Datheron

Ed,

Please do not put words in my mouth. I said the Universe, on the basis of each individual molecule, is random; statistics is exactly the study of that random distribution and the patterns found therein. Don't even try that strawman with me.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?! I've said this more than once, and it seems to fall upon you on dead ears. Experiments have shown that while each individual particle cannot be predicted, the statistical probability of a collection of particles can be quite accurately predicted. Do you know how particle accelerators work? They smash a few atoms onto another material, then look at the resulting image composed of millions of particles, which looks pretty much the same every time, albeit the expected shifts in those very same particles which scatter and go about randomly. Do you know the premise of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle? It states that randomness is a fundamental property of the Universe. Please wake up and smell the sweet fragrance of modern physics. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

As for the insult, as you can tell, your ignorance in the matter (that was not an ad hom attack) is visibly irritating me.

Not so fast there, buster. How do YOU know political views aren't outside the Universe? You said yourself (which I disagree with, but it's always fun to make you eat your own philosophy) that we assume that something transcends the Universe until proven otherwise. So, in fact, political views could very well exist and would exist outside the Universe.

What? Of course polytheistic religions are unities - they are united by the people that worship them. One only has to think about the Greek/Roman Gods to see that they were unified by familyhood anyway, so you've got problems either way.

And what of....humanity?! What you're employing is something known as "grouping similar terms". That is nothing special - we, as humans, have a natural tendency to match and group objects together when we detect similarity, and this is no different. Then again, I don't see any married couples running around sacrificing each other to themselves to save them from their self-induced wrath either.

I truly doubt that claim, Ed. Much like most of your assertions, it comes as unfounded, and I can attest to the fact that you certainly do not sound like a scientist at all. If you were indeed a biologist, then you would have known the historical fossil record which shows very clearly the way which prehistoric animals have evolved into modern ones. There have been a lot of study in this field, Ed ol' chap...if you don't like their conclusions because of their poor evidence, then by golly, show me why and give me your evidence. Also, start sounding like a biologist.

But not so. Remember your law of sufficient cause? For evil to exist, the creator must have had that property. All the acts of evil that we have seen required an evil agent, which "proves" that God is evil. (BTW, as I've said before, I do not subscribe to this)

I'll drop the non-existence, but I do not see the problem with stellar evolution (and exactly when did I bring that up anyway?), as it is very well known that certain gaseous clouds are the birthplaces of stars. And ya know, the constants for gravity are nothing special - the masses and distances are the big factors in determining the force of gravity. If gravity was twice or three times as strong/weak, all that means is that galaxies would be closer/further apart, and the restrictions for black hole formation would be accordingly changed. No biggie.

Speaking of which, I still await that step-by-step analysis.

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Datheron ]</p>

Ed

What artificial distinction? The distinction is real, just as real as the distinction between life and non-life. You haven't demonstrated that the distinction is artificial. Please give an example of impersonal object that has a mind, will, and conscience.

Quote:

Rim:Unless you wish to define "personal" as "that which cannot come from the personal" you have no case; and if you did define it such, you would still have no case, because you'd be employing circular reasoning.

Huh? I dont understand the last comment. But anyway, since that definition is not adequate to describe personal then there no rational basis for using it and since throughout all of human experience the personal has only come from persons such a definition is unfounded.

Quote:

Ed: Because morality cannot come from amorality. Rim nce again, more artificial, arbitrary definitions, distinctions, and walls, with no reason behind them.

Ok, give an example of morality coming from amorality or some impersonal source.

Quote:

Ed: What's wrong? You don't know who you are? Is what makes you you, vague and mysterious? Rim: No, your defining personal in such a obfuscated and shallow way is "vague and mysterious." You really think including "what makes you you" in the definition of "personal" is a logical argument against the "personal arising from the impersonal?"

No, I am just trying to help you to understand what a person is. You are a person and therefore what makes you you is also what makes a person.

Quote:

Ed: It is what we are doing right now. Communicating with propositions. Rim:What, using Internet message boards is propostitional communication? Be specific, get off your crutch of obfuscationism and see if you can still wlak on those theistic legs.

Propositional communication is communication using verbal statements either written, spoken, symbolic, typed, or etc. Now do you understand?

Quote:

Ed: You are still erroneously assuming that an effect is a mirror image of its cause. See above. Rim:Above: "For example, an early scientist determining the cause of rain might notice that rain falls whenever clouds are over head. So he may deduce that clouds are the cause of rain and that the clouds are made up of water or have what it takes to make water. " Besides the fact that the whole argument is a vague, poorly constructed analogy, and thus explains nothing, this is the problem: You made the following analogy: "The First Cause is to the Universe as a stormcloud is to rain." Thus, if we can infer that rain is made of some of the substance of the cloud, we can infer that the First Cause is made of some of the substace of the Universe (hydrogen and helium) by your own analogy.

Or what it takes to produce helium and hydrogen. But you are correct up to a point. But since helium and hydrogen are things that require energy and matter to exist and since energy and matter only exist in space then they are unlikely to exist outside the space-time universe, therefore it is unlikely to be part of the cause of the universe.

Quote:

Ed:Your earlier argument about scientists making inferences from the effects and thus discussing the probabilities of the cause having certain properties fails because science is a tool used to explain observations made about the Universe. The logical processes of science may not work outside the Universe, where your "trancendant" First Cause supposedly exists.

Yes that is a possibility but it is rational to assume that they do. The burden of proof is on those that say we should throw out logic.

Quote:

Rim:Further, your later argument that the First Cause must be omnipotent eliminates any possible discussion of what properties it must or will probably have, since it can do anything. An omnipotent "unity" of a first cause can create anything, supposedly, even a "diversity within a unity." So which one are you going to throw out: your argument that a "diversity-within-a-unity" Universe must have been created by a "diversity-within-a-unity" First Cause, or that the First Cause must be omnipotent? It's one or the other, bud.

No, the biblical teaching of omnipotence does not mean that he can do absolutely anything. He is limited by his moral character and logic. And a basic law of logic is the law of sufficient cause therefore the cause of the universe must have what it takes to produce a diversity within a unity, and only the christian God has that characteristic therefore it is rational in conjunction with his other characteristics to assume that he is the cause of the universe.


[b] No need for the condescending attitude. I think I have demonstrated the validity of my arguements.

Ed

No, the trinity is an implied doctrine derived from the scriptures which was understood in an early form in the middle of the 1st century but was formalized in greater detail in the 4th century by the biblical scholar Athanasius. What do you mean supposed? Jesus' existence is better documented than Caesar's Gallic wars. There are no verses that specifically mention diversity within a unity but that is the implied teaching of the scriptures regarding the nature of God.

Quote:

Ed:And this truth was discovered long before it was known that the universe was also diversity within a unity. Rim:"This truth?" You're arguing from what you are trying to prove. "This unfounded, dogmatic, mythological assertion" is more like it. Oh, and it wasn't "discovered," is was "invented;" about 400 years after the time Jesus was supposed to be living.

As a christian I consider it a truth about God. See above about how it was derived from scripture not invented.

Quote:

Rim:Further, you have yet to demonstrate that the Universe is a "diversity within a unity," as your definition of this term is so vague as to be rendered meaningless.

What do you think the word "universe" means? The universe is made up galaxies (a unity) but there are many different types of galaxies (diversity), galaxies are made up of stars(a unity) but there are many different types of stars (diversity) and I could go all the way down to the atomic level. Now do you understand?

[b] Genesis teaches that the universe had a definite beginning at least 3000 years before cosmological evidence was discovered that pointed to the same truth. And every year archaeologists discover evidence that confirms the accuracy of the gospels. Just recently Caiphas' tomb was found, he was the high priest that was at Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin. And there are many other examples.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Ed

You are forgiven. But unlike many people on this board I have a life outside the internet, IOW I dont have time to expound my answers for hours!

Quote:

Ed:I am not sure what you mean by judge, but animal behaviorists make "judgements" about animals minds and how much they are similar or disimilar to humans all the time. Dat:But they are hypotheses at best, and certainly not scientific facts which can be absolute. For example, scientists discovered that cockroaches have the ability to navigate through a maze; however, that does not mean that cockroaches only have the intelligence to navigate mazes, but rather that they may possess the ability to do more interesting things.

It depends on what kind of maze. Some mazelike apparati are similar to what cockroaches do in nature instinctively to find food so it hardly qualifies as abstract reasoning. What do you consider "more interesting"?

Quote:

Ed:Intelligence is most definitely part of the definition of person. Animals have some intelligence but most scientists agree that they can not do abstract reasoning. Everything that I have mentioned most scientists agree that animals do not have. I have already given you the evidence that only persons can produce the personal, this has been empirically observed throughout all of human history. Dat:No, scientists definitely do not agree on anything of the sort - they agree that the findings so far show no indication of animal intelligence on the level of abstract thought, but that says nothing about its existence in animals. You're trying to make absolute statements on animal behavior based on very crude understanding of the minds of animals, which is dubious at best.

There may not be absolute proof that animals cannot reason abstractly, but all the evidence points to that fact. But even just simple animal minds existences cannot be explained adequately by resorting to mindless impersonal processes.

Quote:

Ed:Well logic has been shown consistent throughout all of human history. So why not assume it is valid outside the universe? We should assume it is valid until proven otherwise, that is what scientists have always done. Dat:Well, perhaps because "all of human history" is still within this Universe?

Just because we haven't experienced "outside" this universe doesnt mean we cannot use logic to understand it. There are many things we have not experienced and yet use logic to explain them, ie subatomic particles, prehistory, deep space, black holes and etc.

Quote:

Dat:As for what "scientists have always done", that is a false statement, and shame on you for trying to push it as truth. Nothing is assumed to be valid without some verification; whether that be in the form of a formal proof, some mathematical proof, or deductive logical reasoning, there is always some rationale behind the extrapolation. Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, a lot of scientific findings are actually in limbo until multiple sources can verify its validity - case in point, Einstein's general relativity was detailed mathematically and logically, but it took direct observation (experiment) to solidify the idea, and even then there is still wiggle room (in the light of a contradicting Quantum Mechanical world). All in all, you cannot assume beyond what you know, and no scientist falls to that fallacy.

See above about things that we try to explain that cannot be truly directly observed.


[b] Actually my wording was poor, what I should have said was they can transcend the directly observable. See above about things that cannot be directly observed and yet we use logical extrapolations to explain.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Datheron

Ed,

As they say, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Being on these boards requires, some would say, a level of commitment. At the very least, you should be willing to spend the time and energy defending your viewpoint thoroughly; if you could research and cite your sources, that would be even better. But until you do, it's hard to take you seriously.

How do you know that it is instinct, rather than intellect? The mind is complicated, and not only for humans, but for all organisms with the organ. We are very ignorant about its workings and its limits; to rule something like abstract thought away from other animals without any clue as to what animals are even thinking is absurd.

WHAT evidence? The truth is, we have no evidence whatsoever for or against the case - do you know what your dog thinks? Or the language that he speaks? (and I don't mean body language, either) Animal psychology is very primitive, mostly because we don't have many much knowledge on animal communication and hence animal thoughts. Your "evidence" is an argument from ignorance.

And once again, I wonder how you can go and claim that they cannot come from impersonal processes without any clue as to their structure and workings.

I have already explained this - the assumption is made that anything within our Universe follows the laws of physics and logic. Once again, that says nothing about the conditions outside the Universe. We can directly verify that these laws apply; that is why the assumption has remained true thus far. On the other hand, you wish to make an assumption where no verification can exist. I do not see how you can stubbornly continue to assert your case when, once again, there is no evidence either way. Your attempts to a) shift the burden of proof and b) argue from our ignorance of the matter is unflattering.

Ed, they cannot be observed, period. There is no conceivable way for you to observe anything outside our Universe. There is no reason for you to believe that you can. Hence, there is no reason for me to believe that any assertion that you make on the properties outside this Universe have an ounce of truth to them.

&lt;sighs&gt; You have a lot to learn about science, that's for sure.

Ed

Actually if you read my post more carefully you will see that what I said was that animals don't have full personality but they do have some aspects of personality.

[b] Why are they not reconcilable? I don't see any inconsistency. We should assume that animals don't have a full personality until proven otherwise.

Ed

As I said the molecules are random but randomness within the laws of nature which provides some order, ie not pure chaos.

Quote:

Ed:I think that they would say all gas molecules obey the laws of physics. Now of course they cannot predict exactly where and how every gas molecule will move(maybe that is the randomness you are referring to), but they never violate the laws of physics and therefore are not truly chaotic or totally random. BTW there is no need for the crude personal attack. Dat O YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?! I've said this more than once, and it seems to fall upon you on dead ears. Experiments have shown that while each individual particle cannot be predicted, the statistical probability of a collection of particles can be quite accurately predicted. Do you know how particle accelerators work? They smash a few atoms onto another material, then look at the resulting image composed of millions of particles, which looks pretty much the same every time, albeit the expected shifts in those very same particles which scatter and go about randomly. Do you know the premise of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle? It states that randomness is a fundamental property of the Universe. Please wake up and smell the sweet fragrance of modern physics.

Well you are talking about two different things, first you talk about molecules then you change to subatomic particles. But anyway the fact that their behavior can be predicted statistically is because they operate according to rational laws.

Quote:

Ed olitical views are not outside the universe and could in fact be argued that they are effects and not causes, political views are not causes the people that believe them are. So they cannot be the cause of the universe. So using logic eliminates them and confirms God. Dat:Not so fast there, buster. How do YOU know political views aren't outside the Universe? You said yourself (which I disagree with, but it's always fun to make you eat your own philosophy) that we assume that something transcends the Universe until proven otherwise. So, in fact, political views could very well exist and would exist outside the Universe.

Because there is no evidence that they are outside the universe. Huh? I never said that we assume something transcends the universe until proven otherwise. That would be absurd.

Quote:

Ed olytheistic religions are just diversities, each god is a different god so there is no unity and therefore they cannot be the cause of the universe. The correct understanding of the trinity is not a contradiction. God is three in person and one in essence(his divinity). That is not contradictory. It is similar to a husband and wife being two in person and one in their humanity. Dat:What? Of course polytheistic religions are unities - they are united by the people that worship them. One only has to think about the Greek/Roman Gods to see that they were unified by familyhood anyway, so you've got problems either way.

No, in order to be a diversity within a unity they would have to be united by essence. Each of the greek gods have a different essence.

Quote:

Ed: And what of....humanity?! What you're employing is something known as "grouping similar terms". That is nothing special - we, as humans, have a natural tendency to match and group objects together when we detect similarity, and this is no different. Then again, I don't see any married couples running around sacrificing each other to themselves to save them from their self-induced wrath either.

Our essence is our humanity and God's essence is his divinity. Your last statement is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote:

Ed:I dont discredit them because I dont like their conclusions because God could have very well have used a type of evolution to create Man but the problem is with the evidence, and as a biologist, I know the evidence for evolution quite well. Dat:I truly doubt that claim, Ed. Much like most of your assertions, it comes as unfounded, and I can attest to the fact that you certainly do not sound like a scientist at all. If you were indeed a biologist, then you would have known the historical fossil record which shows very clearly the way which prehistoric animals have evolved into modern ones. There have been a lot of study in this field, Ed ol' chap...if you don't like their conclusions because of their poor evidence, then by golly, show me why and give me your evidence. Also, start sounding like a biologist.

Alright I will try to sound like a biologist. The fossil record shows systematic gaps between phyla, classes, and families. And the late comer theory called punctuated equilibrium is the desperate attempt to explain those gaps.

Quote:

Ed:The existence of evil and sin is the result of morally autonomous beings living in this universe. Humans are free to choose good or evil and they usually choose evil. Ask SingleDad to explain to you how non-existence does not exist. Actually stellar evolution cannot occur without pre-existing stars. And how did gravity have just the right amount of pull to produce galaxies? Dat:But not so. Remember your law of sufficient cause? For evil to exist, the creator must have had that property. All the acts of evil that we have seen required an evil agent, which "proves" that God is evil. (BTW, as I've said before, I do not subscribe to this)

No, see my posts to Rimstalker above about the effect not being a mirror image of the cause.

[b] You need pre-existing stars in the gaseous clouds to produce new stars. And you need stars to have galaxies. If the gravity was greater or lesser our earth's atmosphere would not support life. What step by step analysis?

Datheron

Ed,

Some order - which is fine. I am talking about the fact that randomness is a fundamental property of the Universe, which you tried to refute with a weak

"We just call random because we can not predict it."

Like I said, you've backpedalled and now arrive at a point of agreement with me; basically admitting that I am indeed correct. Thank you.

Then forgive my loose language, for it was quite obvious that I meant subatomic particles, for those are what QM deals with. Also remember that statistics is never a fully accurate prediction - you must know that any statistical prediction has a probability sign posted on the figure, and for good reason. The only "law" that exists for probability and statistics is a certain range, and even that is never truly accurate; we cannot guarantee that every particle obey those laws, only that as a whole they obey.

Indeed. And I quote,

"And you have not shown that it is rational to throw out the laws of logic outside the universe given that we cannot learn anything without them!"

-Ed

Need I say more?

Says who? Are galaxies unified "by essence"? What of the diversity of animals, of human emotions, etc? What holds them together other than physical/designated groupings? Sheesh, such ad hoc definitions.

I think every statement that you have made here is quite irrelevant; they do not serve to actually answer to my queries, but add more fuel to the already blazing fire in which your argument happily dances in. The fact remains that you still have yet to show any stable, definable, or even consistent application of your "diversity within a unity" that cannot be explained by simple human psychology.

That's a good start. Now, explain why 1) these gaps are so few in number, if evolution does not make sense and 2) why you think punctuated equilibrium is ridiculous.

But what of the law of sufficient cause? God must have some tinge of evil in him to create evil; if he is not evil, then by law he cannot create evil. And if you still argue against it, then there's nothing stopping "persons" from being produced from "non-personal" means, the point brought home by your contradictory stance above.

No - you do not. If you have read up on the BB theory, you would know that the first gas clouds were formed by large masses of the first few elements of the periodic table - hydrogen and helium being the most abundant. They were, naturally, attracted into a cloud by mutual gravity, so it's definitely not miraculous in any way.

As for earth, note that earth itself is nothing special. If life didn't begin here, whoop-dee-do. It probably would have began somewhere else, and probably did begin somewhere else; nothing on this planet even comes close to suggesting that our particular location in the Universe is anything special. For more explanation, I suggest you take a quick read on the Anthropic Principle.

And finally, I was referring to the following section:

"No - you have to show me, step by step, exactly how you came about with the logic that these unrelated coincidences of the Universe (BTW, the galaxies example is because of gravity, not God) is somehow attributed by sufficient cause to some war-God deity."

Which I posted on Dec. 8.

Jack the Bodiless

FALSE. Ed, you need to learn more about other religions, particularly Hinduism. Everything you have posted so far supports Hinduism better than it supports Christianity.
Yes, this is laughable. OF COURSE the authors of the Bible would have incorporated real places, and even real people, into their stories. But the Bible was wrong about the Exodus (the Jews came from Caanan, not Egypt), wrong about the names and reigns of the Persian kings, wrong about the age of the Earth and the creation sequence, and wrong about the Great Flood. Furthermore, according to historians, the Jews weren't even monotheistic until the Babylonian captivity, monotheism was imposed on them by the Zoroastrians.

Ed

No, hinduism teaches that ultimately ALL is one. In other words, differences are an illusion and therefore everything is a unity. So the Hindu god is not sufficient to produce a true diversity. Christianity teaches that differences are real and yet there is an underlying unity.

Quote:

Ed:And though you may think it laughable, the scriptures have been shown time and again to be generally historically reliable. JTB:Yes, this is laughable. OF COURSE the authors of the Bible would have incorporated real places, and even real people, into their stories. But the Bible was wrong about the Exodus (the Jews came from Caanan, not Egypt),

There were semites already living in Canaan but there is evidence that the hebrews came from Egypt.

Quote:

JTB:wrong about the names and reigns of the Persian kings,

I am not sure what you are referring to.

[b] Actually contrary to popular opinion the scriptures do not give the age of the earth. How do you know the creation sequence is wrong? No humans were there. What do you mean wrong about the Great Flood?

[b] Which historians? There is evidence that the jews were monotheistic from Moses on.