Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Hope]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but to know why this is so you need to understand the meaning of the word theory in its proper scientific context (since we're dealing with science here), which alas you do not.

Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise.  However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'.  In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question.  Why?  Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions.  As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories.  Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?

[Shaker]

Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise.

Doubtless. The comment was in response to ~TW~, however.

However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'.In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question.  Why?  Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions.  As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories.  Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?

Perhaps there's no answer. Humans have a lot more brain-space than is needed for immediate evolutionary needs and so tend to ask lots of these kind of questions, but the ability to pose a question doesn't entail that there's any actual answer to it.

I'd much rather accept this than take on - or rather, be taken in by - any old tripe just because the lack of an answer to what in itself may be a meaningless question bothers me. Not that it does; but some people are incredibly disturbed by not knowing things.

[Gordon]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but to know why this is so you need to understand the meaning of the word theory in its proper scientific context (since we're dealing with science here), which alas you do not.

Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise.  However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'.  In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question.  Why?  Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions.  As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories.  Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?

I'd suggest that it is more the case that 'why' isn't always a relevant question, so that to pose it without good reason may commit the fallacy of begging the question.

[Shaker]

'Begging the question' has a very exact and specific meaning within logic (although very widely mistaken and misused by people wrongly thinking it means 'This raises the question ...'), but in this case I think amongst some people there's a begging for answers - begging for answers to questions which may be meaningless.

Oscar Wilde said "All art is quite useless," and he was right. He meant that it's an appurtenance of human life, something that some humans do because once our immediate needs for survival and comfort are met, once we've dealt with the four F's every day, we have so much brain-space left over that we fill the time with curious things such as writing sonnets and novels and symphonies. There's very likely to be no evolutionary survival value in any of this whatever; there's no evolutionary utility to it, nothing to do with the mundane getting and spending and bean-counting of everyday life; it's what we do because we're human and have brains bigger than we need and we like the challenge. It amuses us, and we may find that what amuses us can amuse others as well.

I strongly suspect that so many of these existential "Why?" questions spring from precisely the same source.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but to know why this is so you need to understand the meaning of the word theory in its proper scientific context (since we're dealing with science here), which alas you do not.

Evolution may well be a fact and a theory, Shaker, and I've never said otherwise.  However, it doesn't answer the question 'why?'.  In fact, none of the scientific theories about the origin of the universe, of life and of everything answer that question.  Why?  Because they aren't asking that question. They are asking the 'how' and 'when' questions.  As such evolution and all those other facts and theories are partial facts and theories.  Do you envisage science ever asking the 'why' question, or is that too judgemental a question for it?

I'd suggest that it is more the case that 'why' isn't always a relevant question, so that to pose it without good reason may commit the fallacy of begging the question.

Good to see that our board antitheists are up to speed with the ''There are some questions which shouldn't be asked'' bit an Idea direct from Atheist central (Krauss et al). we all know what philosophy this comes from don't we lads.

It's just short hand for your inherent intellectual totalitarianism....
after 3 Gords and Shakes....''Ve ask Ze questions.''

[Shaker]

Good to see that our board antitheists are up to speed with the ''There are some questions which shouldn't be asked'' bit an Idea direct from Atheist central (Krauss et al). we all know what philosophy this comes from don't we lads.

It's just short hand for your inherent intellectual totalitarianism....
after 3 Gords and Shakes....''Ve ask Ze questions.''

Oh, bollocks. It has nothing to do with "Some questions shouldn't be asked" and everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it, so you have to be on your guard against filling in the gaps with whatever self-serving, convenient madey-uppy answer that pleases you.

But of course, if you'd read the last few posts, or more to the point if you were capable of understanding them without the usual bullshit glasses on, you'd have grasped this already.

Anyway, I thought you were supposed to be leaving?

[Hope]

Doubtless. The comment was in response to ~TW~, however.

I'm aware of that

Perhaps there's no answer. Humans have a lot more brain-space than is needed for immediate evolutionary needs and so tend to ask lots of these kind of questions, but the ability to pose a question doesn't entail that there's any actual answer to it.

I would disagree.  Linguistics suggests that language generally develops from circumstances, not ahead of them.

I'd much rather accept this than take on - or rather, be taken in by - any old tripe just because the lack of an answer to what in itself may be a meaningless question bothers me. Not that it does; but some people are incredibly disturbed by not knowing things.

You are perfectly entitled to accept this; I'm not suggesting that you aren't.  However, I tend to be somewhat more inquisitive than simply taking something for granted.  Once I got into linguistics later in life, that inquisitiveness became stronger, and the bog-standard answers that you like to present from science failed to satisfy me other than as the answers you would give a child.  OK, that may have been triggered by my pre-existing faith, but exploring deeper into that particular field has strengthened, rather than weakened my faith.

[Hope]

Oh, bollocks. It has nothing to do with "Some questions shouldn't be asked" and everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it, so you have to be on your guard against filling in the gaps with whatever self-serving, convenient madey-uppy answer that pleases you.

But of course, if you'd read the last few posts, or more to the point if you were capable of understanding them without the usual bullshit glasses on, you'd have grasped this already.

Anyway, I thought you were supposed to be leaving?

I would dispute the claim that it has "everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it" because there needs to be some indication of an idea/concept (ie an answer) to be able to ask the question.

[Shaker]

You are perfectly entitled to accept this; I'm not suggesting that you aren't.  However, I tend to be somewhat more inquisitive than simply taking something for granted.  Once I got into linguistics later in life, that inquisitiveness became stronger, and the bog-standard answers that you like to present from science failed to satisfy me other than as the answers you would give a child.

You're not actually saying anything here that refutes anything I've previously said. Inquisitiveness is a magnificent attribute, but without some firm grounding - the scientific method is the firmest and most secure we have - it tends to end up as arid question-spinning for its own sake and always with the danger that the answers are rather obviously pat, self-serving and conveniently human-centred. Madey-uppy, as I said. Religion, or rather the pseudo-answers that religions purport to provide, falls entirely within this domain.

A second point is that the fact that something doesn't satisfy you is neither here nor there. The universe isn't here to satisfy anybody's peremptory demands for answers.

OK, that may have been triggered by my pre-existing faith

I don't think there's any 'may' about it.

but exploring deeper into that particular field has strengthened, rather than weakened my faith.

As is pretty well bound to happen when you have a prior ideological commitment to shore up where any contrary points or contrary evidence are in themselves taken as strengthening and confirming that commitment. In desperately sad circumstances Alan Burns is engaged in just this process right now.

[Shaker]

I would dispute the claim that it has "everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it" because there needs to be some indication of an idea/concept (ie an answer) to be able to ask the question.

Why are groobles fnards?

A second point is that you're not taking into account the misapplication of concepts that make sense in one context but are meaningless in another. "What's the point of a screwdriver?" - the question makes sense. It's an appropriate question for something like a screwdriver, with a clear, well-defined answer. A screwdriver is a man-made thing explicitly designed with a purpose in mind; you can, incidentally to its main purpose, do other things with it - stir cake mix; get the wax out of your ears - but it's primarily intended to drive in screws. Just about anything and everything that human beings make admits of the same legitimate question - what's a radio for? What's wallpaper for? What's a clarinet for?

These are all made artefacts conceived and created by purposeful agents, which is why it's a legitimate question. On the other hand there's no indication at all that the universe was (a) made by any conscious, intelligent agent or (b) made for any reason or purpose, so a question like "What's the point of a universe?" seems to me non-sense. It's extrapolation from the domain where it makes sense to the domain where it doesn't. Until and unless there's good reason to think otherwise, that the universe simply is because it is - it may not have been at all, but is - is the most minimal, conservative, spartan, Occam's-Razor-obeying conclusion. Exactly the same applies to the phenomenon of life.

[Hope]

On the other hand there's no indication at all that the universe was (a) made by any conscious, intelligent agent or (b) made for any reason or purpose, so a question like "What's the point of a universe?" seems to me non-sense.

Which is where I would disagree; there are plenty of indications that the universe was (a) made by a conscious, intelligent agent and (b) made for a reason or purpose.

[Shaker]

Let's hear them.

[Gordon]

On the other hand there's no indication at all that the universe was (a) made by any conscious, intelligent agent or (b) made for any reason or purpose, so a question like "What's the point of a universe?" seems to me non-sense.

Which is where I would disagree; there are plenty of indications that the universe was (a) made by a conscious, intelligent agent and (b) made for a reason or purpose.

So, do these 'indications' bear any resemblance to verifiable evidence?

[Shaker]

I'm pretty sure of the sort of thing that'll be brought up but I'm still waiting to find out, G 

[Hope]

The existence of ordered laws of nature; the existence of planets that are capable of supporting life, but within a very limited 'safe' orbital range of their respective suns; picking up from my last post of last night, the very existence of the concept of God within the human mind (where the language involved must have been initiated by something); the complexity of natural life; the fact that, from all I've read and been taught, evolution is reactive rather than proactive - it occurs in response to changing circumstances; the fact that things that you and I have, like watches, TVs cars, buildings, atomic weapons (and, yes, as a taxpayer we are part-owners of the UK's nuclear warheads - its a rather sobering thought, isn't it) have all been 'created', they didn't just 'occur'. 

There are others, but I need to be on my way to the railway. 

In closing I will accept that none oif these stand up to much scrutiny when taken individually, but when taken together they create a pretty strong case.  Interestingly, all the books I've ever read - like Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' or  Stephen Laws' 'Believing Bullsh*t (my asterisk, by the way, lest the board software throw a wobbly) - deal with one or two of the issues but never to my knowledge the totality of them.

[Hope]

So, do these 'indications' bear any resemblance to verifiable evidence?

Do any of the counter arguments resemble verifiable evidence, Gordon?  No.  They are all dependent on human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings.

[Shaker]

The existence of ordered laws of nature

Doesn't imply a god. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct there could be a colossal number of universes with their own ordered laws of nature but incapable of supporting life.

the existence of planets that are capable of supporting life, but within a very limited 'safe' orbital range of their respective suns

This is part of the fallacy of fine-tuning given a thorough drubbing by the late Victor J. Stenger in his book of that name. Life only exists where it's capable of existing - that's a tautology, but that's also the point; life fits around the conditions in which it's found, not vice versa.

picking up from my last post of last night, the very existence of the concept of God within the human mind (where the language involved must have been initiated by something)

This is basically the woeful C.S. Lewis's argument that an idea or desire wouldn't exist unless there's something that corresponds to that idea or that the desire can be fulfilled. This dreadful tripe has been taken apart more times than I can possibly remember and I can refer you to the appropriate sources, save to give the most obvious rebuttal in the form of people who work in the film industry who on a daily basis dream up (and nowadays, with the help of CGI and the like, give form to) things that don't exist. They even call them imagineers.

Where the existence of the concept of gods ultimately came from nobody really knows, but the language typically used - Father; King; Lord and so forth - gives a few interesting pointers. It's another example of extrapolation from the domain where such language makes sense to the domain where it doesn't.

the complexity of natural life

Complexity is complexity is complexity ... and? What of it? Doesn't imply a god.

the fact that, from all I've read and been taught, evolution is reactive rather than proactive - it occurs in response to changing circumstances

And nor does that.

the fact that things that you and I have, like watches, TVs cars, buildings, atomic weapons (and, yes, as a taxpayer we are part-owners of the UK's nuclear warheads - its a rather sobering thought, isn't it) have all been 'created', they didn't just 'occur'.

How do you get from man-made things - things like screwdrivers and clarinets, which I've already mentioned - to "The universe was purposefully designed by a conscious agent"? This is to commit the fallacy of composition, which is the fallacy of assuming that what is true of a part (Human beings in the universe conceive and make things) is true of the whole (The universe was conceived and made). Doesn't fly.

In closing I will accept that none oif these stand up to much scrutiny when taken individually, but when taken together they create a pretty strong case.  Interestingly, all the books I've ever read - like Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' or  Stephen Laws' 'Believing Bullsh*t (my asterisk, by the way, lest the board software throw a wobbly) - deal with one or two of the issues but never to my knowledge the totality of them.

"A pretty strong case" to you, but there are reasons for that. Instead of the books you mention, you'd do better to read Stenger on the fallacy of fine tuning as previously mentioned.

[Shaker]

Do any of the counter arguments resemble verifiable evidence, Gordon? No. They are all dependent on human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings.

That's funny - human assumption, guesswork and extrapolation are exactly what lead people to gods. The counter-arguments are the ones that point out this fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do any of the counter arguments resemble verifiable evidence, Gordon? No. They are all dependent on human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings.

That's funny - human assumption, guesswork and extrapolation are exactly what lead people to gods. The counter-arguments are the ones that point out this fact.

What about this extrapolation. Methodological materialism to philosophical naturalism....of course it is nothing of the sort since it is actually a leap of faith since you cannot get from one to another logically or indeed methodologically.

For something which trumpets a methodology so loudly one would
have thought that the lack of one was quite serious.

I don't think there are any sudden conversions here merely drifts from thinking that what one does is the way the world is.

[Shaker]

*yawn*

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The existence of ordered laws of nature

Doesn't imply a god. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct there could be a colossal number of universes with their own ordered laws of nature but incapable of supporting life.

the existence of planets that are capable of supporting life, but within a very limited 'safe' orbital range of their respective suns

This is part of the fallacy of fine-tuning given a thorough drubbing by the late Victor J. Stenger in his book of that name. Life only exists where it's capable of existing - that's a tautology, but that's also the point; life fits around the conditions in which it's found, not vice versa.

picking up from my last post of last night, the very existence of the concept of God within the human mind (where the language involved must have been initiated by something)

This is basically the woeful C.S. Lewis's argument that an idea or desire wouldn't exist unless there's something that corresponds to that idea or that the desire can be fulfilled. This dreadful tripe has been taken apart more times than I can possibly remember and I can refer you to the appropriate sources, save to give the most obvious rebuttal in the form of people who work in the film industry who on a daily basis dream up (and nowadays, with the help of CGI and the like, give form to) things that don't exist. They even call them imagineers.

Where the existence of the concept of gods ultimately came from nobody really knows, but the language typically used - Father; King; Lord and so forth - gives a few interesting pointers. It's another example of extrapolation from the domain where such language makes sense to the domain where it doesn't.

the complexity of natural life

Complexity is complexity is complexity ... and? What of it? Doesn't imply a god.

the fact that, from all I've read and been taught, evolution is reactive rather than proactive - it occurs in response to changing circumstances

And nor does that.

the fact that things that you and I have, like watches, TVs cars, buildings, atomic weapons (and, yes, as a taxpayer we are part-owners of the UK's nuclear warheads - its a rather sobering thought, isn't it) have all been 'created', they didn't just 'occur'.

How do you get from man-made things - things like screwdrivers and clarinets, which I've already mentioned - to "The universe was purposefully designed by a conscious agent"? This is to commit the fallacy of composition, which is the fallacy of assuming that what is true of a part (Human beings in the universe conceive and make things) is true of the whole (The universe was conceived and made). Doesn't fly.

In closing I will accept that none oif these stand up to much scrutiny when taken individually, but when taken together they create a pretty strong case.  Interestingly, all the books I've ever read - like Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' or  Stephen Laws' 'Believing Bullsh*t (my asterisk, by the way, lest the board software throw a wobbly) - deal with one or two of the issues but never to my knowledge the totality of them.

"A pretty strong case" to you, but there are reasons for that. Instead of the books you mention, you'd do better to read Stenger on the fallacy of fine tuning as previously mentioned.

Having been accused of intellectual totalitarianism, coming out with a statement for a perfectly reasonable idea such as Lewis ''satisfied desire'' as ''Dreadful tripe'' without adequate foundation does not bode well for your defence that you are not an intellectual totalitarian.

I found the Stengster quite entertainingly explains why the universe comes from nothing only to reveal that his ''nothing'' was actually an ''unstable'' something. What larks!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

*yawn*

Hey Shaker.....How do you get from airplanes fly to philosophical naturalism?

[Shaker]

Having been accused of intellectual totalitarianism

Yes, and just look who by 

coming out with a statement for a perfectly reasonable idea such as Lewis ''satisfied desire'' as ''Dreadful tripe'' without adequate foundation does not bode well for your defence that you are not an intellectual totalitarian.

If I really were an intellectual totalitarian I'd have been able to stop you from wheeling out "philoosophical naturalism" every other post for absolutely no reason.

P.S. Anything by Lewis being "perfectly reasonable" - thanks for the laughs, Vlad 

[Shaker]

*yawn*

Hey Shaker.....How do you get from airplanes fly to philosophical naturalism?

... zzzzz ...

[floo]

Maybe I am being thick or something, but Vlad's posts make as much sense to me as those speaking in tongues, aka gobbledegook!