Prove Evolution: Win $250,000!

Yes. In particular, your own certain claim of skepticism creates a paradoxical dilemna; because of your finiteness you can never be totally certain that you have enough of all possible knowledge to justify your skepticism.

Well, this still doesn't make sense to me. Maybe somebody could elucidate me on what your point really is.

I thought of posting the infidels.org article, which IMO contains numerous inaccuracies...

I don't claim that that article is absolutely accurate and neither does the author. However, this is not the only article that addresses this topic, there are many more. Most of them show that these so called prophecies could also have other explanations. So there is no reason to assume that everything happened exactly as it is described in the bible. Especially if we consider the fact that the further we go back in time, myths and legends become more and more common.
So it is only natural to assume that many (but not all) details in bible were invented and did not really happen. Even if there are some details of which we have evidence of, like the names of ancient cities, tribes or places of important battles, doesn't mean that the rest is also true.
Of course, if you say that the bible is true because the bible says so, you don't have these problems any more but in my opinion this isn't a valid argument.

661 posted on 05/13/2002 11:29:54 AM PDT by BMCDA

To: BMCDA; Diamond

Well, this still doesn't make sense to me. Maybe somebody could elucidate me on what your point really is.

I'll take a stab at it (trusting that Diamond will correct me if I muff it) - I think you aren't that far away from him. It seems as though he's saying that you can't be sure that your skepticism is entirely justified. Somewhere out there might be evidence that would convince you of the truth of a particular thing. Because your insight and your knowledge is necessarily limited (you aren't omniscient, after all), you may not (and probably don't) have access to all the facts of the situation.

Of course it's true, but I'm not entirely sure what you're supposed to do about it - like you said, we can only operate on the evidence before us. If there's something out there we don't know about, then...well, we don't know about it, do we? And it seems just as likely that out there is evidence that would convince you of the falsity of whatever it is, but you don't know about it either ;)

662 posted on 05/13/2002 11:50:59 AM PDT by general_re

Consider my bookshelf - assume I have a set of encyclopedias on it. Which arrangement is "disordered", having all volumes in alphabetical order, or having them in random order next to each other?

Arrangements are "ordered" when they assume a discernable pattern. And if I'm not mistaken, there are mathematical ways of defining, or at least measuring, what constitutes a discernable pattern - for example, algorithms that distinguish signal from noise. Also, codebreaking technologies depend on being able to find the hidden pattern in a set of seemingly random data.

[regarding the right to life] One may choose to believe such as a matter of faith, but that's all it is - a matter of faith. One may equally well choose to believe otherwise.

And no one is denying that you can choose to believe that which isn't true. But the truth doesn't change as a result. As for whether or not what I'm saying is true, I still maintain to you and to all those eavesdroppers out there (you know who you are), that you can see that it is. There isn't too too much more I can say in that regard, except to ask you how you would react to the thought of some thug deciding to kill you. Would it simply be something you view as undesirable, something that you would "vote against"; or would you be filled with righteous indignation at his selfishness and arrogance in acting as though your life, your dreams, your everything, were but a mere toy to him, to be discarded at will? If you answer that honestly, you'll see the truth.

663 posted on 05/13/2002 12:06:48 PM PDT by inquest

To: general_re; Diamond; inquest;

Hmmm. By now I had thought you would be able to separate an attack on your arguments from an attack on you personally. I believe if you reread my post, you will find that my comments are directed entirely at what you have argued, rather than at you. If, however, I have left something vague or unclear, such that it could be interpreted as an attack upon you as a person, I hope that you will be kind enough to direct me to it, so that I might clarify or apologize, as necessary.

general_re, the very form of your argument is ad hominem. It seems you have “intended” a symbol of betty boop – call it a straw man – and you proceed to do battle with it rather than with my actual arguments, which you do not answer other than to reassert your own position. Which is made vastly easier for you to do, I gather, by imputing certain things to me which are not true. For instance, that I am a biblical literalist, that I am asserting particular religious doctrines, that I disdain “every one else’s gods,” that I am incapable of abstract thought, that I have the reasoning ability of someone who hasn’t yet risen to the standards of a middle school student, etc.

That argument might carry more water if I didn't suspect that this is exactly how you regard everyone else's god(s). I'm not particularly interested in what sorts of things people ascribe to God, or how they explain this fiction that they see. Your motives are your motives, and do not change the truth or falsity of what you see or do not see. As is true for me, of course.

See what I mean? BTW, “this fiction that they see” is merely tendentious. How do you know God is a fiction? Because He doesn’t fit into the neatly constructed little universe you’ve made?

FWIW, the main lines of my argument derive from the Greek philosophers, particularly Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, and Aristotle. I have deliberately avoided explicit doctrinal language of any particular religious confession.

You even go so far as to characterize me as a sophist. The essence of the sophist “argument” is the demonstration that “man is the measure.” This is precisely what I dispute, but what you appear to endorse. On that basis, which one of us is the sophist, general-re?

RE: the intentionalist fallacy -- the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, you said: “Isn't that clever? It must ‘hold the object in consciousness in order to perform mental operations with it.’ Doesn't really roll off the tongue, does it?… This is precisely why the intentionalist fallacy is a big steaming load of excrement. In one fell swoop, you've invalidated all abstract thought whatsoever. I'm sure you don't think so, but you have.”

My point was that it is unavoidable to intend objects of thought if we are going to think at all, especially abstractly. The problem with this is that often we “cut the symbols” down to fit the size of our knowledge and imagination, and then mistake the reduced symbols for the reality to which they refer – which has been deformed in this process. This is a common source of error. I have noticed you perform this type of operation, not only on God, but also on the universe and betty boop.

So, basically, unless I can fully grasp the (posited) nature of God, any mental calculus I employ is invalid, because I cannot fully imagine all the implications and ramifications of God. I cannot fully and deeply comprehend the essence of God, so any thoughts I have are invalid.

Your mental calculus is not invalid because you “cannot fully imagine all the implications and ramifications of God.” If that were a prerequisite of thought, no thought would be possible. But let’s be honest: You couldn’t (I couldn’t) fully imagine all the implications and ramifications of the universe, or any thing in it, let alone God: But you still continue to think about these things, and try to understand them, don’t you? Just because the human mind is limited and contingent, does that necessarily mean all its “conclusions” are invalid – especially when we try to constantly remind ourselves that all knowledge is “provisional,” so long as new discoveries are being made? Or do you think they have all been made already?

If anyone thinks he has “final,” certain, exhaustive knowledge about the universe as a whole, probably no conclusion about it or anything in it he reaches would be a valid one. If we take the current state of our knowledge as the “measure” of the universe, we’ve got the problem bass-ackwards. For the revelation of the truth of reality is ongoing; for us humans, it has the nature of an open-ended quest, not of a final possession.

Of course, I don't think you fully grasp the essence of the Eiffel Tower I mentioned earlier. You can't possibly understand every strut and stair, every nut and bolt, every single atom of the thing. You've just abstracted it away from "reality" with your thought-symbols, haven't you?</I.

I’ve done nothing of the sort. Unlike God and the universe, the Eiffel Tower is a physical object located at a particular set of geographical coordinates. I have seen it myself; but if I hadn’t, I could have seen it in picture, or perhaps a friend who had seen it would describe it to me. I do not need to know everything about every strut and stair, nut and bolt, in order to believe in the “existence” of the Eiffel Tower. It’s “just there.” It has the form it has; I wouldn’t be inclined to resymbolize it as, say, an Egyptian pyramid. Because it is an object that lies in the same space-and-time-order that I do, I can easily ascertain its reality. But we have no “pictures” of God – and we have no “pictures” of the universe, either. Neither of these exists in the same space-and-time-order where you and I are to be found.

In fact, I bet you do that with every single thing you've ever talked about in your entire life - you've reduced it away from its essential reality into some abstract representation, and thus lost its essence in the process.

It is by keeping our symbols “open” to the unknown that prevents us from reducing reality to its phenomenalist appearance, a reduction that renders questions as to essence moot from the git-go.

You skipped over answering this question: Why would God need to be defended against the revelation of His own Truth? Instead, you impute the following to me: “The Bible-as-literal-truth and as the literal Word of God still works for you, does it? Catastrophism, creation-in-six-literal-days….” By all means please do dig up Physicist on the value of pi in the Bible. I’d love to see it.

I’ll stand by this: “The fact is, no finding of science has ever, to date, refuted any proposition articulated in the Bible. If you doubt this, then go find me one.” I’m still waiting. Gotta wrap up for now. We’ll close with your observation: Any apparent order is a result of the operation of the rules of Univ*. The fact that we can make sense of it is an accident as well - the rules produced brains capable of abstract thought and reason, and so we can make some sense of what we see.

And we’re back right where we started – with an accidental universe, which accidentally generates its own rules as it goes along. And yet somehow, “the universe is the way it is, and not some other way.” (A mathematician – Leibnitz -- noticed this interesting fact. In meditating the problem, he seems to have dismissed the possibility of an accidental universe.)

If the universe is an infinite regression of accidents piling up, from moment to moment it could be any way at all instead of being the way it is. A limit, not an accident, is necessary in order for something to be the way it is; otherwise, any “something” could only be conceptualized as a "no-thing" -- a transition in an infinite series of transitions that never comes to rest as a something --that is, anything or nothing or everything BUT a particular existent thing having a given essence or nature.

From moment-to-moment, for all of time and beyond, the universe would be an endless procession of “no-things” instead of the intelligible, persisting order that we see all around us. The universe persists as it is to such a degree that man has found it intelligible, even permitting predictions to be made about its processes. If everything were accidental, though, on what basis could anything persist?

Thanks for writing, general_re. best, bb.

664 posted on 05/13/2002 12:09:38 PM PDT by betty boop

To: inquest; general_re; Diamond;

And no one is denying that you can choose to believe that which isn't true. But the truth doesn't change as a result.

Bravo, inquest! best, bb.

665 posted on 05/13/2002 12:10:48 PM PDT by betty boop

One other thing I want to point out (in case we get bored). You said, "There's no information loss in rearranging my books anyway." Well, not to you, because you already know the English alphabet. But to someone who's never been exposed to it, you've destroyed quite a bit of information by rearranging your books out of alphabetical order. I have no idea what that has to do with what we're talking about, but I just thought I'd bring it up.

666 posted on 05/13/2002 12:22:24 PM PDT by inquest

Somewhere out there might be evidence that would convince you of the truth of a particular thing. Because your insight and your knowledge is necessarily limited (you aren't omniscient, after all), you may not (and probably don't) have access to all the facts of the situation.

And that's what I said.
I contend that skepticism is the default position and that the skeptic doesn't have to justify his position. He may do so but he isn't obliged to, but he who makes the claim.
If this were not the case, then we'd believe every crackpot idea we're confronted with despite the lack of any evidence backing it up (yeah, I know, this is the case).

What he seems to suggest is that I should suppress my skepticism and believe a certain claim simply because there may be evidence in its favor of which I'm not aware of yet (since I'm not omniscient).
And that's exactly my point: I'm skeptical because I am not omniscient. If I were, there'd be nothing I could be skeptical of.

Of course he or anybody else may correct me if I misunderstood his position but that is what I got from his posts.

667 posted on 05/13/2002 12:59:01 PM PDT by BMCDA

Yes, but I tried to forestall this argument somewhat. Informational entropy deals with the loss of information in ordered arrangements and is not the same as thermodynamic energy, such as in the physical universe around us. The problem with applying the information-theoretic concept of energy is that it inherently assumes an observer - someone who can view and interpret information, such as in a code. Informational entropy is only meaningful in the context of such an information observer or gatherer. The universe, so far as we know, requires no such thing - thermodynamic entropy doesn't require any such "context".

IOW, you're not applying the physical, thermodynamic concept of energy to the universe, you're applying the information-theoretic concept, and I don't think that's likely to work very well.

And no one is denying that you can choose to believe that which isn't true. But the truth doesn't change as a result.

Of course. The same applies to you, equally well, of course.

There isn't too too much more I can say in that regard, except to ask you how you would react to the thought of some thug deciding to kill you. Would it simply be something you view as undesirable, something that you would "vote against"; or would you be filled with righteous indignation at his selfishness and arrogance in acting as though your life, your dreams, your everything, were but a mere toy to him, to be discarded at will? If you answer that honestly, you'll see the truth.

Hmmm. You mean, how am I to react to someone who has decided to "play God" with my life? Probably not well. How am I to react to the notion that God does exactly the same thing? How do you react to the idea that God does exactly the same thing?

You wouldn't arrogate that power to your neighbor, but you're all too willing to arrogate it to something that may even not be there. Show me the difference between the two, and you'll see the truth.

Not that it matters - how I feel doesn't change the truth. And how you feel in some given situation doesn't change the truth either. The truth is what it is, and appeals to emotion do not change it one whit.

668 posted on 05/13/2002 1:10:27 PM PDT by general_re

I don't mean to be flippant with this question, I really don't, but how do you know that you have gone far enough? How do you know that this ultimate truth that you have discovered, namely, that "free will is an illusion" is not also an illusion itself? In view of the limitations inherent in insufficient model memory how do you justify this particular "stopping point"?

These are perfectly legitimate questions; I don't see anything flippant about them at all. There are a couple different ways to address these points, which I will do briefly.

First, there is the relatively simple matter of best hypothesis selection, such as the theorem attributed to Occam and proved much later by mathematicians. It becomes difficult to construct any "deeper" hypothesis that is not objectively worse than the one I constructed in my previous post. Therefore, I would be inclined to select my hypothesis because it is the most rational one, though I can't make a claim to its correctness in any absolute sense and can only claim that it is the best hypothesis available absent additional information. If a better hypothesis pops up, I'll gladly accept that. "Better hypothesis" is a fairly objective metric.

Second, the "free will is an illusion" bit is a consequence of the mathematics, and as such is provable within the set of axioms that we consider to be reality. Having inadequate model capacity has no bearing on the reality of that particular abstraction; even if there was "something more", that particular construction would still be correct. It is better to think of limitations in model capacity as "how much of the big picture is it mathematically possible for us to see", where the more model memory you have, the more distant relationships and "bigger pictures" you can discern in your universe. Anything in the universe that exceeds your capacity to meaningfully encode it will seem incomprehensible, even if there is nothing particularly special about the "incomprehensible" thing you are observing. We are already starting to see this with computers. A computer with the appropriate software is quite capable of slicing and dicing phenomena that humans find borderline inexplicable. We can comprehend the abstractions that the computer generates based on the patterns it discovers, but we are incapable of discovering such things ourselves. Very soon, we will have computer systems that could very well discover phenomena in the universe that is so complex that even the abstractions would be largely incomprehensible to humans. One can see how this might make for an interesting future. It should be noted that virtually no software exists that meets the criteria of a universal predictor for a bevy of reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, so most people have never experienced what a (large) computer with this class of software can do.

I don't make a claim to any kind of "ultimate truth", but I could convincingly argue that it is the most probable or best "truth" available with the axioms we generally agree on today. This could change as we discover new things, but such discoveries would more likely affect the variables rather than the equations as it were. I'm not really dead set on anything, but I do demand a rational and consistent framework, even if I'm not terribly pleased with the consequences.

669 posted on 05/13/2002 1:13:02 PM PDT by tortoise

There is no mathematical definition of a "discernable pattern", as everything is a pattern. The only mathematical difference between any two patterns in the universe is the Algorithmic Information Content (aka Kolmogorov Complexity). Any claim beyond this requires an observer context.

Note that the reason we can break some crypto systems is that "seemingly random" isn't "random", and the AIC of most text is actually extremely small. If you encrypted data with a very high AIC, you would not be able to break the crypto. Cryptanalysis pretty much depends on the fact that the AIC of most messages is anomalously low.

670 posted on 05/13/2002 1:46:14 PM PDT by tortoise

general_re, the very form of your argument is ad hominem.

There is no such thing, I am sorry to say. The form of an ad hominem attack would be for me to abuse you personally or professionally in some manner, and then to infer that your arguments are not valid as a result. Were I to hypothetically say "Betty is a fool, therefore her arguments are invalid," that would be ad hominem abuse.

I might direct your attention to the converse of that hypothetical statement, however. You might not like it if I were to hypothetically say "Betty's arguments are invalid, therefore she is a fool", but it is simple fact that this is not a commission of the fallacy of argument ad hominem. It might not be particularly nice of me to say it, but truth is not dependent on many things, niceness being only one. If I were to hypothetically say such a thing, that is.

It seems you have ?intended? a symbol of betty boop ? call it a straw man ? and you proceed to do battle with it rather than with my actual arguments, which you do not answer other than to reassert your own position.

What else are either of us to do but come up with new and clever ways of saying the same thing? You've already accepted my basic premise that no logical proof or disproof of God's existence is possible, so what else would you have us do? How is what you have said in your subsequent posts anything more than a simple restatement of the things you have said previously.

Tu quoque, I say.

Which is made vastly easier for you to do, I gather, by imputing certain things to me which are not true. For instance, that I am a biblical literalist

I suggest no such thing. I say it. If I am wrong, you are always free to correct this interpretation of mine. You suggested that no proposition in the Bible had ever been proven false. Implicit in this statement is that everything in there is either literally true, or metaphorically true.

In my experience, those who tend to see the Bible as allegorical in parts or metaphorical in parts are generally much less in opposition to evolution as scientific doctrine. I therefore drew the following conclusion - since you are opposed to evolution as scientific doctrine, you are most likely a literalist in matters Biblical. If I am wrong, say so, and we shall proceed from there. There's a simple fix for this - are you a literalist or not?

that I disdain ?every one else?s gods,"

Since I do not state this as fact, but merely that I "suspect" such a thing, you are incorrect in characterizing this as either an argument ad hominem or even as a personal attack. I did not say that this was true of you, or that it must be so - merely that I suspect it to be true. I still do. If I am wrong in my suspicions, feel free to correct this also.

that I am incapable of abstract thought

Of course you are clearly capable of abstract thought - here you are, aren't you? But your argument has the effect of invalidating abstract thought. If you really believed your argument, you would be incapable of truly thinking abstractly. Yet here you are - your argument is false, because the implications are ridiculous. If your argument held water, then it must apply to things beyond simply God - you and I cannot possibly grasp the true nature and essence of anything if your argument is true, and therefore there is little point to discussing anything at all if your argument is true.

You applied your argument to God - I simply applied it to everything else in the world, in order to show the silliness of your argument when taken to its logical conclusion. You may not like that, but it's not ad hominem arguing either. If I am not to be permitted to attack your argument (not you), then there is little point in continuing.

that I have the reasoning ability of someone who hasn?t yet risen to the standards of a middle school student,

Good grief. How on earth can I be held responsible for the conclusions you draw? You're not my sock-puppet, Betty - how you interpret what you read is entirely beyond my control.

For the record, this is the portion to which you appear to be referring: "Congratulations - you've discovered that the representation of a thing is not the thing itself." This is quite obviously true. You have discovered that the representation of a thing is not the thing itself. If you wish to dispute the truth of this statement, and deny that you have discovered any such thing, I will of course consider revising that statement.

However, continuing on: "This occurs to most thoughtful people independently, usually in about middle school or so, but most people manage to let go of it in favor of a world where we can talk about things and think about things that exist." This is also true. I suspect it occurred to you at about that age also. If you wish to deny the truth of my statements - to say that most people do not realize it at that age - or if you wish to deny the truth of my further elaboration - that you did not also discover it at about that age - then I will, of course, consider revising them. If you wish to deny the implication of your earlier argument - that if you really believed such a thing, you would be incapable of discussing things in any meaningful sense - then you may do so and we will proceed from there. However, the simple fact that you do not like the implications of your own arguments does not render mine abusive.

ME: I'm not particularly interested in what sorts of things people ascribe to God, or how they explain this fiction that they see. Your motives are your motives, and do not change the truth or falsity of what you see or do not see. As is true for me, of course.

YOU: See what I mean? BTW, ?this fiction that they see? is merely tendentious. How do you know God is a fiction? Because He doesn?t fit into the neatly constructed little universe you?ve made?

Ah, now here I plead guilty to lacking clarity. My intention was to say that I do not care how Marx, et. al., explain why people see God, or what Feuerbach ascribes belief in God to. I don't care how they explain it, or how anyone else explains it. That's it. I can see how my remarks might be misinterpreted, however, so hopefully this will clarify them somewhat.

You even go so far as to characterize me as a sophist. The essence of the sophist ?argument? is the demonstration that ?man is the measure.? This is precisely what I dispute, but what you appear to endorse. On that basis, which one of us is the sophist, general-re?

Wrong. I characterize your arguments as sophistic. I am quite sure that anyone returning to my post cannot help but see that. Not liking how I characterize your arguments is not ad hominem argumentation either.

My point was that it is unavoidable to intend objects of thought if we are going to think at all, especially abstractly. The problem with this is that often we ?cut the symbols? down to fit the size of our knowledge and imagination, and then mistake the reduced symbols for the reality to which they refer ? which has been deformed in this process. This is a common source of error. I have noticed you perform this type of operation, not only on God, but also on the universe and betty boop.

Luckily for me, I don't accept the validity of this "fallacy", and I merely point out yet again that this is an unavoidable effect of representing things abstractly. If this renders our reasoning about God invalid, it necessarily renders our reasoning about anything at all invalid. You may not like that implication, but it is clear and obvious, I think.

But let?s be honest: You couldn?t (I couldn?t) fully imagine all the implications and ramifications of the universe, or any thing in it, let alone God: But you still continue to think about these things, and try to understand them, don?t you? Just because the human mind is limited and contingent, does that necessarily mean all its ?conclusions? are invalid ? especially when we try to constantly remind ourselves that all knowledge is ?provisional,? so long as new discoveries are being made? Or do you think they have all been made already?

Now you're simply stating the obvious. We operate on the basis of the evidence available to us. How else are we to behave? But the fact that we don't have all the evidence available to us (and probably never will) doesn't change the fact that these are things we need to decide now. If you wish to take an agnostic position about the existence of God, you are, of course, free to do so up until such time as you feel adequate evidence is in the offing to justify some other decision. But just as I may not have all the evidence that potentially exists to aid me in my decision, neither do you know that there is any further evidence at all. For all you know, this is it. For all you know, this is all the information you get, so you might as well decide based on it. You surmise that maybe there's more evidence out there, I surmise that I've got enough now. Both of us are acting on faith of one kind or another.

I?ve done nothing of the sort. Unlike God and the universe, the Eiffel Tower is a physical object located at a particular set of geographical coordinates. I have seen it myself; but if I hadn?t, I could have seen it in picture, or perhaps a friend who had seen it would describe it to me. I do not need to know everything about every strut and stair, nut and bolt, in order to believe in the ?existence? of the Eiffel Tower.

No, no - you don't escape from your own arguments that easily. From your post #547:

This is the fallacy that lets us pretend that the universe in toto can be reduced to, and regarded as, an intentional object of consciousness ? a ?thing? ? about which propositions might be advanced. I think you treat the universe and God for that matter as simply ?things? like all other things that litter the landscape of space-time reality, ?things? amenable to sense perception; but they are not ?things? in this sense. The universe can never be an ?object? in this sense; neither can God.

My emphasis. This is not cast in terms of the existence of God - you are directly stating that God is not something about which we may advance propositions. Since we may not advance propositions, we may not reason or draw any conclusions about Him, not just about his existence. I reject that argument wholly and entirely. If we are not permitted to make propositions about God because we are incompletely representing Him when we are reasoning abstractly about him, then by extension, since we are incompletely representing anything when we are reasoning abstractly about it, we may not advance propositions about anything. Therefore, we may not reason abstractly about anything at all.

QED, Betty. Sorry. If you wanna change your story, be my guest, but the implications of your argument are clear.

You skipped over answering this question: Why would God need to be defended against the revelation of His own Truth? Instead, you impute the following to me: ?The Bible-as-literal-truth and as the literal Word of God still works for you, does it? Catastrophism, creation-in-six-literal-days?.? By all means please do dig up Physicist on the value of pi in the Bible. I?d love to see it.

Will do. Give me a bit of time for the digging. And I impute nothing to you in that excerpt - I merely ask for informational purposes. If you do not wish to answer those questions, I would find that understandable.

And we?re back right where we started ? with an accidental universe, which accidentally generates its own rules as it goes along. And yet somehow, ?the universe is the way it is, and not some other way.?

Anthropic principle. See my post #660 for some elaboration. More information on the Anthropic principle should be available via Google.

A mathematician ? Leibnitz -- noticed this interesting fact. In meditating the problem, he seems to have dismissed the possibility of an accidental universe.

A new fallacy. Good for you. ;)

This is, of course, the fallacy of argument ad verecundiam - the appeal to inappropriate authority. Leibniz has no special claim on matters of universal truth, nor do his mathematical insights give him any particular authority with respect to the nature of any other potential universes, or even this one, really.

If the universe is an infinite regression of accidents piling up, from moment to moment it could be any way at all instead of being the way it is.

Sure.

A limit, not an accident, is necessary in order for something to be the way it is

This contradicts what you just said right before it. It could be any way at all - it doesn't have to be this way, you're right. This way is just as likely as any other way if it's an accident. Therefore, accident explains the way it is as well.

otherwise, any ?something? could only be conceptualized as a "no-thing" -- a transition in an infinite series of transitions that never comes to rest as a something -- a transition in an infinite series of transitions that never comes to rest as a something --that is, anything or nothing or everything BUT a particular existent thing having a given essence or nature.

This makes no sense to me - can you elaborate?

If everything were accidental, though, on what basis could anything persist?

Why shouldn't it? And who's to say it will? ;)

671 posted on 05/13/2002 2:33:54 PM PDT by general_re

But it has been suggested via the "Anthropic Principle" ... that only certain sorts of universes are conducive to the rise of reasoning observers.

Usually the emphasis is that we shouldn't be surprised that we observe such a (fine-tuned) universe - it's required for our existence. That's "weak" AP - the "strong" version is the teleological/religious argument that the universe exists to create reasoning observers.

But the question presumes a sort of answer in the way it is framed - why assume that the way things are is the only possible way for things to be?

Just making use of the Copernican Principle from which we'd expect out universe to be more rather than less typical of those that produce observers.

All these things may very well be possible, but none of them seem likely to result in rational creatures who goggle in wonder at the awesomeness of the space they inhabit

On what basis do you consider this likely or unlikely? If you're simply applying the CP, you're not saying anything different than I.

In any case, my original point was (and I think you may be agreeing with it) that simplicity is an objective property of the universe unlike the other things you were discussing which I agree are subjective. I'm also saying there probably is a reason for this simplicity and wouldn't it be cool if we knew what it was. To be clear I'm not making an argument for "God" or anything like that which really isn't any sort of reason at all.

672 posted on 05/13/2002 5:58:42 PM PDT by edsheppa

To: PatrickHenry

673 posted on 05/13/2002 7:44:31 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

The truth is what it is, and appeals to emotion do not change it one whit.

What I gave you was not an appeal to emotion. If it was an appeal to anything, it was to the innate human ability to sense the truth (though it can often be a source of emotion, just as the law of gravity can be a sourc- WHOAA! OW! ^%#%@!!). It can't be explained using axiomatic starting points, because it is an axiomatic starting point (just like the color green, if you've been following my earlier conversation with tortoise). It can only be seen, not explained.

And just in case I can get across my point further, there's something else I just want to say. Many of the totalitarian atrocities over the past centuries, including the Nazi Holocaust, were in fact orchestrated by reasoning minds. Yes it's true that they employed "appeals to emotion" on the part of their subject peoples in order carry out their plans, but those who devised them did so out of the "rational" belief that their murderous programs would usher in a new golden age for humanity (or for whatever portion of it was left over). It may be entirely possible that they could have pulled it off, and, if they were able to take over the world, promote the overall survival of the species. I hope you could nonetheless see that it wouldn't be worth it in either case - that murder is an evil end in and of itself. But there's not much left I can say to explain why, beyond my last little "appeal to emotion". You'll just have to decide whether or not you wish to look inside to see for yourself.

674 posted on 05/13/2002 7:44:31 PM PDT by inquest

Me: But the question presumes a sort of answer in the way it is framed - why assume that the way things are is the only possible way for things to be?

You: Just making use of the Copernican Principle from which we'd expect out universe to be more rather than less typical of those that produce observers.

Well, yes - that's what we'd expect of our universe. But that doesn't preclude the existence of other, more perverse universes. IOW, if you're simply making an observation, I'm with you all the way. If you're observing this and drawing from it the conclusion that somehow this universe is "special" or "privileged", then I have to part ways with you - I don't see any particular reason to believe that. So let me make sure we're on the same page before I sign up just yet...

AP has it's problems, to my mind. I'm not entirely sure I'm prepared to sign on to either version of it - strong's a non-starter for me, and weak seems...weak ;)

Although, I admit that I find the Doomsday argument endlessly fascinating - it appeals to the dark side of my sense of humor ;)

Maybe. I'll sleep on it, how about that? ;)

675 posted on 05/13/2002 8:33:16 PM PDT by general_re

What I gave you was not an appeal to emotion.

Aw, come on now - I didn't just fall off a turnip truck, you know. You don't start off with the premise "Imagine 60 slavering bikers hopped up on crystal meth are crawling through your window to kill you and rape your wife and daughter," and then expect rational responses, do you? This is a slight exaggeration, but the point is clear, I hope - it's inevitable that such a thing will provoke emotional responses, whether you intend it that way or not :^)

Many of the totalitarian atrocities over the past centuries, including the Nazi Holocaust, were in fact orchestrated by reasoning minds. Yes it's true that they employed "appeals to emotion" on the part of their subject peoples in order carry out their plans, but those who devised them did so out of the "rational" belief that their murderous programs would usher in a new golden age for humanity (or for whatever portion of it was left over).

They surely would have claimed it was rational, to be sure. But you notice that they never actually put that argument out there in the public sphere for people to consider. No matter how rational they might have thought their position to be, they never put those "reasoned" arguments on display, preferring instead the nastiest sorts of appeal to emotion.

Perhaps they didn't entirely believe in the rationality of their desires. Perhaps they just liked power, and did whatever they had to do to preserve their hold of it. If you want to blame failures of logic and reason for the Holocaust, put the blame where it belongs - on the people of Europe, for not seeing through the smokescreen that the Nazis presented. Blame it on too little reason, too late.

It may be entirely possible that they could have pulled it off, and, if they were able to take over the world, promote the overall survival of the species. I hope you could nonetheless see that it wouldn't be worth it in either case - that murder is an evil end in and of itself.

Of course. Way back in post #601, I said in passing to Diamond that the ends cannot be used to justify the means. That's as much a rational judgement as it is a moral one, I think.

676 posted on 05/13/2002 8:53:08 PM PDT by general_re

To: general_re; BMCDA

...he's saying that you can't be sure that your skepticism is entirely justified. Somewhere out there might be evidence that would convince you of the truth of a particular thing. Because your insight and your knowledge is necessarily limited (you aren't omniscient, after all), you may not (and probably don't) have access to all the facts of the situation.

Yes. That's exactly it, with the additional proviso that I mentioned in 244; that to the extent that skepticism about the existence of God is a positive claim or characterization about the external world (specifically an allegation of a lack of sufficient evidence for His existence), and not merely an expression of personal doubt, then it should be able to be be justified.

BMCDA: I contend that skepticism is the default position and that the skeptic doesn't have to justify his position. He may do so but he isn't obliged to, but he who makes the claim.

If God exists, and has revealed enough of Himself in space/time history, and in verbal, propositional form to hold us accountable, then skepticism about His existence is obviously not the properly basic default position. Such a position in the face of God would be unreasonable and irrational.

If this were not the case, then we'd believe every crackpot idea we're confronted with despite the lack of any evidence backing it up (yeah, I know, this is the case).

No, our opinions would then (or should be) regulated by what He has revealed of Himself Who by definition cannot be a crackpot.

...And that's exactly my point: I'm skeptical because I am not omniscient. If I were, there'd be nothing I could be skeptical of.

Yes, that is true. But it is also true that because you are not omniscient you also do not know enough to be certain of your doubt. That is the paradoxical dilemma. I am assuming for the sake of argument that your doubt constitutes an objection to the existence of God, and not merely an expression of personal doubt. An objection entails a positive claim about the extent of evidence (or lack of) in the external world regarding God's revelation of Himself in Scripture, the external world, and personal, internal experience of God.

Cordially,

677 posted on 05/14/2002 8:04:21 AM PDT by Diamond

Help me out here, general. Are you saying that the evil was the just the failure of reason? I don't understand how in the evolutionary sense, blame or praise can be assigned to anything they did, since you say that a reasoned case cannot necessarily be made for either survial or extinction preferences.

Without God there is no absolute right or wrong to impose on our conscience. So in the atheistic view, what if Eichmann could have entirely escaped the social consequences of his actions? Would there then have been anything really wrong with, say, his devious and clever luring of more victims by forcing his prisoners to write postcards to their relatives telling them how wonderful the camps were, and to be sure to wear good shoes when they came because they would be staying a long time? If Eichmann had escaped justice, how could his actions be seen as a failure of rationality?

Cordially,

678 posted on 05/14/2002 8:50:48 AM PDT by Diamond

Help me out here, general. Are you saying that the evil was the just the failure of reason?

What I'm saying is that, had their audiences taken the time to consider what they were being told rationally rather than being swayed by their own prejudices and emotions, then the rise of National Socialism would have been a non-issue. In the absence of an audience that is willing to deceive itself about the goals, aims, and methods of the Nazis, then there is no fascist rise to power in Germany. Without the people as willing participants in their own deception, Hitler is just some housepainter with one testicle, not the world's greatest madman.

I don't understand how in the evolutionary sense, blame or praise can be assigned to anything they did, since you say that a reasoned case cannot necessarily be made for either survial or extinction preferences.

We have to take some things as a matter of definition - it's a different sort of faith, if you like. If we think of people's preferences as being compelling, then we can construct a rational case for life being better than death. IOW, I ask you which you prefer, you say "life", and that's the end of it. It will, however, break down if you and I try exploring why you prefer life over death - there, the rational case becomes much more difficult to put together. But we don't really have to do that - we just have to take preferences like that as given.

So, if we accept your preference for being alive as a priori valid, we have no real problems - we can define what the Nazis did as wrong quite easily.

Without God there is no absolute right or wrong to impose on our conscience.

I don't think Eichmann was particularly troubled by his conscience in any case - here was a man who wished to justify the means by pointing to the ends, after all, which I already suggested should be out-of-bounds.

So in the atheistic view, what if Eichmann could have entirely escaped the social consequences of his actions? Would there then have been anything really wrong with, say, his devious and clever luring of more victims by forcing his prisoners to write postcards to their relatives telling them how wonderful the camps were, and to be sure to wear good shoes when they came because they would be staying a long time?

Once we've accepted this preference for life over death as valid, then this is wrong by those lights. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, we can still call it "wrong" as a dysfunctional practice - this is both murder and deception, which I suggested are both dysfunctional.

If Eichmann had escaped justice, how could his actions be seen as a failure of rationality?

Not as a failure of rationality, but as a failure of us - our failure for not applying it to him. If he escapes justice because we let him go, then the failure is ours, not logic's. If he escapes because he's really clever and slipped past us, then...these things happen. We tried to get him, but success is never guaranteed, of course.

679 posted on 05/14/2002 9:26:39 AM PDT by general_re

susan collins (R) Maine, could have only evolved from pond scum and sewer setament. Now, give me the money!

680 posted on 05/14/2002 9:31:24 AM PDT by Alas

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794