Searching for GOD...

[Sriram]

There is no such thing as natural evolution without emergent properties, intelligent adaptation and 'random' variations.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The issue is not just about evolution. It is about emergent properties and complexity.

What makes you think "emergent properties and complexity"are not evolutionary in character?

And the question you were asked by the way was whether you could see where your "philosophical" reasoning had gone wrong?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

There is no such thing as natural evolution without emergent properties, intelligent adaptation and 'random' variations.

What are you trying to say here?

[Enki]

The most important aspect for me about evolution is that it is explanatory without the need for a god or indeed any guiding entity. That doesn't mean that there isn't such a thing as a god, only that it provides no evidence for one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

No, it doesn't. That the numbers might seem 'unfathomably' vast to you - or, indeed, to anyone - speaks to our limitations with comprehending large numbers, not any intrinsic limitation upon reality.

That it 'beggars [your] belief' is - BY DEFINITION - the argument from incredulity, which speaks to your limitations, not the limitations of the argument or the system it supports.

That, as you've pointed out, is regardless of which flavour of magic you're intending the false dichotomy of 'disproving' natural evolution to support.

All true, but it’s a form of circular reasoning too. AB (and presumably Sriram too) thinks the vast unlikelihood of humans appearing from unguided evolutionary processes is such that something else – ie, guidance – is more likely, so they have a proof for “god”. What they forget though is that “guidance” is directional – it works toward a goal that’s already been decided on. in other words you need both a god designer ab initio for your premise and a god the subsequent guider for your conclusion. It’s “god” at both ends of the argument, hence the circularity.

That's why AB doesn't think the fantastically unlikely sequence you get from randomly dealing 52 cards isn't also a proof for god - in that case, he hasn't installed a god to care about what the sequence would subsequently be. 

[Alan Burns]

Why would something that’s been explained to you countless times still be a mystery to you?

Because the explanations fail to explain the reality we all live in.

You address me on the one hand as if I am personally accountable for my own thoughts, then postulate that my thoughts are all pre determined by sub conscious brain activity before they emerge into my conscious awareness.  Which is it to be?

[Outrider]

Because the explanations fail to explain the reality we all live in.

They do. You presume elements to reality that you can't demonstrate, and then attempt to utilise that to invalidate the extant theories.

You address me on the one hand as if I am personally accountable for my own thoughts, then postulate that my thoughts are all pre determined by sub conscious brain activity before they emerge into my conscious awareness.  Which is it to be?

Both. You are that subconscious and that concious response to, a pattern of thought and biochemistry feeding back on itself and being modified constantly by the stimuli of the world around you.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because the explanations fail to explain the reality we all live in.

"The reality we all live in" remains entirely your faith belief about that rather than the reason- and evidence-based (and therefore epistemically more robust) explanation for what that reality must also be. You are literally telling us that you're incredulous about the explanations you're given, but never once trying to justify your evidence-denying version of it.       

You address me on the one hand as if I am personally accountable for my own thoughts, then postulate that my thoughts are all pre determined by sub conscious brain activity before they emerge into my conscious awareness.  Which is it to be?

Again with this? Seriously?

Once again: at one, relatively superficial, level of abstraction there's an experiencing "you" with a sense of agency that decides in the moment whether it would prefer tea or coffee. At a deeper, more reason-rich level of abstraction though there's another reality that shows the superficial one to be fundamentally contradictory and so self-negating. That these two realities (and perhaps many more) co-exist readily is neither here nor there.

Your big mistake here is to assume that the way your reality feels must also be the end of the story. It isn't though. It can't be.         

[Alan Burns]

Once again: at one, relatively superficial, level of abstraction there's an experiencing "you" with a sense of agency that decides in the moment whether it would prefer tea or coffee. At a deeper, more reason-rich level of abstraction though there's another reality that shows the superficial one to be fundamentally contradictory and so self-negating. That these two realities (and perhaps many more) co-exist readily is neither here nor there.

Your big mistake here is to assume that the way your reality feels must also be the end of the story. It isn't though. It can't be.

There is only one reality.  There is only one truth.  And we only have one lifetime to discover it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is only one reality.

Plainly nonsense. Your reality and a hummingbird’s reality for example are very different. While we're at it your reality and that of a colourblind person are different too.

There is only one truth.

More idiocy. There are many “truths”. For that matter truth itself is a probabilistic concept – how would we ever be able to know that something we think to be certainly true couldn’t be invalidated by new information?

And we only have one lifetime to discover it.

I agree with the first part, but the “it” is incoherent. 

[Gordon]

There is only one reality.

Wrong, in that there are different perspectives that are inherently limited in scope (reality for a hamster is not the same as reality for me).

There is only one truth

Aside from 'truth' being a moveable feast, and any 'truths' are best regarded as being provisional, I suspect you are falling into the fallacy of reification yet again.
 

And we only have one lifetime to discover it.

I'm very aware of the 'one lifetime' bit, given that I have terminal cancer, but the 'it' is just meaningless waffle.

[torridon]

There is only one reality.  There is only one truth.  And we only have one lifetime to discover it.

I see. The going got too tough for you, so take cover in deepities and platitudes.

[Sebastian Toe]

Because the explanations fail to explain the reality we all live in.

That's rich coming from a man who's "explanations" about the source and workings of his "soul" themselves fail, miserably, to explain your version of reality.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

What are you trying to say here?

Intelligence is evident in all aspects of evolution. Adaptation and plasticity clearly indicate intelligent response by organisms to the environment.

Unique properties emerge at every point that are not key to survival or reproduction. These are normally dismissed by scientific folk as due to random variations even though these are clear evidence of guidance. 

[Alan Burns]

Plainly nonsense. Your reality and a hummingbird’s reality for example are very different. While we're at it your reality and that of a colourblind person are different too.

We exist in the same reality as the humming bird.  The difference is that we are aware of much more of reality that the humming bird.  In particular, we as human beings are aware that there is more to reality than what we perceive with our physical senses.  There is only one reality.

More idiocy. There are many “truths”. For that matter truth itself is a probabilistic concept – how would we ever be able to know that something we think to be certainly true couldn’t be invalidated by new information?

The fact that we may be mistaken cannot alter the truth.  The truth is there to be discovered.  There is only one truth.

[Alan Burns]

If you were hypnotised to run around shouting at the top of your voice, "souls are a figment of my imagination" upon hearing someone, anyone asking "Alan, are souls real?"
Where would your rational thinking, logical deductions and especially your conscious control, be?

If I am hypnotised, I am no longer in conscious control.  The hypnotist will have taken over control.

[Outrider]

We exist in the same reality as the humming bird.

I'd agree.

The difference is that we are aware of much more of reality that the humming bird.

Are we? We have an even more limited understanding of hummingbird consciousness than we do of our own, but it's well established that there are all sorts of animals across the world with sensory ranges in excess of our own, or indeed entirely different sensory apparatus. I think, at best, we can consider the awareness of the animal kingdom to be different, but we can't presume it to be different.

[quote In particular, we as human beings are aware that there is more to reality than what we perceive with our physical senses.[/quote]

Directly, yes. However, that there are natural phenomena that we can't experience directly does not mean that we have to accept every claim made of things that we can't directly discern; we have to rely on either indirect observations, or we have to build equipment that can detect it. Hence, although we (probably) cannot sense magnetism we can demonstrate that magnetism is real; souls, spirits, gods and afterlives are not in that category.

There is only one reality.

Maybe. I, like you, think that we're only in one, that doesn't mean that there aren't others out there.

The fact that we may be mistaken cannot alter the truth.  The truth is there to be discovered.  There is only one truth.

Maybe. Reality is data, but truth is information, it's an interpretation, and therefore it varies depending on other information, the interpretary algorithm and other factors. Data is black and white, information is always shades of grey.

O.

[ekim]

If I am hypnotised, I am no longer in conscious control.  The hypnotist will have taken over control.

It could be said that the same applies to religious indoctrination and why religions are often referred to as 'religious persuasions'.

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps if you bothered finding out what the ToE actually tells us you’d be better equipped to criticise it if you still wanted to do that?     

Just looking at the other end of evolution - at the very beginning.  Evolution is entirely dependent on the ability to reproduce.  Looking at material entities before life began, there is no obvious mechanism to indicate that the phenomenon of reproduction would be a natural property.  The is no natural explanation for the very specific series of events needed to form a cell which can reproduce itself.  Then there is the huge leap from cell reproduction to sexual reproduction.  The concepts of purpose and intention exist in human conscious awareness.   Did purpose and intention exist at the birth of the evolution process?

[Outrider]

Just looking at the other end of evolution - at the very beginning.  Evolutheion is entirely dependent on the ability to reproduce.

The particular type of evolution that we see, yes. Other mechanisms might be possible in other places.

Looking at material entities before life began, there is no obvious mechanism to indicate that the phenomenon of reproduction would be a natural property.

Quite the opposite, until you have some form of replication you don't have something that could be considered 'life' at alll, you just have a one-off chemical incident.

The is no natural explanation for the very specific series of events needed to form a cell which can reproduce itself.

There is - evolution by natural selection acting upon random variation in imperfect replication. We might not have definitive proof of every stage, but it is a natural explanation that's been demonstrated which can account for the development of life in all its myriad forms.

Then there is the huge leap from cell reproduction to sexual reproduction.

No there isn't. There's a gradual development through who only knows how many intermediate stages.

The concepts of purpose and intention exist in human conscious awareness.

Yes, within, and therefore from, human consciousness. There's no evidence to suggest that human consciousness is a manifestation of something else's purpose or intent.

Did purpose and intention exist at the birth of the evolution process?

Possibly, but there's no evidence that suggests it's necessary, and not much to support the idea.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Intelligence is evident in all aspects of evolution. Adaptation and plasticity clearly indicate intelligent response by organisms to the environment.

Good grief. What on earth makes you think that “Intelligence is evident in all aspects of evolution” when there’s no evidence for any such thing?

Unique properties emerge at every point that are not key to survival or reproduction.

Okaaay…

These are normally dismissed by scientific folk as due to random variations…

For all practical purposes genetic mutations occur randomly, yes…

…even though these are clear evidence of guidance.

How on earth do you conclude that the occasional random mutations that confer evolutionary advantage when their environments act on them is evidence for guidance? Does it not occur to you that better evidence guidance would be if there weren’t vast numbers of mutations, most of which are harmful or neutral in their effect?         

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We exist in the same reality as the humming bird.

Yes, but we each are able to access different parts of that reality.

The difference is that we are aware of much more of reality that the humming bird.

Wrong. Hummingbirds live at higher speeds that we do and see things we don’t, have awareness of aerodynamic forces that we don’t etc. Lots of other species have much more access to parts of reality than we do in fact. Mantis shrimps for example have 16 colour receptors whereas we have only three – their reality about colour is vastly richer than ours:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/mantis-shrimp-eye-camera/557195/

In particular, we as human beings are aware that there is more to reality than what we perceive with our physical senses.

So what?

There is only one reality.

Ultimately that may be true, but what overwheening arrogance must it must it take for some members of one species on a tiny speck of nothingness in the unfathomable vastness of the universe we inhabit to assert that they know what it is?

Reality in its entirety is an ocean of information and knowledge. Some, like you, have a few drops of it when you settle for your understanding of reality for the way things feel when you experience them. Others of us have a few drops more because we dip our bucket a little deeper by examining and testing our feelings with reason and evidence. Neither of us though have any grounds at all even to begin to claim to know what “the” reality” might be.

Try to remember this.
       

The fact that we may be mistaken cannot alter the truth.  The truth is there to be discovered.  There is only one truth.

No-one said it alters “the” truth – what I explained to you is that we cannot claim certainty about the truths we do have. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Looking at material entities before life began, there is no obvious mechanism to indicate that the phenomenon of reproduction would be a natural property.

Not true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Did purpose and intention exist at the birth of the evolution process?

And yet again, framing your assertion as a question is disingenuous. You declare that there was "guidance" so it's your job to justify your claim.

[Sebastian Toe]

If I am hypnotised, I am no longer in conscious control.  The hypnotist will have taken over control.

Wait a minute there.
Your contention is that your soul, which resides in a place which is not our universe...connects to your physical brain...reads the contents....makes decisions in real time....sends commands back to the brain/body to be processed.

Is that correct?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Not true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

From the wiki article:
The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes

My contention is that due to the increasingly complex steps involved, the process was more likely to have been intentionally guided rather than driven by the unintended consequences of random events.