[Tj3]

I don't about chance. But see my comments about the big bang earlier. To be frank, I'm fairly ignorant about the details of big bang theory, which may be one reason it doesn't compel my interest. But it's also because it has this "it just happened" aspect to it.

Evidence for it is also pretty sketchy.

The big bang that I believe in is God said it, and "bang" it happened!

But it would be really boring if I said "How does the computer work?" and you said, "IBM and Microsoft designed and built it." And if I asked any more questions, you got testy and said, "Microsoft works in mysterious ways. Do not question the CreatorTM." End of discussion. THAT's how religious explanations appear to me. There's no mechanism. There are certainly no design plans. No corporate history, no reason given for one design over another. Not so much as a patent application.

Some things are too far removed from our understanding. For example, if you took that same computer and put it in front of a young child and the child said tell me how you make a the computer chips - it would be beyond their ability to understand even the basics. The same is true, and even more so when we look at the understand of humans verses a being so powerful that he can speak things into being. You make think that he is boring, but I find Him anything but boring.

But the point remains - to reject something because you find it boring is definitely not a scientific approach.

[asking]

. You make think that he is boring, but i find Him anything but boring.

To refrain, I did not say that religious people were boring and I did not say that God was boring.

I said that using God to explain interesting questions about the real world is intellectually suffocating. It is an opinion. Opinions are not science. They are opinions, and that one is mine.

[Tj3]

I did not say that God was boring.

Yes you did - here is the quote:

"For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions." ( https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1558156 )

How exactly does this description vary from "boring"?

[inthebox]

Why stop there? What about the gravity religion?

I think many of us would not take too seriously someone who denied gravitational force on the grounds that it is not mentioned in the Bible.

And if the gravity-denier produced as evidence photos of astronauts floating in the space shuttle while orbiting the earth, we still wouldn't take his denial of gravity seriously.

Why? Because it isn't *evidence* that there is no such thing as gravitational force.

The problem with contrary evidence that is proposed in order to expose the falsity of evolution is that it isn't *evidence* of any such thing.

I've seen people at ths very site propose an unusually warm summer or mild winter as *evidence* that there is no global warming. But, of course, it isn't *evidence* of any such thing.

You might think that evolutionary theory and global warming are bunk. You might think proponents of these views are fanatical in their defense. But even so, and even if you're right and they're all wrong, that doesn't make what they believe a religion. That would make it an ideology.

Gravity can be measured and observed. Can macro evolution be observed? Has it been observed?

Take one cell : genetic material, mitochondria or chloroplasts, ribosomes aminoacids ---these are the minimum and I'm allowing you that:

What research paper demonstrtates that this one cell becomes a reproducing mulitcellular organism?

That is one cell taken all the way to trillions of cells that we have?

What observable/ experimental evidence makes this plausible by evolution?

There is NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for this. And that makes evolution science fiction.
It takes faith and because of that it is a religion.


There is more evidence in archaeology and in the lives of believers for Jesus Christ ;)








G&P

[Akoue]

Gravity can be measured and observed. Can macro evolution be observed? Has it been observed?

I find the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution to be utterly artificial and obfuscating. But yes, evolution can be observed.

Take one cell : genetic material, mitochondria or chloroplasts, ribosomes aminoacids ---these are the minimum and I'm allowing you that:

What research paper demonstrtates that this one cell becomes a reproducing mulitcellular organism?

That is one cell taken all the way to trillions of cells that we have?

What observable/ experimental evidence makes this plausible by evolution?

Are you thinking that an inability to answer your question vitiates evolutionary theory? If so, you're making things far too easy for yourself.

Tell me whether your inability to answer the following question vitiates Christianity: What was God doing before he created?

There is NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for this. And that makes evolution science fiction.
It takes faith and because of that it is a religion.

It would appear you and I have very different conceptions of faith.

There is more evidence in archaeology and in the lives of believers for Jesus Christ ;)

Well, there certainly isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of God. Is that what you are getting at? I certainly don't deny the existence of Jesus--or of God, for that matter.

[Tj3]

I find the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution to be utterly artificial and obfuscating. But yes, evolution can be observed.

Micro-evolution ONLY.

Well, there certainly isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of God. Is that what you are getting at? I certainly don't deny the existence of Jesus--or of God, for that matter.

There is evidence for the existence of God. I have posted evidence on this board a number of times. And there is considerable evidence for the existence of Jesus and many of the key attributes and events during His time on earth, from Christian and from secular sources. Even from sources opposed to Christianity.

But proof of macro-evolution? None.

[Akoue]

Micro-evolution ONLY.

As I say, I reject the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. So if you want to hawk the fundamentalist line on this I'm probably not your best audience.

There is evidence for the existence of God. I have posted evidence on this board a number of times. And there is considerable evidence for the existence of Jesus and many of the key attributes and events during His time on earth, from Christian and from secular sources. Even from sources opposed to Christianity.

Yes, as I say, there is evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.

No, there is no evidence of God's existence in the sense of *evidence* that is relevant to science. God has no physical properties and so cannot figure in the physical sciences.

[Tj3]

As I say, I reject the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. So if you want to hawk the fundamentalist line on this I'm probably not your best audience.

This is why macro-evolution is called a religion. Scientists acknowledge and have defined the line. There is a book out by a leading scientist on this very topic. And yet there are those who for religious reasons, as you have shown, reject this division. This the believe in evolution os species is in fact believe by faith.

No, there is no evidence of God's existence in the sense of *evidence* that is relevant to science. God has no physical properties and so cannot figure in the physical sciences.

There is in fact evidence of God. You are typing on a computer. Do you believe that there is a designer of that computer? Have you anything of a physical nature related to that designer?

[Akoue]

This is why macro-evolution is called a religion. Scientists acknowledge and have defined the line. There is a book out by a leading scientist on this very topic. And yet there are those who for religious reasons, as you have shown, reject this division. This the believe in evolution os species is in fact believe by faith.

Nah, this is a line pushed by the Discovery Institute. If your "leading scientist" is Behe--as he was the last time this came up--you can keep him. The Discovery Institute is a crock.

There is in fact evidence of God. You are typing on a computer. Do you believe that there is a designer of that computer? Have you anything of a physical nature related to that designer?

This is not evidence of God. In fact, if you take one more step you'll have committed a fallacy, so best to turn around and go back whence you came. You have a REALLY loose notion of what counts as evidence.

You seem to want to try inference to the best explanation. Here's an example of how that works: I have a cat. I put a dish of cat food on the floor. Time elapses. I look to see that the food is gone. I infer from this that the cat ate the food. And that's a reasonable inference. But it's not a slam-dunk, of course. Nevertheless, I'd probably be prepared to assign it a high probability of being true, say .7.

Now you seem to want to say we can infer the existence of an artificer from the observed fact that physical phenomena exhibit a certain order and complexity. Here's where you want to be really careful, because there are lots of ways of constructing an invalid argument on the strength of this "intuition".

Evidence is only evidence within an explanatory framework, and within the explanatory framework of the physical sciences, nothing can count as evidence for God's existence. This because God is not physical.

If you want an argument for God's existence that has a chance of being at all compelling, you're probably better off with an a priori argument (a la Anselm) than with an a posteriori argument. A posteriori arguments for God's existence (of the sort you tried to sell asking) are really hard to make work, and Aquinas did it way better than you. And I don't buy his versions of the argument (hint: I don't share his allergy to infinite regresses).

[Tj3]

Nah, this is a line pushed by the Discovery Institute. If your "leading scientist" is Behe--as he was the last time this came up--you can keep him. The Discovery Institute is a crock.'

The Discovery Institute is one such scientific institute but there are many others. Again, science does not reject something out of hand simply because a person doesn't like it or agree with it. When you reject something in such a fashion, that is religion, not science.

This is not evidence of God. In fact, if you take one more step you'll have committed a fallacy, so best to turn around and go back whence you came. You have a REALLY loose notion of what counts as evidence.

Heh heh - I noticed that you dared not answer the question.

Evidence is only evidence within an explanatory framework, and within the explanatory framework of the physical sciences, nothing can count as evidence for God's existence. This because God is not physical.

Then I guess, based upon your reasoning, that you don't think - because thoughts are not physical, you have no evidence that they exist.

I find it interesting that the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, something never seen, is no problem for you. But when we discuss God, you reject out of hand even the idea that evidence can exist, though the evidence is overhwelming.

[asking]

There isn't one person who designed any of our computers from the ground up. The tools and parts for making modern computers have accumulated over time from different sources. Nobody today could build a desktop computer without the previous invention of all sorts of new technologies and materials. It has been a stepwise accumulation of information, where things that didn't work were discarded and things that did were used again in the next iteration, with some new improvement here or there.

[Tj3]

There isn't one person who designed any of our computers from the ground up. The tools and parts for making modern computers have accumulated over time from different sources. Nobody today could build a desktop computer without the previous invention of all sorts of new technologies and materials. It has been a stepwise accumulation of information, where things that didn't work were discarded and things that did were used again in the next iteration, with some new improvement here or there.

So do you deny that there are intelligent designers behind it, or not?

[Akoue]

The Discovery Institute is one such scientific institute but there are many others. Again, science does not reject something out of hand simply because a person doesn't like it or agree with it. When you reject something in such a fashion, that is religion, not science.

If you want to stick up for the Discovery Institute knock yourself out. Not sure why you think I'm rejecting their work because I don't like it. I don't like it because it's shoddy. If you think it's the bees knees then by all means, have at it.

heh heh - I noticed that you dared not answer the question.

That's right. I read it and began to quake with fear. "I dare not answer THAT question", I whispered to myself as I huddled in the corner of the room. "It could be my undoing."

Yes, computers have designers. From that it does not follow that the universe does. You see that right? That to infer from the fact that computers have designers to the claim that the universe has a designer would be fallacious. Sure you do.

Then I guess, based upon your reasoning, that you don't think - because thoughts are not physical, you have no evidence that they exist.

Mental states are second-order functional properties and events which supervene on first-order physical properties and events. And, as anyone who's ever read Descartes's Meditations knows, I don't need evidence for having thoughts. I'm HAVING them. There is no inference involved unless I am ascribing mental states to others. In that case, I have a quite considerable evidentiary base.

Do you think that second-order functional properties of first-order physical properties and systems are non-physical? Or are you making illicit assumptions?

I find it interesting that the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, something never seen, is no problem for you. But when we discuss God, you reject out of hand even the idea that evidence can exist, though the evidence is overhwelming.

As I have said several times now, in the sense of "evidence" that is relevant to the physical sciences, there is no evidence for God's existence. Are you confused about what it means to say that the physical sciences are PHYSICAL sciences? If not, why ask the question?

[Tj3]

If you want to stick up for the Discovery Institute knock yourself out. Not sure why you think I'm rejecting their work because I don't like it. I don't like it because it's shoddy. If you think it's the bees knees then by all means, have at it.

Again, I note that you ignore the fact that the Discovery Institute is one quality scientific Institute amongst many. I also note that you attack then without any basis for doing so. That is not scientific.

That's right. I read it and began to quake with fear. "I dare not answer THAT question", I whispered to myself as I huddled in the corner of the room. "It could be my undoing."

Indeed.

Yes, computers have designers. From that it does not follow that the universe does.

So then why do you think that anyone designed your computer? Do you take it by faith?

Mental states are second-order functional properties and events which supervene on first-order physical properties and events.

I did not discuss mental states - I said "thoughts". Show me physical evidence of a thought. Prove to me that a thought is physical.

As I have said several times now, in the sense of "evidence" that is relevant to the physical sciences, there is no evidence for God's existence. Are you confused about what it means to say that the physical sciences are PHYSICAL sciences? If not, why ask the question?

You are coming up with you own rules around evidence, contrary to what are used in science. And you are not using even your rules consistently.

[Akoue]

I also note that you attack then without any basis for doing so. That is not scientific.

You mean to say that you assume I have no basis for doing so.

BTW, are you familiar with the Dover case? What did you think about it?

So then why do you think that anyone designed your computer? Do you take it by faith?

Nope, it's a priori.

I did not discuss mental states - I said "thoughts". Show me physical evidence of a thought. Prove to me that a thought is physical.

Tom, thoughts are mental states.

Mental states (including thoughts, which are intentional mental states) are second-order functional properties of first-order physical properties. How do you understand the relation of second-order functional properties to first-order physical properties?

You are coming up with you own rules around evidence, contrary to what are used in science. And you are not using even your rules consistently.

How do you figure?

[asking]

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone describe the Discovery Institute as a scientific organization.

I haven't read their website lately, but 10 years ago they were quite open about their purpose, which THEY STATED was to undermine belief in evolution. Probably they don't say this anymore.

It's unclear why Tom is so obsessed with computer design. Yes, they are manufactured by people and the designs are upgraded at regular intervals, just like those for cars and couches. Tom, will God upgrade you and create a new marketing plan for you?

Prove to me that a thought is physical.

You just wrote your thought down, thus transmuting your thought from an electrochemical state in your brain to a set of light and dark pixels on my screen in California. I can't think of anything more physical than that. It's actually very cool, which is why I'm glad I don't have to be told that it's the result of God's intervention, instead of my actually having some vague understanding of how it works.

It's even cool to know that there is an entire group of mammals called the Afrotheria who have evolved to not have external testes, a state known as "testicond" and a big, big evolutionary step, since dangling the testes on the outside of the body is an unsafe place to keep them. But if God did that specially for elephants, hyraxes, and manatees, He has some curious preoccupations, and you have to wonder why He didn't provide the same upgrade for His personal favorites.

[Tj3]

You mean to say that you assume I have no basis for doing so.

That is what I am saying - so far you have done nothing but reject anything scientific which fails to agree with you out of hand.

BTW, are you familiar with the Dover case? What did you think about it?

You think that the courts are who determine what is and is not scientific? Do you think that the OJ Simpson case came to the right and logical conclusion based upon the evidence?

Nope, it's a priori.

So you agree that cases exist where physical evidence is not required.

Tom, thoughts are mental states.

You should check with a psychologist or psychiatrist. A mental state is a state of depression, a state of joy, etc. but is not a thought. You are making up definitions again.

How do you figure?

Have you been following the discussion?

[Tj3]

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone describe the Discovery Institute as a scientific organization.

Then maybe you have not been reading as widely as you should. And they are not the only scientists who oppose macro-evolution. The numbers are increasing, based entirely upon the scientific evidence.

It's unclear why Tom is so obsessed with computer design. Yes, they are manufactured by people and the designs are upgraded at regular intervals, just like those for cars and couches.

How would you know this? Have you seen the person designing you computer. Have you seen the person building your computer? How do you know that there was a person behind it?

Tom, will God upgrade you and create a new marketing plan for you?

I was upgraded by the fact that when I was saved, God's took away my sins.

You just wrote your thought down, thus transmuting your thought from an electrochemical state in your brain to a set of light and dark pixels on my screen in California. I can't think of anything more physical than that.

Agreed - so there can be physical evidence of something which is not physical which proves that which is non-physical exists.

Therefore, God need not be physical for there to be physical evidence of His existence.

[Akoue]

That is what I am saying - so far you have done nothing but reject anything scientific which fails to agree with you out of hand.

What that is scientific have I rejected?

You think that the courts are who determine what is and is not scientific? Do you think that the OJ Simpson case came to the right and logical conclusion based upon the evidence?

Geez, why so jumpy? I just wondered whether it got much press in Canada.

So you agree that cases exist where physical evidence is not required.

In the physical sciences, physical evidence absolutely is required. In conceptual analysis, not so much.

You should check with a psychologist or psychiatrist. A mental state is a state of depression, a state of joy, etc. but is not a thought. You are making up definitions again.

Actually, no, Tom. The sense of "state" that you just used is not the relevant sense, since we are talking about thoughts. (Clinical psychologists use "state" one way, neuroscientists use it another way, and cognitive scientists in still another.)

The following are all examples of *types* of mental states in the relevant sense of "state": thoughts, beliefs, desires, perceptions (sensory states).

So, to be clear: Thoughts are second-order functional properties or events which supervene on first-order physical properties or events. How do you understand this relation between second-order functional properties or events and their first-order supervenience bases?

[asking]

Then maybe you have not been reading as widely as you should. And they are not the only scientists who oppose macro-evolution. The numbers are increasing, based entirely upon the scientific evidence.

We've been through this. When I ask you to name practicing biologists who don't subscribe to theory of evolution or to provide evidence in support of an alternative scientific theory that explains all the facts, you change the subject. There are no such scientists. And "numbers" of what?

How do you know that there was a person behind it?

Last summer I was dating the person who invented the first laptop computer.

Will God go on a date with me?

I was upgraded by the fact that when I was saved, God's took away my sins.

Good answer!
But He gave me a different upgrade.

Therefore, God need not be physical for there to be physical evidence of His existence.

Akoue is the expert in this area, not me. But I haven't seen any physical evidence of God's existence. Anything you can point to can be explained more easily by ordinary events. I thought the whole point of God was to have faith without looking for proof or demanding miracles...