, you have to add some more. And this list may be called some yellow paint.
One Brow said:
If your choice of logic no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your logic.
POS says:
Sure. You don't leave logic and say that reality can come from nothing.
Per Ove Stige said...
And if you are not claiming some sort of property list for self-creating universes as a property prior to the existence of the universe, you actually claim it for every time something comes into being from absolutely nothing;
Why not? Perhaps only one such list is possible, many two, maybe a million, maybe an coutably or uncoutably infinite number. Since something has come out of nothing at most one time AFAICT, on what basis would be speculate about the possibilities?
Now that the universe exists, at no part of it is there "nothing", so there's no way for us to see it happen again.
or else anything can happen (and here I made a few suggestions of anything), and you don't think anything can happen, do you.
I have no idea if anything else could have happened. All I'm sure is that when you have one event, you have one result. To make a philosophical statement based on the idea that something could, or could not, have happened in the instant of universe creation is wild speculation.
POS says:
Sure. You don't leave logic and say that reality can come from nothing.
If your logic doesn't reflect reality, it's the logic that must go; the reality will not conform itself to our choice of logic.
>how is it that the pope, who is revered and idolized by catholics, regarded as the sacred example of the pinnacle of catholic morality,
Good grief! Not the old "Catholics worship the Pope & substitute Him for Jesus" nonsense!
So many levels of wrong and stupidity!
POS
"POS says:
Sure. But this doesn't explain the origin of dark energy and matter. Why are there something rather than nothing."
Give us a break. Science has only just begun to understand dark matter and energy in the last decade or so. Don't be so impatient. But it is inevitable we will increase our knowledge and understanding of this stuff in years to come.
Look at the comparison with religion. Religion has been around for thousands of years and it still hasn't arrived at any form of understanding. Christians at the Muslims throats, muslims at the Hindus throats and all of them at the Jews throat. Each little parochial belief system all trying to push each other off the pitcher's mound in the game of life.
How pathetic and unedifying. And even among one team[?] there are some who say there is a triune god, there are others who say that is bullshit; there are some who believe in a literal Adam and eve, and others who think that is bunkum and should only be read as allegory; there are some who believe jesus was god incarnate and some who think he was just a man endowed with the spirit.
POS, this is what is at stake at the coal face: either we continue putting our lives at risk by imagining something that is pure mythology is the basis of our existence, or we grow up and dispense with the pacifier. These religions have been banging on about all this stuff for millennia, and still no closer to arriving at the facts or the truth.
The bewildering smorgasbord of religions available to pick and choose, in exactly the same fashion christians go church hunting to find one that comports to their personal fancy and to their personal whims where the thoughts of god are exactly like their own.
Put physics and astronomy together and you get cosmology. They all intertwine, supporting. Put physics and chemistry together and you get biology. All the diverse areas of the sciences coalesce to form a common narrative about the universe. Put christianity and islam together and you get a war. Put Hinduism and Islam together and you get a war. It is pretty clear POS, religion not only offers no certainties, but offers no knowledge, either.
Notice the unprincipled way Yachov changes what a person says to suit his own purpose:
PapaL: "how is it that the pope, who is revered and idolized by catholics, regarded as the sacred example of the pinnacle of catholic morality, .."
Yachov: "Good grief! Not the old "Catholics worship the Pope & substitute Him for Jesus" nonsense!"
" ...and substitute him for jesus... "
Lying for jesus and calculated strawman arguments is emblematic of the hollowness and empty rhetoric of catholic morality. Yachov you show a disdain for truth and honesty and your moral compass is broke.
Paps
Your the ex-fundie Christian turned fundie Atheist who is claiming the Pope is "revered and idolized by catholics, regarded as the sacred example of the pinnacle of catholic morality."
Lying for Jesus? Everything you just said is heresy of the first rank against the Catholic Faith!
Idolatry is the worst sin look it up in the Catholic Encylopedia. Yet you say we idolize the Pope?
You cannot attribute to a living man what can only be given to God or at best a Saint.
I have news for you Gnu'toid a living reining Pope by definition can't be any of those things to us. Only Jesus can or at best Mary & or one of the Saints(subordinate to God).
You are beyond ignorant not to mention arrogant and dishonest for trying you are my or Bob's equal in Catholic teaching or knowledge.
The Pope is a sinner like the rest of us. He goes to confession like the rest of us. If he dies in mortal sin he will go to Hell like the rest of us. Or did you never read Dante's Inferno? He portrays some Pope in Hell. Nobody batted an eyelash. Nobody screamed heresy.
Wow you are beyond clueless Paps!
Don't you have any pride at all man? Or do you enjoy looking foolish?
Crude, Bob, etc.
Haven't read through all the comments. I didn't see anyone mention the necessary nature that this mysterious first cause must have.
It must have a nature such that it has the ability to actualize (bring into existence) rational beings with free will and concepts such as morality, purpose, beauty, goodness, etc. This is in addition to actualizing matter and energy itself. A "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things - at least there's no reason to think they do.
Therefore, there is no reason to seriously consider these as possible explanations for what exists.
BTW Paps
These stupid tangents still have nothing to do with you inability to rationally justify your own Atheism or rationally critique Catholicism or western classic monotheistic religion in general.
Also in light of the counter articles I cited I still have no reason to believe your charges against Benedict even if I deny God tomorrow.
Even if I did believe your propaganda knowing what I know I would no more abandon the True Faith over Benedicts sins then I would over Alexander VI sins or Sergius III's sins.
The Five Ways, the philosophical arguments, the historical arguments, science etc are not dependent on Benedicts moral behavior.
Pope's can & do sin mortally otherwise we would not let them go to confession.
So why do you even think this is an intelligent argument?
You need to be honest with yourself and that is not happening here.
@Paps
You are suppose to be an Ex-teacher.
Don't read the dictionary?
pinnacle-the highest point or level.
Seriously? The Pope? So what is Jesus Christ chop liver?
Are Kangaroos jumping on your head or something Down-Under Boy?
That level of stupidity you wouldn't last five minutes in the New York Subway.
Not five freakin minutes!
Oy Vey!!!
SteveK
"It must have a nature such that it has the ability to actualize (bring into existence) rational beings with free will and concepts such as morality, purpose, beauty, goodness, etc. This is in addition to actualizing matter and energy itself. A "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things - at least there's no reason to think they do."
The most important point in your comment above is: "This is in addition to actualizing matter and energy itself." Everything above that statement is 'teleological intentionality'. It is pure theology, a secondary add-on function of human activity that appropriated all those existential genetic adaptations developed primarily as part of the suite of survival mechanisms. These genetically derived survival mechanisms ensured the human organism had a better than even chance of propagating its own kind. The brain is an agency detection device. We have a propensity to see agency everywhere even in the most mundane of natural events. Theists through their religious practices and thought processes remain grounded in ignorance of this human predisposition towards teleology to detect all sorts of imagined agents and personify the forces of nature, and ascribe human attributes such as morality, purpose, beauty, goodness, etc. to them.
Of course a "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things". You are perfectly right. And nor do they need to have that requirement. And you are right on the money with such a keen observation, ".. there's no reason to think they do."
All that can be said about your statement, "It must have a nature such that it has the ability to actualize (bring into existence) rational beings with free will and concepts such as morality, purpose, beauty, goodness, etc.", is that a claim made without evidence is a claim that can be rejected without evidence.
>It is pure theology,
Looks more like philosophy to me.
Aristotle reasoned the metaphysical description of change in answer to Parmediades and Heracledes. Actuality is a philosophical term.
Wow Paps your really don't know Philosophy from Theology from Science from a hole in the head!
You where a teacher? What a Gym teacher?
Don't you feel even a little shame over your ignorance?
">It is pure theology,
Looks more like philosophy to me.
Aristotle reasoned the metaphysical description of change in answer to Parmediades and Heracledes. Actuality is a philosophical term."
Oh Dear! Once more a diehard christian faithhead has to rely on the greatest paganphilosopher known to prop up the christian faith.
No, its theology all right. Theology is the bastardized second-order form of philosophy that still draws its succour from mythology, you know things like virgin birth, walking on water, actual physical bodily levitation into the sky. You have to ask yourself, why would jesus need a physical body up in heaven anyway when everyone else is supposedly only ethereal, their corpse still in the ground. Even the big daddy himself, is just some timeless, incorporeal thing without a body. And we know that everyone's bodies stay in the ground , no matter how 'divine' they are because we have irrefutable evidence for that. Catholic priest John Newman's corpse was dug up recently and reburied elsewhere by the pope during a visit to England. What imaginable use would he [jesus] need a physical body up in the sky? Where would he go to the toilet? How does he sustain that physical body up in the sky? And how does he sit on a throne on the right hand of god anyway? Which is the right side of god and how does he [god] sit in his own throne being the incorporeal entity that he is? Oh! I get it. This is all supposed to be read as allegory, a metaphor. Then why would jesus need an actual physical body to act out in a metaphor up in the sky?
The story just does not hang together, folks. It is such a ludicrous and ridiculous spin to think that christianity, of all the 'fundamentals' it could have used, has pinned its whole edifice on this most indefensible of arguments known to be imagined. It is a tall story, steeped in mythology.
I guess the answer is "No" you don't feel any shame over your ignorance there Paps.
>Once more a diehard christian faithhead has to rely on the greatest paganphilosopher known to prop up the christian faith.
Ah, the old Christian Fundamentalist trope, that everything is either Christian or Pagan, dichotomy.
What is the point of you Paps?
I'm reminded of Michael Cain's line from EDUCATING RITA.
"You haven't found a better song to sing just a different song to sing & on your lips it is hollow and tuneless.."
You are still a fundie Paps. You think like one & you argue like one.
Sad.
Paps,
>> All that can be said about your statement....is that a claim made without evidence is a claim that can be rejected without evidence.
Not true. Step back for a moment and think. Nothing I said is rooted in theology. It's rooted in logic and experience. Here's a truism:
1) It was possible for X to exist before X actually came to exist.
Said in the negative...
2) X cannot come to exist if it is impossible for X to exist.
From this truism (1), it follows that: It was possible for rational beings with free will and concepts such as morality, purpose, beauty and goodness to exist before these things actually came to exist.
In other words, the potential for these things to exist - this potential must have been part of reality from the very inception of reality.
That's the nature I'm talking about. That nature is a reality where this possiblility existed.
As far as I know "vacuum fluctuations" and "gravitational whateveritis" do not have the potential to create rational beings, therefore I am free to reject anyone who offers this an an explanation for why rational beings exist. It doesn't pass the logic nor the experience test.
Steve K
"As far as I know "vacuum fluctuations" and "gravitational whateveritis" do not have the potential to create rational beings, therefore I am free to reject anyone who offers this an an explanation for why rational beings exist. It doesn't pass the logic nor the experience test."
Well obviously they do have that potential because we are here, visibly. If it will help a theist come to grips with the new findings just substitute the word 'god' with 'vacuum fluctuations' or 'gravitational whateveritis' and presto! you will understand the gist of Hawking's position. Remember we absolutely know for a fact that science is very close to proving the existence of 'vacuum fluctuations' and 'gravitational whateveritis' and that they actually operate in the universe because we can observe and predict their effects. The existence of an 'uncaused cause' cannot claim even an equivalence of observation and prediction. It remains an idea only, and idea with its boundaries immutably inscribed within theism, a wholly philosophical and theological concept with no merit or value whatsoever that can be transferred into any other field of human investigation and which is substantiated by observable or predictive causal effects.
It is just so much more logical and reasonable to speak plainly, using concepts and words that must meet the absolute minimum standard of holding up against the test of falsifiability. If it unable to do so, the concept or idea is thrown out. To posit a 'goddidit' simply does not meet that minimum standard of verification. Period.
Steve, your foray into Xs and Ys is an mental exercise. It is not proof of anything. The use of logic is not proof of existence.
Papalinton said:
Science has only just begun to understand dark matter and energy in the last decade or so. Don't be so impatient. But it is inevitable we will increase our knowledge and understanding of this stuff in years to come.
POS says:
Sure. And both science and and philosophy is needed. We live all in a reality that has to be interpreted. Regarding this discussion, good examples are: The Copenhagen interpretation and different variants of it. The M-theory. And at the borders of today's science, reason can give us good reasons go believe what cannot (at least yet) be verified.
Pa:
Look at the comparison with religion. Religion has been around for thousands of years and it still hasn't arrived at any form of understanding.
POS says:
And as you know, the groups you mention have for centuries also been able to live side by side. Just as other ideologies, periodes of peace and periodes of slaughter.
But we were discussing science, weren't we;-)
Papa,
This is SteveK.
You say in your last comment that these things obviously have the required potential. You need to support that assertion with reasons that at least make sense. Give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring rational beings into existence.
And after you've done that, give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Good luck.
**crickets**
We agree, Paps. There are no reasons. You said it already when you said the statement below, but I just wanted to hear you say it again. :)
>> Paps said: Of course a "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things".
That makes your theory, not just unlikely but *impossible*. These things cannot bring about rational beings by ANY means - yet here we are.
SteveK
"And after you've done that, give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Good luck."
Tell you what. I'll trade you. Give me a reason to think a putrescent dead carcass fully three days dead, in the heat of the desert in the middle east can be revivified fully functional. Good Luck.
You see Steve, we know of the vacuum flux, we know of the existence of gravity, we know that dark matter constitutes the vast % of the universe and we know of the existence of dark energy because we have calculated its effect on gravity is sufficient to overcome it because the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. In fact the latest 2011 Nobel Laureate for physics has just demonstrated it. We know humans exist. We know life exists. And we know reasonably certain that gravity, dark energy and dark matter and visible matter are the constituents ingredients for the making and exploding of stars and galaxies. And we know in that mix life is capable of being started and sustained. It would be a fair bet that the existence of life and these natural forces mentioned are inextricably linked and we will eventually find the link.
And what we also do know is that an incorporeal non-entity that created the universe has never been proven. Positing a mythos about gods simply has no functional place in this equation. Never has, never will. The further we dig into the science, the smaller the gods become. The historical account of both christian theology and science shows unequivocally these are the ends of a balance scales; when one goes up the other goes down, the greater the knowledge, lesser the relevance and influence of mythology in the community.
Goodness gracious, theology, even with its longevity as a discipline once the premier area of scholarship, has never been seen to contribute to world affairs or humanity under the purview of the Nobel Prize awards. Yes, theologians have been honoured recipients of the Prize [such as Arch-Bishop Desmond Tutu a most fitting winner], but not for their scholarship but for their humanitarian efforts and always under the Peace Prize category.
And typically, religion, as it has customarily appropriated most of the universally humanitarian and good things created by humans, and rebranded them exclusively as their own, and always without the decency of attribution, now feels the need to sequester the name 'Nobel Prize' for its own grubby purpose. The Vatican has created its own Nobel Prize of Theology.
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31097
They were too lazy to think of their own name. Cheap.
Paps,
>> It would be a fair bet that the existence of life and these natural forces mentioned are inextricably linked and we will eventually find the link.
So when you said the statement below, were you not telling us the truth? If you changed your mind in the past few days, that's fine too. Let me know which it is.
>>Paps said: Of course a "vacuum fluctuation" or a "gravitational whateveritis" doesn't have the required nature to produce all of these things".
Your long string of "we know's" doesn't change the fact that you haven't offered anyone a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to produce a rational being or music, or beauty.
If you changed your mind in the past few days, and now think it does have that potential, what was the reason for the change?
>"And after you've done that, give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Good luck."
>Tell you what. I'll trade you. Give me a reason to think a putrescent dead carcass fully three days dead, in the heat of the desert in the middle east can be revivified fully functional. Good Luck.
Here is an idea. Let's take Paps' irrational approach and apply it across the board.
If a mere un-caused mindless intention-less vacuum fluctuation can produce music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Then could another one bring a body back from the dead?
I mean there would still be no gods but since there is no rational basis for reality at the beginning why assume rational regularity continues?
OTOH this is obviously a case of Paps in typical Fundie Gnu form trying to shift the burden of proof because he can't logically, scientifically or philosophically answer the question.
He New Atheism doesn't allow it.
This is what you get Paps for rejecting philosophy and listening to Gnu's instead of more sophisticated Atheists.
You have just jumped from one mindless fundamentalism to another. Nothing more.
Good comments, Ben.
A quick look in the mirror ought to give Paps all the reason he needs to think it's possible for non-life to be given life. Ironic.
SteveK
It seems you have decided to join Yachov in a race to the bottom.
I have provided you, based on the best evidence available [that is consistent across the broad spectrum of scientific, historical, sociological, anthropological etc understanding] a rationale that simply swamps christian theology in the level and impact of explanatory power.
Your proclivity for wanting your mind [and Yachov's] manacled irrevocably to humanity's last bastion of superstition and the tradition of illusory mythology precludes you from any fresh take on a revised worldview, one that is more resonant with modern thought.
Your query, ""And after you've done that, give me a reason to think a vacuum flux has within it the full potential to bring music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Good luck." It is demonstrably clear that you have little comprehension of the import of these words and their meanings. Music, love, justice etc are not things that can be bestowed or traded, they are not items that can be given over by some god, you silly twat. They have to be learned, in a social setting. They are expressions of emotional states, a purely psychological condition that can and do directly influence physiological states. When frightened, the hairs on the back of your head rise, an old primitive adaptation identical to that of the cat or dog's capacity to lift its fur to make it look bigger and more frightening when cornered. Humans have the identical same but now residual physiological response to fear.
All animals have emotions, can display them, at various levels of cognition consistent with their biological demands. They are also analogical in construct, because to know and understand love one must also feel and experience hate to appreciate that sense of love when it occurs. No one knows what justice is until they understand what an unjust situation is. That is why the Stockholm Syndrome can be so easily invoked when one is deprived of personal liberty and treated abysmally. The sad irony though is that the victim experiences love and trusts the perpetrator precisely because of the existential nature of the abuse. So is this 'love' a god-given thing? I would hardly think so.
To posit that a god[s] hands these out as if little trinkets for good behaviour is as jejune and ill-formed in today's competition of ideas and is as preposterous as the base claim itself, 'god made everything'.
You see SteveK, christian theology lurches from one interpretation to another. In comparison science is providing a consistent narrative that increasingly stacks up as new research and investigation bring in the bacon. [cont]
[cont]
Yachov immaturely says, "If a mere un-caused mindless intention-less vacuum fluctuation can produce music, love, logic, justice, goodness, and desire into existence. Then could another one bring a body back from the dead? "
The most ancient and most primitive predilection known to humankind, is teleological intentionality, that [as 4 years old kids tell us] some rocks are sharp because they have a purpose, which is for animals to scratch their own back where they can't reach the itch. Yachov talks with the intellect of a four-year-old child, ""un-caused mindless intention-less vacuum fluctuation". His head is filled to capacity with gods, devils, ghosts, spirit worlds, all those things that go bump in the night. So powerful is this prehistoric propensity to see agency everywhere, to invoke purpose for even the most inane and mundane of situations, it is no wonder religion is singularly unable to break free from its primordial bond. Both are products of the remnants of our primeval past. Christian theology offers no resolve and offers no knowledge.
Music, love, logic, justice, goodness and the desire to exist are purely human emotional expressions of their psychological state at any one point in time. All living beings express them, humans particularly are capable of experiencing them to their fullest capacity. Even me, the atheist. But I only invoke ghosts and gods and spirit beings when I read Harry Potter. And I can drop them like hot cakes to free up more thinking room when I turn to something else.
SteveK,
"A quick look in the mirror ought to give Paps all the reason he needs to think it's possible for non-life to be given life. Ironic."
No Steve. The irony is there right in front of your face. We know for an absolute fact that after death the body is reduced to all non-living, in organic constituents, such as carbon, oxygen, iron, sodium, calcium. In other words 'living' becomes 'non-living'. There is no reason to suggest the obverse is not true; organic elements made up by the combination and arrangement of inorganic, non-living, elements. It is that simple.
Any religious overlay on this narrative is just wishful thinking, personally-prescribed woo.
An ignorant comment, by a willfully ignorant person, and which I'd not even have seen by that Per Ove commented upon it --
"Science has only just begun to understand dark matter and energy in the last decade or so. Don't be so impatient. But it is inevitable we will increase our knowledge and understanding of this stuff in years to come."
Which is worse, the sheer ignorance or the 'Science!' fetishism? Or, is the ignorance a funcrion of the fetishism?
In truth, 'science' doesn't know a damned thing about any alleged "dark matter" and "dark energy". These are recently made-up terms for recently made-up speculations -- both done by actual human persons, not by some idealized impersonal 'science' -- they have not been discovered, they have not been observed, their effects have not been observed, nor have any experiments pointed to them -- they are place holders, nothing more. Worse, they are not place holders for unknowns, but merely for band-aiding a model which isn't alligning with observation.
Per Ove Stige: "To say that something is the reason for its own creation is not just to think outside some theological box. That's to think outside the box of logic."
One Brow: "If your choice of logic no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your logic."
This is exactly the same as to say "If your choice of truth no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your truth."
And, of course, 'reality' is, in part, just another term for 'truth'.
But, the deeper issue is, as I point out from time to time, these people don't give a damn about logic or reason or truth (either known truth or discovery of previously unknown truth).
a fool, who will not reason and will not learn (*): "Stop treating the Catholic God (aka The One True God) like some gay* theistic personalist "deity" who has moral obligations to us.
The Catholic God doesn't owe us anything. He is not a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent. I explained this before! Geez pay attention!"
How fortunate for us, then, that the Living God, the God "of Abraham, and Jacob, and Isaac" -- the only God -- is not this "Catholic God" ... any more than he is Allah. And really, is there any substantive difference between a so-called God who "is not a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent" and Allah?
(*) and whose "classical theism" serves the sole purpose of placing his "theology" outside of rational/critical evaluation -- he's very like the these "fundy" atheists who hang around here.
IlÃon writes:
>Which is worse, the sheer ignorance or the 'Science!' fetishism? Or, is the ignorance a funcrion of the fetishism?
I read Vox Day too. Good call.
@Paps,
You have pretty much given up the argument and are reduced to sloganeering at this point.
>Yachov immaturely says......
I'm all for name calling and ridicule but if your aren't going to back it up with rational argument/rebuttal & just replace it with slogans then what is the point?
>All living beings express them, humans particularly are capable of experiencing them to their fullest capacity.
How do you know that? Have you never read Thomas Negal's "WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE A BAT?"?
The subjective experiences of animals are not by definition subject to empirical experimentation. They are subjective and Animals can't intellectively communicate them.
You can't even imagine what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine what it would be like to be Paps a human who is small, covered in brown/black fur with wings but you can't access a bat's cognitive functions.
Thus you can't say Animal emotions are the same as humans. Even Atheist Philosopher Dave Stove knew that.
Epic Gnu Fail!!!
>How fortunate for us, then, that the Living God, the God "of Abraham, and Jacob, and Isaac" -- the only God -- is not this "Catholic God" ...
You are entitled to your opinion but I don't agree.
>any more than he is Allah. And really, is there any substantive difference between a so-called God who "is not a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent" and Allah?
Maybe not but the "Revelation" in the Koran is false. Allah understood from the level of mere natural Theology is identical to the Christian and Jewish God.
A Protestant who believes the True God has obligations to us? That by nature we merit these obligations? That is a new one to me. I always heard Prots believe in Grace Alone. Thus by definition you don't merit anything from God.
>and whose "classical theism" serves the sole purpose of placing his "theology" outside of rational/critical evaluation -- he's very like the these "fundy" atheists who hang around here.
Meaning we don't grant the Empiricism of the Atheists like those who profess a Mechanistic "deity".
Guilty as charged. God can be rationally deduced & explained threw analogy. But God is a Mystery otherwise what is the point of Him?
Of course if Ilion has read Brian Davies he would know saying God is not a moral agent is not the same as saying God is not in some sense what morally good people are by nature.
But like Paps he seems sloganeering takes the place of rational argument.
Ilion go read THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL by Davies then formulate rational objections.
God is Being Itself not a being along side other beings only more uber. God is not a member of a moral community with us nor by definition can he be. Anymore than the can have perfect muscle tone just because He is Perfection Itself.
Son-of-WillfulIgnorance,
You've already shown that you are no more willing to reason than the Paps is. Why would you imagine that I shall waste any of my time addressing your misrepresentations of what I've said? Especially when you'll just misrepresent something else?
>You've already shown that you are no more willing to reason than the Paps is.
What reasoning? You know what literature I've read if you are truly interest go read it and write a rebuttal.
You want to proclaim the Catholic view of God & religion is false? Knock yourself out! I wouldn't expect less from a convinced Protestant.
But if you really do disbelieve in Classic Theism and profess Theistic Personalism then get the relevant literature and learn the arguments for or against.
I've read Plantinga, Feser and Davies. I think the later two make the better arguments.
That is all.
One problem with the Theistic Personalist God (among many) is such a being renders the Incarnation rather redundant since that being is essentially & unequivocally compared to a human mind only with the body abstracted away and given unlimited preternatural and supernatural powers.
Like Q from Star Trek only not as mischievous as John Delancy.
Thus it becoming man isn't really all that humbling an Act or much of a big deal. It's pretty much human anyway.
The Word of God from the Classic view becoming flesh and dwelling among us is a bit more of a profound bridging of the Transcendent and the mundane.
foolish "classical theist": "One problem with the Theistic Personalist God (among many) is ..."
... is that it's entirely a figment of your imagination. Well, and yours and Feser's, from whome you got it ... for, it doesn't seem you have enough imagination to come up with an idea not pre-approved by some authority figure.
@Ilion
I also got it from Brian Davies,Norman Geisler, Herbert McCabe, Gregory Rocca, Jay Wesley Richards etc..
Awesome stuff!
>for, it doesn't seem you have enough imagination to come up with an idea not pre-approved by some authority figure.
Well I've always imagined that God is beyond my imagination and conception and yes I would not have figured any of this out on my own till I learned it.
I don't know everything. But I am open to learning.
I am by the Glace of God a Catholic Christian and thus a Classic Theist.
I would not be anything else.
Praise God!
Reading the loose drivel emanating from our erstwhile resident neanderthals, Yachov and Ilion, vocal drool that masquerades as theological/philosophical discourse about the nature of their god.
The forged manacles of pernicious dogma.
I rest my case.
Paps,
Note that none of my arguments are dependent on theism being true. For some reason you can't help yourself in attempting to redirect the argument in that direction. Give it up.
All I have done is ask you to give me a reason, and all you have done in return is tell me what we know to exist. You say we know that vacuum fluxes, dark energy/matter, etc, etc exist. Great! But those are not reasons.
Just because something exists it doesn't necessarily follow that any of those things is the kind of thing that has within it the potential I've described.
For example: buckets of dirty water exist, but it doesn't necessarily follow that buckets of dirty water have the potential within it to bring rational beings into existence at some point in the future.
It could be true though. I mean, buckets of dirty water may be able to do this through a series of steps over billions of years. It's just that you and I have no reason to think this is true. The same line of reasoning applies to vacuum fluxes, etc. I need reasons to think vacuum fluxes can do what you claim.
So..I will grant you for the sake of argument (because I'm not an expert on the subject) that vacuum fluxes, dark matter, etc. etc. exist.
Please tell me why I should think that any one, or any combination of these things is the kind of thing that has within it the full potential to bring about things that came to exist later on - rational beings, love, justice, beauty music, etc?
I'm looking for a reason to agree with you, Paps. Can you give me one, or are these things like buckets of dirty water?
Papalinton wrote:
... now feels the need to sequester the name 'Nobel Prize' for its own grubby purpose. The Vatican has created its own Nobel Prize of Theology.
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31097
They were too lazy to think of their own name. Cheap.
POS googles prize theology ratzinger and says;
Well, the prize has it's own name: Ratzinger Prize. And it is a project of the Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI Vatican Foundation.
So where did the word Nobel come from here?
The Vatican has announced the first three winners of the Ratzinger Prize for theological studies relating to the writings of Pope Benedict that it hopes will one day be looked on as equivalent to a Nobel Prize in theology.. It's pretty obvious there's some spin here, and that's maybe a bit cheap, so far we can agree; but spin is not very uncommon. And the foundation *have* thought of it's own name.
After our Galilei-Bruno bump and now this, I'd like to close with a good old country advice; If you plan to say something about Hypatia, the library of Alexandria, cats in the Middle Ages, or something about the church and science, or the church and the Middle Ages, or the church and aliens, you'd better check it out first.
Hi SteveK
"All I have done is ask you to give me a reason, and all you have done in return is tell me what we know to exist. You say we know that vacuum fluxes, dark energy/matter, etc, etc exist. Great! But those are not reasons. "
The first living replicating cell has been made in the laboratory, Steve. I would say your analogy of a 'bucket of dirty water' turning into life is now possible. Exciting. Watch the video below:
http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html
Additionally, read:
http://www.biokemi.org/biozoom/issues/511/articles/2242
"Such evolutionary processes could give rise to living entities, which are better suited to certain environments of technological interest than the biological ones first created some 4 billion years ago."
Cheers
Per Ove Stige
You took that from UCANews, Asia.
I took my news direct from the Vatican through Zenit, the official source from Rome. According to Zenit, the award is called the Nobel Prize of Theology. Check out the website here: http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31097 and tell me where it is called anything other than the Nobel Prize of Theology?
Additionally, even one of the two commenters on the UCANews site noted: "The concept is good, but it may be good to specify the name of the prize. Noble Prize is confusing."
Zenit is a creature of the catholic organisation.
"ZENIT is promoted by the religious congregation of the Legionaries of Christ. Two Legionary priests offer consultation services and collaborate in writing the "Analysis" and "Liturgy" columns."
"If you plan to say something about, ....... you'd better check it out first."
If you plan on defending christian theism through some pretense of a recourse to reason and logic, throw out the religion first.
As the wise Hippocrates [.c 460-377 BCE] Greek physician, noted, all that long ago [even long before jesus was a twinkle in Mary's eye]:
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine. And so it is with everything in the universe. Where prayer, amulets and incantations work it is only a manifestation of the patient's belief."
How prophetic! If one was to believe in prophecies this one surely is the mother of them. Everything he says has come to pass. So many orders of magnitude above the litany of cheap and unsophisticated retroacted and retrojected prophecies smattered throughout the bible.
IlÃon said...
One Brow: "If your choice of logic no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your logic."
This is exactly the same as to say "If your choice of truth no longer is sufficient to describe reality, you change your truth."
I suppose if your undereducated and overly arrogant, they could indeed seem like the same thing. I offer no specific explanation for why you, in particular, see them as the same thing.
Any given logic is a tool for deducing true statements from other true statements. Changing the logic you use is like changing the hammer you pick from your toolbelt. Changing the truth is completely different.
Paps,
>>> The first living replicating cell has been made in the laboratory, Steve. I would say your analogy of a 'bucket of dirty water' turning into life is now possible.
First, it didn't produce a rational being. Second, this non-life to life process requires something PLUS a rational being to guide the process.
We are talking about the beginning of the universe, remember? You said there were vacuum fluxes and gravitational whateveritis. You were going to give me a reason to think these things have the required potential.
I'll give you another try.
That is good of you Steve to do for Paps but as we all know his beliefs have no rational basis.
He is never going to admit it. I have no problem admitting to Ilion I never would have thought of the distinctions between CT vs TP on my own till I learned it.
That is not to say there aren't Atheists who start with a process of reasoning and end with no God(or a doubt of gods) or that all Atheists believe they come to their conclusions based on emotion sans logic.
But Paps isn't one of these Atheists. All existing evidence suggests his views are based on his emotions(& some politics) not reason.
I too noticed one didn't have to postulate gods for or against to ask your question regarding the Vacuum Fluctuation.
@Paps,
The "Legionaries of Christ" is a corrupt organization the Holy Father is in the process of suppressing it. You will get no defense of them from me.
I know Pete Vere a Canadian Canon Lawyer who has documented much of their wickedness for years. I could tell you stories I learned from Pete about them more ugly then what the media has now figured out.
So what is your point? You don't have a rational, scientific, or philosophical answer for Steve so you will throw more mud?
If Stalin or Mao's wickedness in the name of Atheism can't make you a Theist again why should late Father Marcel & His wickedness make me an Atheist?
Seriously? This is all ya got?
Ben: >>> That is good of you Steve to do for Paps but as we all know his beliefs have no rational basis.
He is not showing signs of clear thinking. I don't mind that he holds certain beliefs. I do mind that he holds them without any apparent reason for holding them. If he has reasons, he's not telling us or he's not explaining himself very clearly.
Paps:
Help me understand what you mean.
What is it about the synthetic cell experiment that makes you think vacuum fluxes (or ??) have within them the full potential to bring rational beings into existence though a series of events?
@Steve
I hear that guy.
Denying gods doesn't really cure the fundie mindset.
I've seen ex-fundies turned Catholic treat Catholicism is a fundie manner.
It happens.
SteveK
"What is it about the synthetic cell experiment that makes you think vacuum fluxes (or ??) have within them the full potential to bring rational beings into existence though a series of events?"
I'll try and go over it slowly. I will type slowly so that it provides the opportunity to reflect on that which I'm saying.
One must take a broader perspective and encompass all the bits of information that are coming to hand, Steve. If one limits their vision and views the world through only the lens of theism, all of the most important links are missed. Religion says only god can make living things. Science now makes organic self-replicating living things. Self-replication is a foundation stone of all living things. God says Adam and Eve were literally true. Science has demonstrably shown that the homo sapiens species never fell to 2. Evidence explicates that the bottleneck of human existence fell variously from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands. Epilepsy is now no longer considered as being 'possessed of the devil'. The simple fact that science has shown just washing your hands before eating has an enormous effect on improving one's health and hygiene. History shows what was once the purview of religion no longer holds in innumerable instances.
Apart from hydrogen, the most basic of all the elements, every other element formed resulted from varying degrees of galactic nuclear fission/fusion and the resulting explosion of innumerable stars and colliding galaxies. The range of basic elements known are constituents of both inorganic and organic matter. It is very reasonable and logical to understand the influence of vacuum flux and gravitational whateveritis, dark energy, dark matter and visible matter, reactively combine to make every element and every thing in the universe, and surprisingly even self-replicating organic compounds, of which even humans are but one particular form of combination of those basic elements. Trees are another. Ants are another.
Because we know humans express love, write music, have goodness etc etc, because we as humans play with them every day, and that living beings exist,
then it is a fair proposition that the observable and known relationships and cosmic forces capable of making organic self-replicating entities [read humans] and humans can express love, goodness, music, then the potential must equally be there. In fact the full potential to bring 'rational beings' into existence and I might add, "irrational beings', because the vacuum flux or gravitational whateveritis is a non-discriminatory process, is quite unlike the nonsense of religious creation myths.
Cheers
Ben Yachov
"Denying gods doesn't really cure the fundie mindset."
i don't deny god. That statement implies there is a god to deny. What smug rubbish little minds play with.
I do not disprove in god[s]. I do not even disprove god[s]. I disregard god[s], dismiss[s], discredit god[s]. i am disinterested in god[s]. Gods are are figment of one's creative imagination. I much prefer to use my thought processes in a significantly more productive manner.
I am reminded of André Malraux, French author and adventurer:
"To the absurd myths of God and an immortal soul, the modern world in its radical impotence has only succeeded in opposing the ridiculous myths of science and progress."
Paps,
I read everything just as slowly and just as carefully as you typed it.I read it twice, in fact. :)
I'll skip over the non-essential stuff and get to the heart of it.
>> ... it is a fair proposition that the observable and known relationships and cosmic forces capable of making organic self-replicating entities [read humans] and humans can express love, goodness, music, then the potential must equally be there.
This isn't helpful, really because it's too generic a statement. I don't know whether to disagree or agree so I'll withhold judgement for now.
What is a cosmic force? What are the known relationships?
The synthetic cell experiment helped us understand the relationship between non-life and life. There are lots of relationships that we learned from that experiment, I suppose, but one undeniable relationship is this: rational beings must instantiate the process of creating life so that the cosmic forces can do their stuff.
This is a reason to reject any theory that non-life can produce life without rational beings.
SteveK
" ... but one undeniable relationship is this: rational beings must instantiate the process of creating life so that the cosmic forces can do their stuff. "
Who says it's an 'undeniable relationship' and Why? it wasn't a rational being that instantiated the process of creating [evolution]. That is simply an argument from personal incredulity. And to talk as if the answer is a 'who' rather than a 'what' is little other than surrendering to our untutored and undisciplined primal response of imagining agency or intent for things, as yet not understood and for which yet require explanation. There is nothing out of the ordinary here, Steve, but to invoke some form of 'instantiation by rational beings' into the equation, as you have done, [and unsurprisingly as theism does], is simply a 'god of the gaps', no matter how the religiose try their hardest to paper over it.
To posit that 'rational beings must instantiate', or as the faithful put it, goddidit, is to put it mildly, is extraordinary. Not even science has found a need to factor in the 'goddidit' constant, among the other physics and cosmological constants. And it is prudent that until such a constant is verifiable and its effects measured, to leave it out.
Paps,
>> Who says it's an 'undeniable relationship' and Why?
You're denying an obvious fact of the experiment? Geez!
>> it wasn't a rational being that instantiated the process of creating [evolution]
That's begging the question, Paps. Did the synthetic cell experiment give us any clues as to how life is created from non-life? I think so. What experiment can you cite where life was created without anyone instantiating and guiding the process? Take your time, please.
>> That is simply an argument from personal incredulity.
Your argument? I agree.
>> To posit that 'rational beings must instantiate', or as the faithful put it, goddidit, is to put it mildly, is extraordinary.
I've got science on my side - the results of the synthetic cell experiment. What do you have other than your vivid imagination and personal incredulity toward the facts?
Your faith in "itcandoitbyitself" is quite extraordinary - and counter to the findings of the experiments.
SteveK (who is gamely attempting the impossible (*) ;) ): "So..I will grant you for the sake of argument (because I'm not an expert on the subject) that vacuum fluxes, dark matter, etc. etc. exist."
Of course, one doesn't need to be an expert to know that one ought *not* believe that any such things as “dark energy” or “dark matter” exist; one simply applies reason – and a small knowledge of human psychology – to the facts of the matter.
And, the facts of the matter are these:
1) no scientist discovered, nor has any since observed, any entities bearing these names;
2) rather, some pseudo-scientist invented the concept(s) and all the other pseudo-scientists said, “Yeah! That’s a good ‘solution’ to the very real problem!”
3) and the very real problem is that observed reality isn’t behaving the way “the model” says/predicts it will;
4a) SO, rather than go back to first principles, and examine the presuppositions upon which “the model” relies (and which give its direction), and then build a new model on presuppositions which don’t run counter to what they have observed,
4b) or, rather than questioning the observations or the methodology and presuppositions underlying not only the interpretations of the observations, but also underlying the observations themselves,
4c) these pseudo-scientists (this being the reason they are pseudo- rather than true) have “reasoned” that “the model” must be correct, after all, and that therefore the error lies in reality.
And THAT is the sort of “reasoning” upon which most of the so-called atheists one will ever encounter habitually rely and to which they will always retreat when pressed with logical reasoning about, and criticism of, their irrational belief system.
(*) As the song says: “you can’t argue with a crazy man”; but neither can you argue with a man who willfully chooses irrationality. It’s logically impossible to reason with someone who will not reason.
I forgot this little nugget...
>>> And to talk as if the answer is a 'who' rather than a 'what' is little other than surrendering to our untutored and undisciplined primal response of imagining agency or intent for things, as yet not understood and for which yet require explanation.
I've got an experiment that proves a 'who' is required. What data do you have that proves one isn't?
Given the uniformity of the laws of physics, one can confidently conclude - for now - that this is the case everywhere you go in the universe.
You aren't going to resort to special pleading in the case of pre-evolutionary life are you, Paps? That extraordinary claim would require a large amount of evidence to support it.
Now, it might be possible to do this without a 'who', but for now, all we can say is there is no reason to think it is possible. The facts - the science - doesn't allow us to go there.
@Paps
>i am disinterested in god[s].
Yet you post comments on an awful lot of religious themed websites? Wither it is Biologos or here?
Why?
For someone who is disinterested in gods you can't seem to get away from them. You can't seem to move on? Also you substitute rational argument with rhetoric and ridicule.
Does this actually produce any converts? Or does it just serve to reinforce stereotypes of Gnu's?
The later if you ask me.
But in the end you need to at least ground your disbelief in reason. So far like I said you have just traded one Fundamentalism for another.
The 'anti-fundie' (*) fundie: "Denying gods doesn't really cure the fundie mindset.
I've seen ex-fundies turned Catholic treat Catholicism is a fundie manner."
Oh, for a Mirror of Souls.
(*) in much the same manner that the people in Europe who call their movement 'AnfiFa' (anti-fascists) are actually fascists.
Papalinton writes:
"God says Adam and Eve were literally true."
Oh? Really? Where? (Rhetorical questions, actually. the answer is, of course, He didn't. Nowhere.)
But St. Augustine declared the story to be allegorical. As did Aquinas. As did Pope Benedict. And... well, let's just say all Orthodox (Catholic) theologians, and leave it at that.
But Papalinton insists the story must be taken literally. Hmm... I'll have to agree with the other posters here who accuse him of having a fundamentalist mindset. He seems really uncomfortable with the notion that one might actually have to think for one's self. He'd rather hurl ridiculous non sequiturs and quotes from Wikipedia into the ether, and endlessly tilt against strawmen, resolutely ignoring the very real logical arguments that he has proven himself time and again incapable of responding to.
Paplinton, I've tried. I gave you every benefit of the doubt. I tried to emphasize the occasional moments of sanity in your postings, and even defended you against some of the harsher comments directed against you on this site. But you have made zero attempt to respond in kind, or to mend your ways.
This latest comment of yours is just one more example of the complete and total disconnect between your "logic" and the Real World.
But what I really fail to understand is your motive behind getting on this site in the first place. I get the motivation behind those who spar with you - they're trying to save your immortal soul. Believe it or not, despite the harsh rhetoric, they love you. But what is yours? In your professed worldview, it makes no difference what a person believes, so why all the proselytizing? And why haunt a faith-oriented website, if (as you claim) you have no interest in God?
SteveK said...
I've got an experiment that proves a 'who' is required. What data do you have that proves one isn't?
YOu have an experiement where a 'who' existed. How does that prove one is required?
B. Prokop said...
"God says Adam and Eve were literally true."
Oh? Really? Where?
According to the Catholic Church, through St. Paul when sriting Scripture.
One Brow,
Not necessarily so. In Galatians, Paul explicitly writes that the Genesis story of Abraham's two sons is allegorical:
"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."
True, Paul is not speaking of Adam and Eve in this passage, but the principle is nevertheless laid down. Allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament are Orthodox readings. No literalism required.
"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36). -Pope Pius XII
"nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).
-Catecheism of the Catholic Church
"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).
-ibid
Well that settles that.
Ilion
You are just cheesed at me for liking BDK & Feser.
I can't help you there.
One Brow,
>>> YOu have an experiement where a 'who' existed. How does that prove one is required?
How does it not? If an experiment requires hydrogen as part of the process, does that prove hydrogen is required?
Ben,
Careful about using the Catechism as "proof" in an argument. It's not Scripture, and it is possible for it to contain error.
(That said, I have the highest regard for the Catechism, and would be loathe to disagree with it without enormously good reason. And even then, I would do so with the utmost caution and reticence.)
But as to the reference to "our first parents", even that is by no means an argument in favor of a literal Adam and Eve. The Catechism could just as well be referring to our collective First Parents (which is, in fact, what I think it is doing). There is no theological necessity for a literal first couple, and zero scientific evidence either for or against one.
Bottom Line: If a person believes in a literal Adam and Eve, I have no quarrel with that. Nor do I have any problem with someone who regards the whole thing as an allegory. Both positions can be justified scientifically and theologically. My own belief is that it's an allegory, but I wouldn't be at all upset to find out I was wrong.
Bottom Bottom Line: Vacuum fluctuations will never get you to an uncaused creation (which is what this thread started out on).
>Careful about using the Catechism as "proof" in an argument. It's not Scripture, and it is possible for it to contain error.
On matters of faith and moral the CCC is authoritative & Catholics must give it assent.
(Not that I am accusing you of not doing this)
It can't contain error in so far as it gives authoritative teaching as to the limits & or acceptable boundaries of Catholic interpretation.
For example the CCC is not eliminating the possibility we could interpret Genesis in a fiat young Earth creationist manner but it is showing us that other interpretations are possible and permissible.
Do you see what I am saying Bob?
@Bob
I don't agree with any of this. I think it is very wrong.
Sorry brother.
>But as to the reference to "our first parents", even that is by no means an argument in favor of a literal Adam and Eve.
Denial of a real Adam and Eve is proximate to heresy since it is a denial of the fall and original sin not to mention the infallible teachings of Trent. It can't be reconciled with Tradition.
Denial of a real Adam and Eve has no scientific, philosophical, or theological justification even if we grant Evolution and deny biological mongenism is possible.
The burden of proof is on the Adam denier to prove otherwise.
Even Teilhard De Chardin said as much and he is no Pope Benedict.
>There is no theological necessity for a literal first couple, and zero scientific evidence either for or against one.
Rather it is a category mistake to claim it is a scientific question in the first place. Can you prove scientifically God is a Trinity? I think not. But it is clearly a theological necessity much like a literal resurrection.
>My own belief is that it's an allegory, but I wouldn't be at all upset to find out I was wrong.
Forgive me for saying the following but isn't that a Protestant either/or mentality?
Either you believe it is literalistically historical Adam or an allegory that contains no history?
Why can't it be both/and? The Beast in Revelations was Nero, a symbolic Monster with 7 heads and a future Anti-Christ. It's not hard my bother?
Adam and Eve really existed Bob and that has always been the Universal Teaching of the Church.
A non-Adam none fall is a novelty.
Wither Adam was a pile of dust 5000 years ago made into a man or 50,000 years ago or an unsouled hominid given a soul 150,000 years ago. He was real and he fell.
It doesn't matter if His offspring mated solely among themselves or mated with other hominids that had no souls.
He was real & I don't think it is good for a Catholics to question that.
But that is between you & your bishop. I am not involved. I am not the Church. I can only speak my mind & dialog with you. Nothing more.
Peace brother.
@Bob
Consider this also Bob even extreme speculative theologians who have postulated Adam represents a group of humans not one man have either made Adam a head of a Human community that lead them into sin or the collective humans all sinned at some point.
The Fall was still seen as something that had happened in history.
So allegory doesn't remove all literal history from Genesis.
Think about it brother.
Ben,
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see no theological necessity for a literal first couple. The Fall of Man and his subsequent Redemption is not dependent on such. The first sin could easily have been (and probably was) a collective act.
But on the whole, this is one of those matters which I have "no dog in the fight". As I wrote earlier, it really doesn't affect what I believe. If tomorrow I learned that the majority of the OT was pure allegory with no historical basis whatsoever, that would be fine by me. But on the other hand, were I to learn that it was overwhelmingly literally true, that also wouldn't cause me to lose any sleep. None. It's really a giant non-issue to me.
Now as for anyone claiming there's allegory in the New Testament... well, them's fightin' words!
SteveK said...
How does it not?
Because there is a difference between anecdote and data, between proof and incidence.
If an experiment requires hydrogen as part of the process, does that prove hydrogen is required?
That depends on whether the use of hydrogen was incidental or not. If the experiement was to see if a ballon design was stable in a high wind, it's quite likely hlium would have served the same purpose.
Further, an experiment is conduct by intelligent beings by its nature as an experiment. IF I experiment on falling bodies, does that mean intelligence is required for gravity to operate?
>I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see no theological necessity for a literal first couple.
We will let the Church decide between us.
God Bless.
More later.
>Now as for anyone claiming there's allegory in the New Testament... well, them's fightin' words!
Book of Revelation?
Just saying......
Cheers brother Bob.
One Brow,
>>> That depends on whether the use of hydrogen was incidental or not.
True. Were rational beings incidental in the cell experiment? That's the key question to ask and answer.
Could the same outcome be acheived without rational beings guiding the process, correcting errors, striving to ensure an outome, etc?
You tell me.
It seems clear to me that the experiement wasn't done to see IF a living cell could be be made - we know it can because we are living examples of it. It was done to see HOW it could be made. Now we know something about that.
>>> IF I experiment on falling bodies, does that mean intelligence is required for gravity to operate?
No. The outcome of a falling body can be acheived without a rational being guiding the process, correcting errors and striving to ensure that outome was reached. It just happens naturally and we observe it.
There's no allegory in Revelation. Symbology, yes. (I know, the difference is technical, possibly even straining at gnats, but nevertheless important when identifying literary types.)
(Last posting was a bit of tongue in cheek.)
My main point was that I stand firmly in Thomas Aquinas's camp - that there is but One Truth, not a Faith Truth and a Scientific Truth - just Truth. there are many paths to arriving at the truth (scientific method, revelation, reason, etc.), but in the end, Truth cannot contradict itself.
And an uncaused event within nature, be it a vacuum fluctuation or anything else, is a contradiction in terms.
Now I am not opposed to the idea of vacuum fluctuations. I recall quite well when I first heard of them, sometime around 2001 (maybe 2002). I thought then, and still think, that they could be a real possibility. I remember discussing the idea with a good friend of mine in England, who happened to be both an astrophysicist and an atheist, but even he scoffed at the notion that such events could occur outside of the context of an entire pre-existing universe. He was firm in insisting that said fluctuations could only come out of natural law.
I also utterly reject the notion of causelessness. We're at the point of repeating what was stated about 200 postings back, but an event within nature, following the "laws of nature" (itself an anthropomorphism), requires pre-existing laws. In other words, a cause.
So the atheist cannot dodge the embarrassing issue of there being something rather than nothing by such theoretical constructs as a vacuum fluctuation (which may or may not occur in the Real World). they remain a fascinating possibility, but of no greater consequence to philosophy or theology than any other purely natural occurrence.
I don't have anything further to add. I just wanted to have the honor of posting comment number 300!!!
Woo Hoo, a new record!
Bob,
I share your disdain for theories of causelessness. And I share your excitement in reaching over 300 comments.
SteveK said...
Could the same outcome be acheived without rational beings guiding the process, correcting errors, striving to ensure an outome, etc?
You tell me.
If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why do rational beings guiding the process matter?
B. Prokop said...
... but an event within nature, following the "laws of nature" (itself an anthropomorphism), requires pre-existing laws. In other words, a cause.
The "laws of nature", in and of themselves, can not be an efficient cause for an event if the event sometimes does not apply in identical circumstances. If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused.
One Brow writes: "If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused."
Only partially right. Q remains a prerequisite for X. therefore, in the absence of Q, X will never occur.
Besides, I'm not the one arguing here that natural law is sufficient cause for event X (a vacuum fluctuation, to be precise) to occur. It is Stephen Hawking. I myself will of course maintain that "quia in ipso condita sunt universa in caelis et in terra visibilia et invisibilia" (Col 1:16).
One Brow,
>>> If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why do rational beings guiding the process matter?
Imagination doesn't trump reality. There are many, many outcomes that, as far as we know, cannot be accomplished without a rational being guiding the process.
Those are the "right conditions" you are looking for, and there are no other conditions that we know about that can produce the same outcome.
That might change in the future, but for now, we must stick with the facts.
One Brow,
A question just occurred to me...why don't you ask this same question when it comes to other observed processes? Just because rational beings are involved, why does observed reality suddenly become difficult to understand? For example, why don't you ask this:
(Creating steam) If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why must heat/energy be part of the process?
Bob
"I myself will of course maintain that "quia in ipso condita sunt universa in caelis et in terra visibilia et invisibilia" (Col 1:16)."
Richard Feynman:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.
In contrast, the first principle of religion is that you must fool yourself, finding in the universe only those things that support your beliefs, and harmonizing all possible observations with what you want to be true. Evolution? That’s God’s way of bringing about His Creation! The Holocaust? Evil is simply an inexorable and unavoidable byproduct of God’s gift of free will.
Theology is merely an intellectual game of self-foolery. And many theologians are very good at it."
SteveK
"Imagination doesn't trump reality. There are many, many outcomes that, as far as we know, cannot be accomplished without a rational being guiding the process."
Which are they? And who says?
bob
"And an uncaused event within nature, be it a vacuum fluctuation or anything else, is a contradiction in terms."
That's theology talking. Just as the Thomist 'uncaused cause' is an imaginary theological literary device to wiggle in some room for a god to be interpolated.
Definitely not science. Definitely theo-logic, not real logic.
@ Papalinton, I think you understand that you checked just one source in our Nobel bump.
Papalinton wrote:
As the wise Hippocrates [.c 460-377 BCE] Greek physician, noted, all that long ago (...)
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine.
POS says;
I'm not a physician, but I know this: While dissection of the human body to try to figure out how it works was forbidden in the Graeco-Roman world (with a few year exception in Alexandria), later also forbidden in the Arabic world; as far as I know this was not forbidden in Europe. And after Europe's recovery after the fall of the Roman Empire, there were even public dissections in Europe, with the first known d in what today is western Italy, not far from the Pope btw. In this way they found that Galenos' anatomy descriptions were wrong because he had used animals.
And at the universities, which was connected to the pope and not to the different kings and emperors, one of the main studies was medicine. The other three studies were theology, law and 'the free studies'.
But for all the students, mathematics and physics were compulsory.
"That is simply an argument from personal incredulity."
You can *always* tell that you're dealing with a third-rate mind when he (mindlessly) trots out this little chestnut and imagines he's made a telling point.
What Everyone's Favority Fool is saying is that one should be *credulous*, rather than critical. Though, of course, since he *is* a fool (i.e. intellectually dishonest), this credulity he recommends applies only to the incredible things he wishes to convince himself are true.
B. Prokop said...
Only partially right. Q remains a prerequisite for X. therefore, in the absence of Q, X will never occur.
I agree, but that does not suffice to make Q a metaphyscial cause for for X. Soil is required to grow corn. Soil is not the cause of any particular corn plant.
Besides, I'm not the one arguing here that natural law is sufficient cause for event X (a vacuum fluctuation, to be precise) to occur. It is Stephen Hawking.
I believe Stephen Hawking accpet the notion of uncaused events. Therefore, my objection has no meaning to him. He would simply agree X is uncaused.
SteveK said...
Imagination doesn't trump reality. There are many, many outcomes that, as far as we know, cannot be accomplished without a rational being guiding the process.
How can you authoritatively classify abiogenesis as among those outcomes?
Those are the "right conditions" you are looking for, and there are no other conditions that we know about that can produce the same outcome.
You might as well say that we have not witnessed a star forming from haydrogen, so we that process muct require a rational being.
That might change in the future, but for now, we must stick with the facts.
"No evidence" is not a fact.
A question just occurred to me...why don't you ask this same question when it comes to other observed processes? Just because rational beings are involved, why does observed reality suddenly become difficult to understand? For example, why don't you ask this:
(Creating steam) If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why must heat/energy be part of the process?
The difference between steam and liquid water is the energy level, therefore energy must be a part of the process. However, heat does not need to be. Humidifiers create steam without heat.
Paps,
>>> Which are they? And who says?
Typing coherent comments on a blog. I say.
One Brow,
>>> How can you authoritatively classify abiogenesis as among those outcomes?
Abiogenesis is not just an outcome, it's an outcome via a *specific* (naturalistic) process.
So I'm not saying anything about abiogenesis here. Abiogenisis is a theory in need of confirmation. It's a possibility. I'm merely taking what has been demonstrated at face value.
>>> You might as well say that we have not witnessed a star forming from haydrogen, so we that process muct require a rational being.
Why would I say that? Has anyone seen a rational being create a star? No. You are confused.
>>> "No evidence" is not a fact.
Are you saying the cell experiment is not a demonstration of rational beings creating life from non-life?
>>> The difference between steam and liquid water is the energy level, therefore energy must be a part of the process.
Okay, fine. The difference between non-life and life is energy as well -- guided and controlled energy that only a rational being can deliver. At least that's what the cell experiment has demonstrated.
>>> However, heat does not need to be. Humidifiers create steam without heat.
Notice that I said heat/energy. These things plug into the wall don't they?
"Do you see what I am saying Bob?"
I do: you're asserting that the One True Bureaucracy is infallible ... though, any rational and historically aware being knows how amusingly false the claim is.
I'm not sure if this conversation could be any more instructive of the mindset of certain people.
Science has demonstrated - for now - that the non-life to life process requires that rational beings be an integral part of the process.
Certain people are troubled by that demonstration because of their preconceived ideas about the origin of the first life long ago. Can't let those fundy religious people or those IDiots get a foot in the door.
This discomfort and a win-at-all-costs mentality causes them shift the focus of their argument to "what might be possible" instead of what actually is.
But notice, these people never argue this way when it comes to other demonstrated processes. Can you imagine these same uber-rational, pro-science people posting these comments?
- Well, gee, science hasn't demonstrated that heat/energy is *required* to turn water to steam. Maybe heat/energy isn't necessary.
- Well, gee, science hasn't demonstrated that our bodies "required* oxygen to live. Maybe oxygen isn't necessary.
When other people talk this way, they are labeled as irrational or anti-science or god-of-the-gap thinkers or fundy believers or -- well, you get the idea.
Yeah. Maybe naturalistic abiogenisis is possible. Maybe rational beings are not required to create life. Maybe pigs can fly. It's possible.
SteveK said...
Abiogenesis is not just an outcome, it's an outcome via a *specific* (naturalistic) process.
Well, at least one.
Abiogenisis is a theory in need of confirmation.
If it were a theory, it would have been confirmed. It's a hypothesis, right now.
Why would I say that? Has anyone seen a rational being create a star? No. You are confused.
No one has seen a rational being create a cell, either. The closest is the insertion of new DNA into an existing cell.
Interestingly, by your logic, this means you can no longer deduce that a rational agent must be involved in the creation of a cell. I wonder if you will be that consistent.
Are you saying the cell experiment is not a demonstration of rational beings creating life from non-life?
As it happens, it is not.
More to the point, the ability to control a process in a lab, under human control, is not a fact in a discussion of whether that process occurs outside the lab.
One Brow,
>>> The closest is the insertion of new DNA into an existing cell.
I took Paps at his word when he said the experiment was an example of creating the first living replicating cell. He said my analogy of going from a dirty bucket of water to life had now been demonstrated.
If Paps was wrong, then I too am wrong and will gladly retract.
"I took Paps at his word when he said the experiment was an example of creating the first living replicating cell. He said my analogy of going from a dirty bucket of water to life had now been demonstrated.
If Paps was wrong, then I too am wrong and will gladly retract."
The best possible spin one can put on his claim is that he was extremely mistaken and not at all concerned with not being mistaken.
So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it.
SteveK
"So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it."
Hardly. Theists imagine they are back to demonstrating 'billions of times over'. One Brow and I among others have tried hard to break the spiral into irrelevancy. But religious ignorance of the 'faithful' is not for turning. The web of self-deception and mystical illusion is a hard nut to crack.
All that the theist opinion-based assertions here have demonstrated is how universally circular theism is, and most particularly, christian theism.
As William Pitt the Elder, British Prime Minister so astutely surmised:
"We need a religion of humanity. The only true divinity is humanity."
"So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it."
But, of course.
===
Here's another thought that most readers, especially those of the God-denial mindset, are going to have trouble grasping, despite that it's simple and straightforward (and is fully explained in this post) -- The fact that organisms routinely die is yet one more proof that atheism is not the truth about the nature of reality.
Here is the explanation:
If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then the terms '(non-artificial) life' and 'biology' are co-extensive. For, to admit to any living entity which is both non-biological and non-artificial is to surrender the battle in one's denial of the reality of God.
If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then 'biology' is fully explained by chemistry -- you know, the whole silly belief variously phrased as "life is just chemical reactions", and "Life Happens when the right chemicals come together in the right circumstance". For, to deny that "Life Happens" is to assert that biology is the result of some non-biological living entity.
BUT, if 'biology' is fully explained by chemistry -- that is, if "life is just chemical reactions" -- then the fact that those chemicals normally and consistently stop reacting cannot be squared with the faith-requirement that "life is just chemical reactions". What? Do chemicals keep a count of the reactions they've undergone, and when they reach some limit they get tired and sluggish until they've taken sufficient rest?
Paps,
>>> Hardly. Theists imagine they are back to demonstrating 'billions of times over'.
Again with the attempt to bring God into this? Give it up.
How are billions of demonstrations not actual demonstrations?
Do you have evidence demonstrating that I am wrong? You only need to point me to one case.
"Here's another thought that most readers, especially those of the God-denial mindset, ........ [d]o chemicals keep a count of the reactions they've undergone, and when they reach some limit they get tired and sluggish until they've taken sufficient rest?"
Three words: Bizarre untutored drivel
SteveK
"Again with the attempt to bring God into this? Give it up.
How are billions of demonstrations not actual demonstrations?
Do you have evidence demonstrating that I am wrong? You only need to point me to one case."
Of course it is about god.
I refer you to your original comment: "So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it."
So what is it that you are referring to re: 'prior life'? And I dread to think you are attempting to extrapolate the existence of a god through Venter's
experiment of creating self-replicating organisms in the laboratory, as I had recently informed. Such a claim would simply be the application of the 'gap theory' model of christian theology.
Paps,
>>> Of course it is about god.
There's that vivid imagination again. Drop it.
>>> So what is it that you are referring to re: 'prior life'?
My apologies if I was not clear. Prior means "before". For example: A son (life) requires a Mom (life that existed before the son).
I think a revision is in order. What do you think about this?
It has been demonstrated that a life that comes to exist requires a life already in existence to be an integral part of the process.
>>> And I dread to think you are attempting to extrapolate the existence of a god through Venter's
experiment of creating self-replicating organisms in the laboratory, as I had recently informed.
Only in your mind am I doing this, Paps.
@Crude
Here is Bob's views
To quote brother Bob
"But on the whole, this is one of those matters which I have "no dog in the fight". As I wrote earlier, it really doesn't affect what I believe. If tomorrow I learned that the majority of the OT was pure allegory with no historical basis whatsoever, that would be fine by me. But on the other hand, were I to learn that it was overwhelmingly literally true, that also wouldn't cause me to lose any sleep. None. It's really a giant non-issue to me."END QUOTE
and "I see no theological necessity for a literal first couple. The Fall of Man and his subsequent Redemption is not dependent on such. The first sin could easily have been (and probably was) a collective act."
Thus the point of disagrement is the theological necessity for a literal first couple vs a fall of a large collective group of people.
PS I knew playing that Jane Austin movie would put my little one to sleep.
Now I am going to watch some of it before turning in myself.
A "collective fall", sans individual sin, does nicely solve the problem that "liberals" have with the whole concept of sin -- it's really only someone else who is sinful.
SteveK said...
So we're back to what has already been demonstrate billions of times over - a life that exists requires that a prior life be integrally involved in the process of creating it.
Abiogenesis can only be expected to occur when there is not life present. If life is present, it will consume the raw materials mcuh faster than any reasonable abiogenesis scenario indicates for the process. So, I have no expectatons of witnessing abiogenesis in non-laboratory conditions. That's very different from saying that prior life is essential. Prior life prevents abiogenesis.
One Brow,
>>> Abiogenesis can only be expected to occur when there is not life present.
By definition!
>>> If life is present, it will consume the raw materials mcuh faster than any reasonable abiogenesis scenario indicates for the process.
Where did you learn this?
>>> So, I have no expectatons of witnessing abiogenesis in non-laboratory conditions.
I agree. I have no expectations of it either. There's no reason to think it can occur.
>>> That's very different from saying that prior life is essential.
I don't get what you mean.
>>> Prior life prevents abiogenesis.
Maybe. We do know that prior life makes it unnecessary.
Paps,
>>>...Venter's experiment of creating self-replicating organisms in the laboratory
That's nothing! I've created 4 self-replicating organisms in my own lab. Most were created in my home lab, but I think the first one was created in our honeymoon lab.
Venter's a rookie. :)
SteveK said...
One Brow:>>> Abiogenesis can only be expected to occur when there is not life present.
By definition!
No. By definition, abiogenesis could occur in the presence of life, as long as that life was not causal in the abiogenesis process. However, such an occurence is not possible by environment, an entirely different thing.
Where did you learn this?
Here and there. Microscopic beings eat at a microscopic livel.
I agree. I have no expectations of it either. There's no reason to think it can occur.
Not where living things exist.
>>> By definition, abiogenesis could occur in the presence of life, as long as that life was not causal in the abiogenesis process.
You're right. Being an integral part of the process is a key distinction.
Einfachische: "The "laws of nature", in and of themselves, can not be an efficient cause for an event if the event sometimes does not apply in identical circumstances. If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused."
X is not uncaused. You ignorance of the full causes of X does not equal no cause of X.
A touching testimony of faith: "If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why do rational beings guiding the process matter?"
If 'life' is "just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions", why do organisms routinely die? Do those "right chemicals [which came] together in the right conditions" get bored with the whole thing and just kind of drift off to pursue other interests?
SteveK
"It has been demonstrated that a life that comes to exist requires a life already in existence to be an integral part of the process."
Then you have not understood the basis on which the fact of evolution is premised.
And the more scientists discover about the constituent elements necessary to allow for abiogenesis to occur and under what are the optimal conditions, it is only a matter of time before we know how life started on this planet. And I suspect there will be an explosion of the possible ways it did, and why some methods will be successful and why the vast majority will be aborted a few replications in. Once understood, I suspect the process will seem obvious, pretty much as many of the discoveries in science has proven to be over time. I think of the amazement expressed as humanity pondered in awe of Einstein's theory of relativity. Now in hindsight it just seems so obvious.
And so it is with the Biological Sciences.
Each small step up Mt Probable redefines each literal truth of the bible to a metaphor. The process is inexorable as the historical trail informs us. I suspect the bible will eventually be characterized as a litany of metaphors and allegory strung together by elements of historical fact variously appropriated for the purpose of making the narrative seemingly cogent and based in reality.
Paps,
>>> Then you have not understood the basis on which the fact of evolution is premised.
I don't need to understand theoretical premises. For now, I only need to understand what has been demonstrated in reality. Isn't that how science works?
You need to give me a reason to toss all of that empirical data out the window. Do you have a reason? I've asked you for reasons many times and each time you come up empty.
>>. And the more scientists discover about the constituent elements necessary to allow for abiogenesis to occur and under what are the optimal conditions, it is only a matter of time before we know how life started on this planet.
Faith masquerading as empirical science. I've heard there are scientist PhD-types that say it's only a matter of time before we know why the earth only appears to be 4.5 billion years old.
While you busily point them to the mountains of data that shows the earth is this old, let me point you to the mountains of data that shows new life always comes from an existing life.
If 'life' is "just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions", why do organisms routinely die? Do those "right chemicals [which came] together in the right conditions" get bored with the whole thing and just kind of drift off to pursue other interests?
For some reason, you seem to think this is an intelligent point.
No the chemicals don't get bored. many liveing things show no signs of age. Some plants are thousands of years old, and while they might die from environmental causes, show no signs of dying from internal causes.
There'a a whole science on aging, what happens, and why it happens, that is not based on chemicals getting bored. You can look it up if you want to.
IlÃon said...
X is not uncaused. You ignorance of the full causes of X does not equal no cause of X.
Nor does your metaphysics create a cause where none exists.
SteveK
"You need to give me a reason to toss all of that empirical data out the window."
I understand now why it is you do not throw out the entire christian artifice and its book. There is no empirical data supporting its claims on existence, so you are unable to throw it out the window. And whatever empirical data may be contained therein is miniscule and is there simply because it was appropriated in order that christians can hang their mythos on something to give it some element of credibility, to give it seemingly 'bona fide' status.
Look. We all know the tradition of the christian mythos is a construct of a committee group meeting. The whole edifice of christendom and most particularly Catholicism was established at a talkfest in Nicea in 325CE. The foundations of the christian fable were bolted to the floor, a fabricated construct that was decided on a head-count. Nothing more, nothing less. They said, "Look! we can only have one Hansel and one Gretel in our story. Anyone who disagrees with us will be chopped off at the knees, literally."
And from this confab arose the behemoth that almost devoured all of humanity.
Paps,
Your last comment is worthless.
"Paps, Your last comment is worthless."
Properly speaking, that statement is recursive.
Antirationalist: "The "laws of nature", in and of themselves, can not be an efficient cause for an event if the event sometimes does not apply in identical circumstances. If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused."
Antirationalist: "X is not uncaused. You ignorance of the full causes of X does not equal no cause of X."
Hater-of-Reason: "Nor does your metaphysics create a cause where none exists."
True enough: my metaphysics does not create the causes of things; rather, it recognizes the truth that there are no effects/events without causes.
On the other, and antirational, hand, you and your metaphysics are asserting the knowledge-repudiating and self-defeating claim (*) that there can be, and are, events without causes. But, you cannot have "just enough" acausality to protect your atheism from rational critical analysis -- either:
1) all events are the effects of causes; or,
2) no events are the effects of causes.
(*) for, your claim is itself an event ... which is, according to your metaphysical assertions, uncaused. ANd, when you randomly assert the opposite on some random other day, that too will be uncaused.
... randomness is an even worse slave-master than determinism is.
One-thought: "For some reason, you seem to think this is an intelligent point. ..."
For some reason, you decline to understand that it is an intelligent, and important, point.
... consider this what this silly, silly (and vain), man has said as he attempts to side-step the importance of the question I have twice asked --
One Brow: "If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why do rational beings guiding the process matter?"
IlÃon: "BUT, if 'biology' is fully explained by chemistry -- that is, if "life is just chemical reactions" -- then the fact that those chemicals normally and consistently *stop* reacting cannot be squared with the faith-requirement that "life is just chemical reactions". What? Do chemicals keep a count of the reactions they've undergone, and when they reach some limit they get tired and sluggish until they've taken sufficient rest?"
IlÃon: "If 'life' is "just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions", why do organisms routinely die? Do those "right chemicals [which came] together in the right conditions" get bored with the whole thing and just kind of drift off to pursue other interests?"
One-thought-many-rationalizations: "For some reason, you seem to think this is an intelligent point.
No the chemicals don't get bored. many liveing things show no signs of age. Some plants are thousands of years old, and while they might die from environmental causes, show no signs of dying from internal causes."
Paps-In-Drag: "There'a a whole science on aging, what happens, and why it happens, that is not based on chemicals getting bored. You can look it up if you want to."
It never ceases to amaze me how blatantly people will affirm what I have just said even as they are asserting that it is false (or, as in this case, asserting that it is "not even false").
Papalinton said:
The whole edifice of christendom and most particularly Catholicism was established at a talkfest in Nicea in 325CE.
POS says:
After my advice to check statements about history better, and not just about Galilei and Bruno, and after you checked just one source about some prize, I'm a bit surprised of this. However, if you give me name of a historian who supports this, or if you give me your source, I'll come back to you.
Papalinton wrote to SteveK:
I suspect the bible will eventually be characterized as a litany of metaphors and allegory strung together by elements of historical fact variously appropriated for the purpose of making the narrative seemingly cogent and based in reality.
POS says:
Most churches never thought the Bible is so exactly that it can be used to reject scientific ideas. Ideas like a moving earth or a very old earth has some times been criticized, but usually on the basis of either reason or observations.
A good place to start for those who would like to know how the church fathers interpreted Genesis is Augustine's On Genesis. The Bible was not read literally at that time either, even a thousand years before the great discoveries.
Paps,
You don't like my statement about life so I'd like to get your take on this.
"It has been demonstrated that once the state of non-life has been reached (death), life never returns."
Do you agree with this? Feel free to tweak it.
After you do that, tell me how you reconcile this with your theory that life came from non-life on it's own?
Ilion was kind enough to refer to himself as "Antirationalist", so the least I can do is respond.
True enough: my metaphysics does not create the causes of things; rather, it recognizes the truth that there are no effects/events without causes.
It can make the assumption, but the assumpiton can be wrong, and by all evidence is wrong. There are events that, as far as we can determine their nature, are fundamentally uncaused. The assumptions built into a metahysics are also not proof otherwise.
1) all events are the effects of causes; or,
2) no events are the effects of causes.
Why not some events, according to the nature of the particular event? That is, events of types A, B, and C are uncaused, as that is their respective nature, while events of type a, b, and c are casued, as that is their respective nature?
One Brow,
The reason uncaused events makes no sense is because it results in a contradiction.
If there is a reason for an event, then there is a real thing that explains the event. That real thing is found in the reason given. If there is no reason then literally "no real thing" explains the event - which is a contradition because it doesn't exist and thus can't be an explanation.
The cause can be external or an internal part of the thing itself. Reference the principle of sufficient reason.
For example, the nature of agency is the reason people can be the first cause of events.
With the contradition resolved, what remains to be resolved is the infinite regression of causality.
The conclusion of people smarter than me is that some real things must be a necessary part of reality. In other words, some real things must not require a reason or a cause to explain their existence because they must always exist. They always existed as a matter of necessity.
Isn't this fun?
>>> They always existed as a matter of necessity.
I guess this is a reason.
SteveK said...
The reason uncaused events makes no sense is because it results in a contradiction.
"Contradiction" is very specific term for a sentence of the type "A & not-A".
If there is a reason ...
Already, we are sliding to an equivocal phrase. A "reason" is not a "cause". You can say "the reason the universe can exist uncaused is a property like gravity", and there is no internal contradiction.
The cause can be external or an internal part of the thing itself.
The cause of an event needs to act prior to the event (ontologically), a reason for an event does not.
One Brow,
>>> "Contradiction" is very specific term for a sentence of the type "A & not-A".
I know. The reason for the uncaused event can be found in "no real thing" and "a real thing" at the same time and in the same way. Contradiction.
>>> Already, we are sliding to an equivocal phrase. A "reason" is not a "cause".
The way I am using the term is that a reason is a way of explaining why an object exists as it does. This concept is found in the 4 causes..
>>> You can say "the reason the universe can exist uncaused is a property like gravity", and there is no internal contradiction.
Your reason entails causality according to the 4 cause theory. Gravity explains why the universe exists as it does.
You can't just say it's uncaused without offering a sufficient reason why it is uncaused (see principle of sufficient reason again).
Necessity would be a sufficient reason, but we have no reason to think gravity is necessary to reality. We'd need a reason to think that before we could conclude that gravity explains the universe.
SteveK said...
The reason for the uncaused event can be found in "no real thing" and "a real thing" at the same time and in the same way. Contradiction.
Since the "no real thing" is at time A and an efficient cause, while the "real thing" would either be a time B or a formal cause (depending on the particular event), there is no contradiciton.
The way I am using the term is that a reason is a way of explaining why an object exists as it does. This concept is found in the 4 causes.
However, that does not make a reason into a cause, unless you mean specifically a final cause.
Your reason entails causality according to the 4 cause theory. Gravity explains why the universe exists as it does.
However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.
You can't just say it's uncaused without offering a sufficient reason why it is uncaused (see principle of sufficient reason again).
The princikple of sufficient reason is an assumption you make to build into a formal system. It has no proof, and it ceases to be a useful model for reality, there is not need to keep it.
Necessity would be a sufficient reason, but we have no reason to think gravity is necessary to reality. We'd need a reason to think that before we could conclude that gravity explains the universe.
However, gravity may well be necessary within the universe. How could you tell, one way or the other?
One Brow,
>>> Since the "no real thing" is at time A and an efficient cause, while the "real thing" would either be a time B or a formal cause (depending on the particular event), there is no contradiciton.
We aren't talking about 2 causal events, just the one event.
>>> However, that does not make a reason into a cause, unless you mean specifically a final cause.
Pick one or more of the 4 causes as the reason an object exists as it does. They're all causes.
Additionally, can you cite an example where what you are saying is true?
>>> However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.
You're making my argument for me. Gravity is not the reason it came to exist.
>>> It has no proof, and it ceases to be a useful model for reality, there is not need to keep it.
Ha! Notice you are giving me reasons (not sufficient though) to deny the principle of sufficient reason. By giving me reasons to deny it, you confirm its necessity.
>>> However, gravity may well be necessary within the universe. How could you tell, one way or the other?
It's a real possibility, I agree. How could you tell? I don't think you could. I don't see how anyone could ever come to discover that something was necessary - that something could not possibly fail to have existed. What would such a reality look like or act like?
That's why I said we have no reason to think gravity is necessary.
SteveK said...
We aren't talking about 2 causal events, just the one event.
Since we are discussing the possiblity of uncaused events, and different uncaused events can have different natures, I am trying to be inclusive about the varieties of uncaused events. Since the "no real thing" discusses an ontologically prior thing/act, while for uncaused events we attirbute the lack of causality to either an ontologically prior form or to having a form no ontologically prior, there is no contradiciton between the "no real thing" and the existence of areason.
Pick one or more of the 4 causes as the reason an object exists as it does. They're all causes.
Events are not objects.
Additionally, can you cite an example where what you are saying is true?
Radioactive decay is uncaused. The actual spin of a particle (as oppose to the existence of spin). Hawking says the universe itself seems to be uncaused, at least potentially.
>>> However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.
You're making my argument for me. Gravity is not the reason it came to exist.
Again, you equate "reason" to "cause" inappropriately.
Ha! Notice you are giving me reasons (not sufficient though) to deny the principle of sufficient reason.
The principle of sufficient reason is not something that can be affirmed or denied, so how could I be giving you reasons to deny it? The principle of sufficient reason is either relatively useful in helping to form a model of a phenomenon, or not relatively useful.
By giving me reasons to deny it, you confirm its necessity.
Theists do seem to love arguments like that.
That's why I said we have no reason to think gravity is necessary.
By which you seem to mean, we have no reason to think gravity is necessary nor any reason to think it is contingent, and no guess in one direction is any better than in the other direction. I'm OK with that.
One Brow,
>>> Events are not objects.
Events must involve real things. Call them objects or just real things.
>>> Radioactive decay is uncaused.
It may look that way to you. Just because you can't pinpoint or understand the cause doesn't mean it is uncaused. That's what is often referred to a "god of the gaps" thinking, isn't it? Do you want to go there?
>>> Again, you equate "reason" to "cause" inappropriately.
Not really. I took your statement about gravity and offered a logical conclusion based on that statement.
For example, Suppose you said X *cannot* cause a pot of water to exist as steam. We can then say to someone who tells me it's possible - that we have no reason to think X can bring steam into existence from a pot of water.
>>> The principle of sufficient reason is not something that can be affirmed or denied, so how could I be giving you reasons to deny it?
You were attempting to give reasons.
>>> The principle of sufficient reason is either relatively useful in helping to form a model of a phenomenon, or not relatively useful.
Here's the problem. Without the PSR, no reason is needed to justify a conclusion. You do have reasons behind every valid conclusion that you form, but it's not necessary. Congratulations, you've just lumped rational thought in with irrational thought.
>>> Theists do seem to love arguments like that.
Thinking people love arguments like that.
Let's say you are correct. Without the PSR nobody need reasons to accept the PSR as being true either - and therefore both arguments are valid and sound.
Nobody also needs reasons to deny arguments in favor of the law of non-condradition. In fact, all forms of argument are valid and sound because the PSR can be denied.
Looking at the methods of science...if we think we have found something without explanation, we spend a lot of intellectual energy trying to determine or prove to ourselves the explanation for there being no explanation.
If the PSR doesn't hold, then all of that scientific time and energy is not necessary. We can just conclude that no reason is needed to explain anything. And when we so find a reason, we can deny it without reason.
This is the epitome of anti-rationalism. And you support this? I hope you will reconsider.
SteveK said...
Events must involve real things. Call them objects or just real things.
Events are real, but are not things nor objects. they have no material cause, for example.
It may look that way to you. Just because you can't pinpoint or understand the cause doesn't mean it is uncaused. That's what is often referred to a "god of the gaps" thinking, isn't it? Do you want to go there?
My understanding is that radioactive decay is uncaused, by the the nature of radioactive decay. I am not using "uncaused" to mean "unpredictiable".
Not really.
Yes, really. A reason need not be a cause.
For example, Suppose you said X *cannot* cause a pot of water to exist as steam. We can then say to someone who tells me it's possible - that we have no reason to think X can bring steam into existence from a pot of water.
I did not understand your point here.
You were attempting to give reasons.
I was describing its character. I suppose you could call that "giving reasons" loosely. However, since I had no intent to affirm or deny, I was not using the principle of sufficient reason.
Here's the problem. Without the PSR, no reason is needed to justify a conclusion.
You can choose any number of other conditions on which to base affirmation or denial, some of which may be either stonger or eaker than the PSR, some orthogonally related. You choose what is useful for your needs.
Thinking people love arguments like that.
No, thinking people dislike simplistic aphorisms that cover up meaning rather than uncover it.
Without the PSR nobody need reasons to accept the PSR as being true either - and therefore both arguments are valid and sound.
The PSR is a tool to use in argumentation, or not. It is not the subject of argumentation.
In fact, all forms of argument are valid and sound because the PSR can be denied.
Normally, you choose the acceptable forms of argumentation before you begin an argument.
You spent a couple of paragraphs assuming that without the specifically choosing the PSR, we could not do science. This is laughable.
@ One Brow and SteveK
As an awed amateur, I still try to follow your discussion about something from nothing. It's said that radioactive decay might be a causeless event. Now I've found two articles written not by amateurs saying something more.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ writes about quantum mechanics in section 4.4:
Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says what the probabilities of various results are. [...] At the microscopic level the world is ultimately mysterious and chancy.
So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading.
You'd better read the section yourselves rather than me trying to make an extract.
Earlier I mentioned that reality always is interpreted, so also in quantum mechanics. One of my questions is if this might be one of the reasons the disagreement.
(Cont.)
(Cont.)
If radioactive decay is causeless, to me it seems strange that it has a regular rate. Anyway, strange things can happen, especially in QM. But I found another article, at arxiv.org.
arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0834
P.4: The spooky arguments in favor of ‘uncaused change’ (Mortensen 2002) with reference to radioactive decay demonstrate simply the common misunderstanding of the processes of spontaneous emission (see details at the end of Section 3.2)..
In section 3.2, radioactive decay is dissussed from p. 27 on.
P. 28: ...likewise, radioactive decay of nuclei is directly caused by zero oscillations of vacuum nuclear fields. “...There is no such thing as truly spontaneous emission; its all stimulated emission”.(Griffiths 1987b).
Lunch is over. But the discussion about (im?)possible uncaused events probably not.
Per Ove: "If radioactive decay is causeless, to me it seems strange that it has a regular rate."
I'd thought of mentioning that, too; but I long ago gave up trying to reason with unreasonable persons.
Those who assert that there are uncaused events are generally doing several things; without trying to go into the psychology of why they assert causelessness, they are, non-exhaustively:
1) asserting that ignorance of the cause or causes is evidence of causelessness;
2) denying causality in general;
2a) declining to understand that if one event is uncaused, then probably all events are uncaused;
2b) or, in any event, if there actually even one uncaused event, then we could never know that any event is caused;
3) THUS, this odd insistence upon uncaused events is just another way of asserting that knowledge by humans is utterly impossible, it is a way of "scientifically" asserting that truth cannot be known.
That there are uncaused events is known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Copenhagen_interpretation, Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.
This is confirmed by the two recent articles quoted above. The article at arxiv.org is from 2008, and the article at plato.stanford.edu was given a substantive revision Thu Jan 21, 2010.
So articles and theories from 1980s about QM should probably be read with this in mind.
Post a Comment