Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

Outside human awareness, there can be no perceived purpose or meaning in material elements.  They just exist as a consequence of unintended physical reactions.  Human perception is essential to recognise intended purpose and meaning in an otherwise purposeless, meaningless, unintended universe. 

The fact that we can recognise and conceive of information and its purpose is evidence that we comprise more than an unintended blip on the long journey to total entropy in a material universe.

Your post demonstrates the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[Stranger]

Outside human awareness, there can be no perceived purpose or meaning in material elements.  They just exist as a consequence of unintended physical reactions.  Human perception is essential to recognise intended purpose and meaning in an otherwise purposeless, meaningless, unintended universe.

The fact that we can recognise and conceive of information and its purpose is evidence that we comprise more than an unintended blip on the long journey to total entropy in a material universe.

...he asserted, without the first hint of evidence, reasoning, or logic.

In actual fact, the existence of purpose is explained by evolution. If you ask a "why" question, then it can mean two things: how come? or what for? The first is asking for a process narrative - something like "why are planets spherical?", the second is asking for a purpose - something like "why are ball-bearings spherical?".

When you ask something like "why does this organism have this trait?" - both come together - the "how come?" is also a "what for?". The how come is because the trait was a survival advantage and was therefore selected for, so it also has a purpose; it is useful for some purpose connected with surviving in the environment.

Hence, through natural selection, purpose enters the world - things are actually for something.

The trait of being able to perceive and understand purpose in the human mind, also has a purpose that is explained by evolution.

[Alan Burns]

...he asserted, without the first hint of evidence, reasoning, or logic.

In actual fact, the existence of purpose is explained by evolution. If you ask a "why" question, then it can mean two things: how come? or what for? The first is asking for a process narrative - something like "why are planets spherical?", the second is asking for a purpose - something like "why are ball-bearings spherical?".

When you ask something like "why does this organism have this trait?" - both come together - the "how come?" is also a "what for?". The how come is because the trait was a survival advantage and was therefore selected for, so it also has a purpose; it is useful for some purpose connected with surviving in the environment.

Hence, through natural selection, purpose enters the world - things are actually for something.

The trait of being able to perceive and understand purpose in the human mind, also has a purpose that is explained by evolution.

And how does evolution explain the trait for humans to become aware of the possibility of a divine creator and a soul which transcends death of the human body?

Do you not find it perplexing how many uniquely human traits have to be explained away by evolution in order to continue to believe that this unguided, randomly generated process is all that is needed to explain our existence?

And I would say that survival would be deemed a consequence of natural selection rather than a purpose.  Purpose indicates a consciously chosen reason for using something to achieve a consciously chosen goal.

[Gordon]

And how does evolution explain the trait for humans to become aware of the possibility of a divine creator and a soul which transcends death of the human body?

In the same way it explains all other aspects of our species.

Do you not find it perplexing how many uniquely human traits have to be explained away by evolution in order to continue to believe that this unguided, randomly generated process is all that is needed to explain our existence?

The ToE doesn't 'explain away' it just explains, and nor is it 'random'.

And I would say that survival would be deemed a consequence of natural selection rather than a purpose.

Did you mean to say that, Alan?
 

Purpose indicates a consciously chosen reason for using something to achieve a consciously chosen goal.

Which means 'purpose' is irrelevant in the context of the ToE.

[torridon]

And how does evolution explain the trait for humans to become aware of the possibility of a divine creator and a soul which transcends death of the human body?

Do you not find it perplexing how many uniquely human traits have to be explained away by evolution in order to continue to believe that this unguided, randomly generated process is all that is needed to explain our existence?

All species have unique traits, it is not just humans, and why should understanding this be a case of 'explaining away'.  That seems an aberrantly negative way to view things, I see it as the opposite, a source of fascination to try to understand how life has diversified into everchanging ecological niches.  Just imagining that traits have been parachuted in out of the blue by some sky god with magic powers is never going to cut it for people with a genuine interest in their own origins.  It trivialises the challenge of understanding and subverts the spirit of true enquiry substituting infantile story book narratives in place of complex detailed hard won insights.  We can all do better than that.

[Sriram]

All species have unique traits, it is not just humans, and why should understanding this be a case of 'explaining away'.  That seems an aberrantly negative way to view things, I see it as the opposite, a source of fascination to try to understand how life has diversified into everchanging ecological niches.  Just imagining that traits have been parachuted in out of the blue by some sky god with magic powers is never going to cut it for people with a genuine interest in their own origins.  It trivialises the challenge of understanding and subverts the spirit of true enquiry substituting infantile story book narratives in place of complex detailed hard won insights.  We can all do better than that.

Maybe some religions believe that traits have 'parachuted down' out of the blue.   But even accepting that traits have evolved in all species and organisms over a period of time, it does not automatically mean a random cause. 

Evolution could also be guided intelligently in the same way that we guide the evolution of many man made machines through active intervention.

[wigginhall]

Yes, "explain away" is a ludicrous tell on AB's stance.   Biologists tried to understand things like the peacock's tail and other fascinating natural phenomena, and positing a supernatural designer explains nothing.  Oh the irony.

[Sebastian Toe]

And how does evolution explain the trait for humans to become aware of the possibility of a divine creator and a soul which transcends death of the human body?

Do you not find it perplexing how many uniquely human traits have to be explained away by evolution in order to continue to believe that this unguided, randomly generated process is all that is needed to explain our existence?

And I would say that survival would be deemed a consequence of natural selection rather than a purpose.  Purpose indicates a consciously chosen reason for using something to achieve a consciously chosen goal.

Your post demonstrates the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[Stranger]

And how does evolution explain the trait for humans to become aware of the possibility of a divine creator and a soul which transcends death of the human body?

Probably a combination of hyperactive agent detection and creativity - both of which are likely to have been useful for survival.

Do you not find it perplexing how many uniquely human traits have to be explained away by evolution in order to continue to believe that this unguided, randomly generated process is all that is needed to explain our existence?

It's not "explained away", it's actually the only actual explanation there is. Your trite and simplistic stories of the supernatural just assume all the difficult stuff existed in god in the first place - and then dismiss any questions about why this god just happens to exist.

And I would say that survival would be deemed a consequence of natural selection rather than a purpose.  Purpose indicates a consciously chosen reason for using something to achieve a consciously chosen goal.

Survival is a consequence of natural selection but any trait (say camouflage) has a purpose; we can say what it is for (to conceal, in order to avoid predators). It has a rationale, albeit a "free floating" one that doesn't need to exist in any mind.

[This argument is shamelessly stolen from Daniel Dennett - mistakes are likely to be mine.]

[Stranger]

But even accepting that traits have evolved in all species and organisms over a period of time, it does not automatically mean a random cause. 

Natural selection isn't random (or a metaphor).   

Evolution could also be guided intelligently in the same way that we guide the evolution of many man made machines through active intervention.

Pointless and needless speculation with no supporting evidence or reasoning.

[Maeght]

Maybe some religions believe that traits have 'parachuted down' out of the blue.   But even accepting that traits have evolved in all species and organisms over a period of time, it does not automatically mean a random cause. 

Evolution could also be guided intelligently in the same way that we guide the evolution of many man made machines through active intervention.

It could, but that isn't supported by the evidence.

[Alan Burns]

Natural selection isn't random (or a metaphor).   

The theory presumes that random events are sufficient to supply the mutations needed to drive the process.

Pointless and needless speculation with no supporting evidence or reasoning.

The supporting evidence and reasoning is in our own ability to consciously implement intelligently guided design processes to bring about human creations by manipulating the forces of nature.  It shows that intelligent design does exist.

[Maeght]

The theory presumes that random events are sufficient to supply the mutations needed to drive the process.

That's not Natural Selection.

[wigginhall]

Creationists usually end up saying that evolution is random, it's a deliberate distortion, to fit their points about intelligent design.   To which I say, Occam!

[Stranger]

The theory presumes that random events are sufficient to supply the mutations needed to drive the process.

Which doesn't make natural selection random.

The supporting evidence and reasoning is in our own ability to consciously implement intelligently guided design processes to bring about human creations by manipulating the forces of nature.  It shows that intelligent design does exist.

You don't half like asserting things that nobody disputes and then pretending that they support your own ideas alone, don't you? I know humans are capable of intelligent design. That is not evidence that any intelligence was involved in guiding evolution, as Sriram suggested.

[wigginhall]

Wow, some argument, humans make cars and God makes humans.  Well, I can go to a factory and watch.  Any chance of learning how God makes giraffes?

[Alan Burns]

You don't half like asserting things that nobody disputes and then pretending that they support your own ideas alone, don't you? I know humans are capable of intelligent design. That is not evidence that any intelligence was involved in guiding evolution, as Sriram suggested.

The process of evolution has produced far more specific complexity in life forms than human intelligence has achieved and probably will ever achieve.

The fact that we can't detect intelligently guided events does not imply that they do not exist.  At the molecular level, I doubt if humanly guided events can be detected, since they would inevitably involve acts of consciously driven will.

[Gordon]

The process of evolution has produced far more specific complexity in life forms than human intelligence has achieved and probably will ever achieve.

Nobody is arguing this, so you're building a straw man here.

The fact that we can't detect intelligently guided events does not imply that they do not exist.

Let's have a big hand for the appearance of the NPF: if we replace 'intelligently guided events' with 'hobbits' I wonder if you can see the problem with your approach.

At the molecular level, I doubt if humanly guided events can be detected, since they would inevitably involve acts of consciously driven will.

Utter waffle.

[Enki]

The process of evolution has produced far more specific complexity in life forms than human intelligence has achieved and probably will ever achieve.

The fact that we can't detect intelligently guided events does not imply that they do not exist.  At the molecular level, I doubt if humanly guided events can be detected, since they would inevitably involve acts of consciously driven will.

So, I see you're back into your 'argument from ignorance' mode. As usual, you pitifully attempt to argue something purely on the basis that it 'could' exist. In this case, it's that old chestnut of intelligent design. There is no evidence whatever that evolution is a product of intelligent design and there is a sound workable theory of how evolution works without intelligent design, a theory which is backed up and fleshed out by increasingly large amounts of evidence. Yet you still feel you have to pursue your idea of an intelligent designer because of your faith position even though you would happily pass on the question as to where and how this intelligent designer gets its 'intelligence' from in the first place.

[Stranger]

The process of evolution has produced far more specific complexity in life forms than human intelligence has achieved and probably will ever achieve.

What do you mean by specific complexity, how do you measure it, and what has the quantity of it got to do with whether it was produced by intelligence or not?

The fact that we can't detect intelligently guided events does not imply that they do not exist.  At the molecular level, I doubt if humanly guided events can be detected, since they would inevitably involve acts of consciously driven will.

What enki said.

[Sriram]

So, I see you're back into your 'argument from ignorance' mode. As usual, you pitifully attempt to argue something purely on the basis that it 'could' exist. In this case, it's that old chestnut of intelligent design. There is no evidence whatever that evolution is a product of intelligent design and there is a sound workable theory of how evolution works without intelligent design, a theory which is backed up and fleshed out by increasingly large amounts of evidence. Yet you still feel you have to pursue your idea of an intelligent designer because of your faith position even though you would happily pass on the question as to where and how this intelligent designer gets its 'intelligence' from in the first place.

The 'sound workable theory' uses terms such as ....random variations, Natural Selection and Emergent Properties....none of which actually explains anything at all!

[Stranger]

The 'sound workable theory' uses terms such as ....random variations, Natural Selection and Emergent Properties....none of which actually explains anything at all!

Untrue. Just because you struggle to understand an explanation, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Random variation and natural selection are actually very simple concepts that (together) have extraordinary explanatory power.

[Maeght]

The 'sound workable theory' uses terms such as ....random variations, Natural Selection and Emergent Properties....none of which actually explains anything at all!

Yes they do.

[torridon]

The supporting evidence and reasoning is in our own ability to consciously implement intelligently guided design processes to bring about human creations by manipulating the forces of nature.  It shows that intelligent design does exist.

So, Nature produces intelligent design, therefore intelligent design produces Nature.  You cannot see that argument is a non-sequitur and to boot ,would imply an infinite regress ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Untrue. Just because you struggle to understand an explanation, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Random variation and natural selection are actually very simple concepts that (together) have extraordinary explanatory power.

EXTRAORDINARY EXPLANATORY POWER:Dawkinism Alert!!:EXTRAORDINARY EXPLANATORY POWER:Dawkinism Alert!!

Not sure why Stranger uses the word extraordinary here aside from being under the influence of atheist central.


The problem with intelligent design and science is that it seems to me you have to be able to demonstrate, eventually, an intelligent designer.


That doesn't guarantee there isn't one vis Neil De Grasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Nick Bostrom.