Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Please read the thread title, and stay on thread please, rather than command people to leave the thread.

I'm not following you there. Who is arbitrarily "commanding" people to leave the thread? Perhaps you're talking about people who troll threads because they have an axe to grind but no real import? Don't you just hate those kinds of philosophers!

And what you you take this sentence to mean?

I would strongly suggest:

"1. Refrain from posting in religious threads."

LOL?
If you have nothing to offer the thread, then maybe it is you who are trolling here?

SB!

There you go again, making assertions based upon pure emotion rather than logic (not that that's necessarily a bad thing)! For some reason, and only you would know, you seem to struggle incessantly with basic cause and effect. For instance, the specific ability to see things, like the colors of things (qualities of a thing), and make emotional decisions based upon those qualities/colors, confers little if any Darwinian biological survival advantages. Specifically, those things that enhance one's own quality of life but are unnecessary for survival in the jungle.

But hey, not all is lost, emotions are actually a good thing! You know, people make all sort of decisions, even life and death decisions, based upon how a thing looks and the resulting feelings about them. Even music, people make decisions based upon how a musician may present herself and the feelings associated with that experience. Hence these random things, relating to quality-of-life stuff, have no survival advantages:

1. SB purchased shoes and a dress because it makes her feel and look good (and has causal effects on her self-esteem)
2. SB fell in love because her partner looks good (causally, certainly the partner can't look bad to her)
3. SB purchased a house because it looks good, and she feels good about it
4. SB wears makeup because it makes her look and feel good, and enhances her self-esteem
5. SB purchased a vehicle because it looks good, and consequently she feels good about it
7. SB purchased a CD, or otherwise likes or dislikes certain kinds of music because it feels good to listen to it

Isn't that a miracle!!

AND:



In its new form the argument is directed not to the material objects of the universe as such, but to the underlying laws, where it is immune from Darwinian attack. To see why, let me first explain the essential character of Darwinian evolution. At its heart, Darwin's theory requires the existence of an ensemble, or a collection of similar individuals, upon which selection may act. For example, consider how polar bears may have come to blend so well with snow. Imagine a collection of brown bears hunting for food in snowy terrain. Their prey easily sees them coming and beats a hasty retreat. The brown bears have a hard time. Then, by some genetic accident, a brown bear gives birth to a white bear. The white bear makes a good living because it can creep up on its prey without being noticed so easily. It lives longer than its brown competitors and produces more white offspring.

They too fare better and produce still more white bears. Before long, the white bears are predominating, taking all the food, and driving the brown bears to ex-tinction. It's hard to imagine that something like the foregoing story isn't close to the truth. But notice how crucial it is that there be many bears to start with. One member of the bear ensemble is accidentally born white, and a selective advantage is gained over the others. The whole argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar, competing individuals. ---physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God.


And so, SB, you need to tell us where all the information and instructions are, in nature, that has all the causal powers necessary to bring things into existence. And that includes not only material matter itself, but self-directed, self-organized biological creatures who propagate, think and feel!

I anxiously await your reply!!

Do not hold your breath.

[3017Metaphysician]

I'm not following you there. Who is arbitrarily "commanding" people to leave the thread? Perhaps you're talking about people who troll threads because they have an axe to grind but no real import? Don't you just hate those kinds of philosophers!

And what you you take this sentence to mean?

I would strongly suggest:

"1. Refrain from posting in religious threads."

LOL?
If you have nothing to offer the thread, then maybe it is you who are trolling here?

SB!

There you go again, making assertions based upon pure emotion rather than logic (not that that's necessarily a bad thing)! For some reason, and only you would know, you seem to struggle incessantly with basic cause and effect. For instance, the specific ability to see things, like the colors of things (qualities of a thing), and make emotional decisions based upon those qualities/colors, confers little if any Darwinian biological survival advantages. Specifically, those things that enhance one's own quality of life but are unnecessary for survival in the jungle.

But hey, not all is lost, emotions are actually a good thing! You know, people make all sort of decisions, even life and death decisions, based upon how a thing looks and the resulting feelings about them. Even music, people make decisions based upon how a musician may present herself and the feelings associated with that experience. Hence these random things, relating to quality-of-life stuff, have no survival advantages:

1. SB purchased shoes and a dress because it makes her feel and look good (and has causal effects on her self-esteem)
2. SB fell in love because her partner looks good (causally, certainly the partner can't look bad to her)
3. SB purchased a house because it looks good, and she feels good about it
4. SB wears makeup because it makes her look and feel good, and enhances her self-esteem
5. SB purchased a vehicle because it looks good, and consequently she feels good about it
7. SB purchased a CD, or otherwise likes or dislikes certain kinds of music because it feels good to listen to it

Isn't that a miracle!!

AND:



In its new form the argument is directed not to the material objects of the universe as such, but to the underlying laws, where it is immune from Darwinian attack. To see why, let me first explain the essential character of Darwinian evolution. At its heart, Darwin's theory requires the existence of an ensemble, or a collection of similar individuals, upon which selection may act. For example, consider how polar bears may have come to blend so well with snow. Imagine a collection of brown bears hunting for food in snowy terrain. Their prey easily sees them coming and beats a hasty retreat. The brown bears have a hard time. Then, by some genetic accident, a brown bear gives birth to a white bear. The white bear makes a good living because it can creep up on its prey without being noticed so easily. It lives longer than its brown competitors and produces more white offspring.

They too fare better and produce still more white bears. Before long, the white bears are predominating, taking all the food, and driving the brown bears to ex-tinction. It's hard to imagine that something like the foregoing story isn't close to the truth. But notice how crucial it is that there be many bears to start with. One member of the bear ensemble is accidentally born white, and a selective advantage is gained over the others. The whole argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar, competing individuals. ---physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God.


And so, SB, you need to tell us where all the information and instructions are, in nature, that has all the causal powers necessary to bring things into existence. And that includes not only material matter itself, but self-directed, self-organized biological creatures who propagate, think and feel!

I anxiously await your reply!!

Do not hold your breath.

I know. SB seems to be hiding from the tough questions.

[Sculptor1]

And what you you take this sentence to mean?

I would strongly suggest:

"1. Refrain from posting in religious threads."

LOL?
If you have nothing to offer the thread, then maybe it is you who are trolling here?

SB!

There you go again, making assertions based upon pure emotion rather than logic (not that that's necessarily a bad thing)! For some reason, and only you would know, you seem to struggle incessantly with basic cause and effect. For instance, the specific ability to see things, like the colors of things (qualities of a thing), and make emotional decisions based upon those qualities/colors, confers little if any Darwinian biological survival advantages. Specifically, those things that enhance one's own quality of life but are unnecessary for survival in the jungle.

But hey, not all is lost, emotions are actually a good thing! You know, people make all sort of decisions, even life and death decisions, based upon how a thing looks and the resulting feelings about them. Even music, people make decisions based upon how a musician may present herself and the feelings associated with that experience. Hence these random things, relating to quality-of-life stuff, have no survival advantages:

1. SB purchased shoes and a dress because it makes her feel and look good (and has causal effects on her self-esteem)
2. SB fell in love because her partner looks good (causally, certainly the partner can't look bad to her)
3. SB purchased a house because it looks good, and she feels good about it
4. SB wears makeup because it makes her look and feel good, and enhances her self-esteem
5. SB purchased a vehicle because it looks good, and consequently she feels good about it
7. SB purchased a CD, or otherwise likes or dislikes certain kinds of music because it feels good to listen to it

Isn't that a miracle!!

AND:



In its new form the argument is directed not to the material objects of the universe as such, but to the underlying laws, where it is immune from Darwinian attack. To see why, let me first explain the essential character of Darwinian evolution. At its heart, Darwin's theory requires the existence of an ensemble, or a collection of similar individuals, upon which selection may act. For example, consider how polar bears may have come to blend so well with snow. Imagine a collection of brown bears hunting for food in snowy terrain. Their prey easily sees them coming and beats a hasty retreat. The brown bears have a hard time. Then, by some genetic accident, a brown bear gives birth to a white bear. The white bear makes a good living because it can creep up on its prey without being noticed so easily. It lives longer than its brown competitors and produces more white offspring.

They too fare better and produce still more white bears. Before long, the white bears are predominating, taking all the food, and driving the brown bears to ex-tinction. It's hard to imagine that something like the foregoing story isn't close to the truth. But notice how crucial it is that there be many bears to start with. One member of the bear ensemble is accidentally born white, and a selective advantage is gained over the others. The whole argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar, competing individuals. ---physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God.


And so, SB, you need to tell us where all the information and instructions are, in nature, that has all the causal powers necessary to bring things into existence. And that includes not only material matter itself, but self-directed, self-organized biological creatures who propagate, think and feel!

I anxiously await your reply!!

Do not hold your breath.

I know. SB seems to be hiding from the tough questions.

Where are these tough questions?

[3017Metaphysician]

SB!

There you go again, making assertions based upon pure emotion rather than logic (not that that's necessarily a bad thing)! For some reason, and only you would know, you seem to struggle incessantly with basic cause and effect. For instance, the specific ability to see things, like the colors of things (qualities of a thing), and make emotional decisions based upon those qualities/colors, confers little if any Darwinian biological survival advantages. Specifically, those things that enhance one's own quality of life but are unnecessary for survival in the jungle.

But hey, not all is lost, emotions are actually a good thing! You know, people make all sort of decisions, even life and death decisions, based upon how a thing looks and the resulting feelings about them. Even music, people make decisions based upon how a musician may present herself and the feelings associated with that experience. Hence these random things, relating to quality-of-life stuff, have no survival advantages:

1. SB purchased shoes and a dress because it makes her feel and look good (and has causal effects on her self-esteem)
2. SB fell in love because her partner looks good (causally, certainly the partner can't look bad to her)
3. SB purchased a house because it looks good, and she feels good about it
4. SB wears makeup because it makes her look and feel good, and enhances her self-esteem
5. SB purchased a vehicle because it looks good, and consequently she feels good about it
7. SB purchased a CD, or otherwise likes or dislikes certain kinds of music because it feels good to listen to it

Isn't that a miracle!!

AND:



In its new form the argument is directed not to the material objects of the universe as such, but to the underlying laws, where it is immune from Darwinian attack. To see why, let me first explain the essential character of Darwinian evolution. At its heart, Darwin's theory requires the existence of an ensemble, or a collection of similar individuals, upon which selection may act. For example, consider how polar bears may have come to blend so well with snow. Imagine a collection of brown bears hunting for food in snowy terrain. Their prey easily sees them coming and beats a hasty retreat. The brown bears have a hard time. Then, by some genetic accident, a brown bear gives birth to a white bear. The white bear makes a good living because it can creep up on its prey without being noticed so easily. It lives longer than its brown competitors and produces more white offspring.

They too fare better and produce still more white bears. Before long, the white bears are predominating, taking all the food, and driving the brown bears to ex-tinction. It's hard to imagine that something like the foregoing story isn't close to the truth. But notice how crucial it is that there be many bears to start with. One member of the bear ensemble is accidentally born white, and a selective advantage is gained over the others. The whole argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar, competing individuals. ---physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God.


And so, SB, you need to tell us where all the information and instructions are, in nature, that has all the causal powers necessary to bring things into existence. And that includes not only material matter itself, but self-directed, self-organized biological creatures who propagate, think and feel!

I anxiously await your reply!!

Do not hold your breath.

I know. SB seems to be hiding from the tough questions.

Where are these tough questions?

The one's you can't answer?

[Sculptor1]

The one's you can't answer?

You mean the answers you won't listen to.

[Sy Borg]

Sculptor, exactly.

I already answered her question but she ignored it and continued to nag.

[EricPH]

It is clearly an abrogation of intellect to insert the God of the Gaps into issues still under investigation.

You say blind nature fills in the gaps, so how are we different?

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change's effect on the bear species' habitats has also affected the animals' mating behaviours.

Climate change can have an effect on bears mating behaviour, and that is understandable. Going back billions of years to single cell life, can climate change also be responsible for the evolution of the eye lens?

Blind nature would need some powerful tools

[Sy Borg]

It is clearly an abrogation of intellect to insert the God of the Gaps into issues still under investigation.

You say blind nature fills in the gaps, so how are we different?

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change's effect on the bear species' habitats has also affected the animals' mating behaviours.

Climate change can have an effect on bears mating behaviour, and that is understandable. Going back billions of years to single cell life, can climate change also be responsible for the evolution of the eye lens?

Blind nature would need some powerful tools

No, when did I say that "blind nature" filled the gaps? You know very well that I said these were mysteries. I would say it's un-Christian to lie but, in my experience, theists tend to be the least honest debaters. A matter of using any means to achieve the end, no doubt, ethics be damned.

Meanwhile, placing the deity of a particular mythology of antiquity into scientific gaps without considering the many alternatives is simply anti-philosophical.

Yesterday, I was listening to a sophisticated Christian, who has no problem with evolution, which he saw as an instrument of said Iron Age Middle Eastern deity. He talked about his frustration with Christians pretending that particular aspects of evolution cannot happen without divine intervention.

When you retain faith, you have dignity. When you try to pretend that that faith contradicts rigorous scientific findings, you render yourself incongruous. I suspect that trying to "scientifically" prove your faith is a great way to destroy that faith. I've seen it done.

As I have said before, faith is like sex or the performing arts. It can be ruined by thinking about it. Just have your faith and enjoy and leverage it, and forget this futile effort to disprove that which has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

As with most Christians, you disregard deep time. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? That may explain why you think the eye could not have evolved. If the Sun and the Earth are 6,000 years old, then sure, eyes could not have evolved. Note that eyes have actually evolved many times, not just once. There are a range of eye types. Why? Because seeing is very useful to survival for many species.

[3017Metaphysician]

It is clearly an abrogation of intellect to insert the God of the Gaps into issues still under investigation.

You say blind nature fills in the gaps, so how are we different?

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change's effect on the bear species' habitats has also affected the animals' mating behaviours.

Climate change can have an effect on bears mating behaviour, and that is understandable. Going back billions of years to single cell life, can climate change also be responsible for the evolution of the eye lens?

Blind nature would need some powerful tools

No, when did I say that "blind nature" filled the gaps? You know very well that I said these were mysteries. I would say it's un-Christian to lie but, in my experience, theists tend to be the least honest debaters. A matter of using any means to achieve the end, no doubt, ethics be damned.

Meanwhile, placing the deity of a particular mythology of antiquity into scientific gaps without considering the many alternatives is simply anti-philosophical.

Could not be further from truth. Nonsense! Remember, in philosophy, over 75% of all domains posit the God axiom. So like it or not, that's the criterion. "Anti-philosophy"? Hogwash!! Sorry SB, you're talking out of your you know what again! As such, I'm going to continue to call you out on the misinformation. You know, you're on a political witch hunt and I'm right behind you!


Yesterday, I was listening to a sophisticated Christian, who has no problem with evolution, which he saw as an instrument of said Iron Age Middle Eastern deity. He talked about his frustration with Christians pretending that particular aspects of evolution cannot happen without divine intervention.

When you retain faith, you have dignity. When you try to pretend that that faith contradicts rigorous scientific findings, you render yourself incongruous. I suspect that trying to "scientifically" prove your faith is a great way to destroy that faith. I've seen it done.

As I have said before, faith is like sex or the performing arts. It can be ruined by thinking about it. Just have your faith and enjoy and leverage it, and forget this futile effort to disprove that which has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

What has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Please support your assertions!

As with most Christians, you disregard deep time. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? That may explain why you think the eye could not have evolved. If the Sun and the Earth are 6,000 years old, then sure, eyes could not have evolved. Note that eyes have actually evolved many times, not just once. There are a range of eye types. Why? Because seeing is very useful to survival for many species.

Hogwash! What in God's name are you talking about SB?? Has ethics evolved? Has the need for love evolved? Has your need to buy a dress evolved? Specifically, is seeing the color of different dresses cause you to buy them? What does "survival" have to do with whether you purchase a blue or red dress? Are you trolling again here?

For that matter, has any and all quality-of-life stuff that confers feelings of teleology or anthropic purpose evolved? And what does quality of life stuff have to do with Darwinian survival of the fittest? Do you need to know the laws of physics to evade falling objects? Does music theory provide for any survival value? Does discussing philosophy provide for survival value? Support your assertions!!

[3017Metaphysician]

The one's you can't answer?

You mean the answers you won't listen to.

Where are they? I'm still "holding my breath" I'd love to see some cogent answers!!!

[Sculptor1]

The one's you can't answer?

You mean the answers you won't listen to.

Where are they? I'm still "holding my breath" I'd love to see some cogent answers!!!

I told you to NOT hold your breath.
Until you demonstrate how "atheism" is illogical, or even start to make that claim with substance you will have to continue to wait for me to respond.
But up to now you have not advanced your claim one iota.

Maybe I can encourage you to start by saying what you think "Atheism" actually is?

[3017Metaphysician]

The one's you can't answer?

You mean the answers you won't listen to.

Where are they? I'm still "holding my breath" I'd love to see some cogent answers!!!

I told you to NOT hold your breath.
Until you demonstrate how "atheism" is illogical, or even start to make that claim with substance you will have to continue to wait for me to respond.
But up to now you have not advanced your claim one iota.

Maybe I can encourage you to start by saying what you think "Atheism" actually is?

A-theism = no-God.

BTW, your avatar is angry! Does that have anything to do with your Einsteinian "grudge", or is it that dent in your chin?

[Sculptor1]

You mean the answers you won't listen to.

Where are they? I'm still "holding my breath" I'd love to see some cogent answers!!!

I told you to NOT hold your breath.
Until you demonstrate how "atheism" is illogical, or even start to make that claim with substance you will have to continue to wait for me to respond.
But up to now you have not advanced your claim one iota.

Maybe I can encourage you to start by saying what you think "Atheism" actually is?

A-theism = no-God.

So how is that illogical. And what do you mean by god?

BTW, your avatar is angry! Does that have anything to do with your Einsteinian "grudge", or is it that dent in your chin?

If you are not going to play nicely someone is going to throw you out of the sandpit.

[Belindi]

It is clearly an abrogation of intellect to insert the God of the Gaps into issues still under investigation.

You say blind nature fills in the gaps, so how are we different?

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change's effect on the bear species' habitats has also affected the animals' mating behaviours.

Climate change can have an effect on bears mating behaviour, and that is understandable. Going back billions of years to single cell life, can climate change also be responsible for the evolution of the eye lens?

Blind nature would need some powerful tools

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s64Y8sVYfFY

The video is very short and explains natural selection in pictures.

[Sy Borg]

It is clearly an abrogation of intellect to insert the God of the Gaps into issues still under investigation.

You say blind nature fills in the gaps, so how are we different?

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change's effect on the bear species' habitats has also affected the animals' mating behaviours.

Climate change can have an effect on bears mating behaviour, and that is understandable. Going back billions of years to single cell life, can climate change also be responsible for the evolution of the eye lens?

Blind nature would need some powerful tools

No, when did I say that "blind nature" filled the gaps? You know very well that I said these were mysteries. I would say it's un-Christian to lie but, in my experience, theists tend to be the least honest debaters. A matter of using any means to achieve the end, no doubt, ethics be damned.

Meanwhile, placing the deity of a particular mythology of antiquity into scientific gaps without considering the many alternatives is simply anti-philosophical.

Could not be further from truth. Nonsense! Remember, in philosophy, over 75% of all domains posit the God axiom. So like it or not, that's the criterion. "Anti-philosophy"? Hogwash!! Sorry SB, you're talking out of your you know what again! As such, I'm going to continue to call you out on the misinformation. You know, you're on a political witch hunt and I'm right behind you!
:lol:

Your emotionality is noted. There is no witch-hunt. That is your paranoia. Best to keep your strong emotions in check or you will be liable to make grievous errors of logic, as evidenced is your very poor response above. You are so steamed up that you can't even wrap your brain about simple BB code formatting.

Of course, most philosophy has been performed in times when almost everyone believed in a supernatural deity, so it's no surprise that philosophers in intensely theistic times and places would use the God schema. It might have been worth mentioning that, no?

Still, positing a deity is naturally the end of all serious investigation, and is thus anti-philosophical. One can, of course, heap speculation upon speculation regarding the nature of this deity (or deities) and what it wants, but that's not philosophy, it's theistic brainstorming posing as solid reasoning.

Again, the God of the Gaps is anti-philosophical. Please try to remain calm in your response and focus on reasoning rather than your hatred.