Speaking in 'tongues'

[Nearly Sane]

Menacing?? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?

Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''

I am slightly concerned that one day, rather like the chicken heart that ate the world, your Dawkins shaped hole might suck in the universe.

[ippy]

Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.

ippy

OK, if you were asked to appear before a community meeting somewhere and had to give a case for atheism, as opposed to secularism, are you saying that you wouldn't say a word?

No, it's an easy job, it would be exactly similar to mentioning those that have a belief in Unicorns.

It's so unlikely Unicorns exist due to the lack of any evidence that would confirm that they do really/actually exist.

So unless the necessary credible evidence is found why would I believe in the existence of Unicorns? There is no logical or rational reason to believe in them, in an exactly similar ditto, religion.

If you had come up with the evidence no matter how long winded, it would have been splashed all over the world media, as you must know, it hasn't happened which should be telling you Hope, you're on a looser.

ippy 

P S, I'm finding it difficult to see why you seem so totally unable to understand that the ball for supplying evidence is firmly in your court?
 

[ippy]

Evolution relies on all sorts of quirks of nature that assist with survival which without going into all of the evlutionary details, evolutions reliance on quirks; the quirk of someone coming out of a vegative state would be just that, a quirk, which can be from any number of chance happenings that have come together and this chap comes out of a vegative state, no need for MrMagic to put in an attendance.

That's a very convenient way of thinking, ippy.  Inexplicable quirks occur in order to clear up issues that evolution has got wrong?  Accidental quirks occur when something inexplicable occurs.

How can you prove that a Mr Magic had anything to do with this fortunate persons recovery, you can't, the chance happening of several factors leading to this person recovering is far more likely, in fact very likely.

Not quite sure how you got from the idea that reality occurs outside of the parameters of scientific naturalism to the existence of a Mr Magic (whoever that might be - is it another of your euphemistic characters that help you to avoid reality  )

By the by I'm more Picasso than Monet although there's nothing wrong with Monet's works.

Just for Shaker's benefit, is there any scientific reason why you prefer Picasso's Cubism to Monet's Impressionism?

Not my problem Hope if you don't know the basis of how evolution works; well I'll try; each living thing when it reproduces, some offspring have minor differences some of no use, some that can aid survival, the latter because they aid survival they get passed on, call them minor differences or quirks or whatever you wish to call them please yourself but these are the chance happenings that I referred to in my former post.

Does your kind of response mean that evolution can't be mentioned unless followed by a complete up to date explanation of the whole process, surly not?

Sorry, if someone recovers from a certain death type ailment Mr Magic didit and then if they die after a long bout of suffering Mr Diabolo, I forgot how simple it is to explain life in your world.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.

Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.

The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.

Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.

The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.

So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.

I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.

Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.

So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.

It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.

And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.

ippy

OK, if you were asked to appear before a community meeting somewhere and had to give a case for atheism, as opposed to secularism, are you saying that you wouldn't say a word?

No, it's an easy job, it would be exactly similar to mentioning those that have a belief in Unicorns.

It's so unlikely Unicorns exist due to the lack of any evidence that would confirm that they do really/actually exist.

So unless the necessary credible evidence is found why would I believe in the existence of Unicorns? There is no logical or rational reason to believe in them, in an exactly similar ditto, religion.

If you had come up with the evidence no matter how long winded, it would have been splashed all over the world media, as you must know, it hasn't happened which should be telling you Hope, you're on a looser.

ippy 

P S, I'm finding it difficult to see why you seem so totally unable to understand that the ball for supplying evidence is firmly in your court?

So there is Ippy all dressed up to give Norf Lunnen community a talk on atheism and he short changes them by shooting some shit about unicorns.....................

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Menacing?? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?

Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''

I am slightly concerned that one day, rather like the chicken heart that ate the world, your Dawkins shaped hole might suck in the universe.

Well, something Distinctly Dawkins shaped seems to have sucked lots of people in at least.

[Dicky Underpants]

I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.

Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.

The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.

Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.

The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.

So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.

I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.

Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.

So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.

It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.

And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''

Is God "An entity". I know there are some theologians who would dispute that (theologians do so like to quibble over minor particles of language (such as the 'que' in 'filioque'). Of course that indefinite article doesn't even exist in koine Greek, in which the basics of Christian theology were first laid down, so I don't think we should worry about it too much. However, I can't help thinking there is some sort of difference between "A being" and "Being". Long live English, the language of theological precision*!

*oxymoron intended

[Dicky Underpants]

Menacing?? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?

Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''

I am slightly concerned that one day, rather like the chicken heart that ate the world, your Dawkins shaped hole might suck in the universe.

Well, something Distinctly Dawkins shaped seems to have sucked lots of people in at least.

Personally, I prefer Stephen Jay Gould, but NS considers him philosophically inferior to Dawkins. Since I happen to respect NS's thinking, I have to weigh this up. Must admit, though, I never thought that Dawkins' take on scripture (at least the Judaeo/Christian stuff) was all that great.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.

Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.

The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.

Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.

The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.

So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.

I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.

Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.

So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.

It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.

And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''

Is God "An entity". I know there are some theologians who would dispute that (theologians do so like to quibble over minor particles of language (such as the 'que' in 'filioque'). Of course that indefinite article doesn't even exist in koine Greek, in which the basics of Christian theology were first laid down, so I don't think we should worry about it too much. However, I can't help thinking there is some sort of difference between "A being" and "Being". Long live English, the language of theological precision!

I think Andy and nearly Sane would argue that neither beings nor being are possible in/with/up etc ''timelessness''.

I take a bit of an''Ippyesque'' approach and use the word entity as meaning the opposite of non existent bollocks or whatever the technical term for that is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Menacing?? Aw diddums, your sense of humour been swallowed up by the ever expanding Dawkins shaped hole?

Thank heavens for that. You had me reaching for the Haribos there ''coz they make mee feel wuvved''

I am slightly concerned that one day, rather like the chicken heart that ate the world, your Dawkins shaped hole might suck in the universe.

Well, something Distinctly Dawkins shaped seems to have sucked lots of people in at least.

Personally, I prefer Stephen Jay Gould, but NS considers him philosophically inferior to Dawkins. Since I happen to respect NS's thinking, I have to weigh this up. Must admit, though, I never thought that Dawkins' take on scripture (at least the Judaeo/Christian stuff) was all that great.

We could be twins!
I like SJ GOULD, respect NS....a little, and agree with you on Dawkins and scripture.

[Dicky Underpants]

We could be twins!

God -ahem! - forbid! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.

Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.

The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.

Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.

The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.

So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.

I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.

Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.

So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.

It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.

And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''

Is God "An entity".

Is the Universe an entity?

[Dicky Underpants]

I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.

Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.

The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.

Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.

The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.

So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.

I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.

Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.

So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.

It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.

And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''

Is God "An entity".

Is the Universe an entity?

I suppose some forms of pantheism might say it was.

[ippy]

Any way anyone conveys atheism does not need to supply any evidence, it's not necessary, as you should know by now.

ippy

OK, if you were asked to appear before a community meeting somewhere and had to give a case for atheism, as opposed to secularism, are you saying that you wouldn't say a word?

No, it's an easy job, it would be exactly similar to mentioning those that have a belief in Unicorns.

It's so unlikely Unicorns exist due to the lack of any evidence that would confirm that they do really/actually exist.

So unless the necessary credible evidence is found why would I believe in the existence of Unicorns? There is no logical or rational reason to believe in them, in an exactly similar ditto, religion.

If you had come up with the evidence no matter how long winded, it would have been splashed all over the world media, as you must know, it hasn't happened which should be telling you Hope, you're on a looser.

ippy 

P S, I'm finding it difficult to see why you seem so totally unable to understand that the ball for supplying evidence is firmly in your court?

So there is Ippy all dressed up to give Norf Lunnen community a talk on atheism and he short changes them by shooting some shit about unicorns.....................

What?

ippy

[Hope]

Because to posit that something is, we measure against it against it not being on our concepts of language and logic, just as in the concept of a triangle BEING three sided.

Btw, if you posit no change as not time bound that your god cannot act.

But, NS, the concept of time can differ between cultures, so existence can't be dependent on a given understanding of time.

[Hope]

Not my problem Hope if you don't know the basis of how evolution works; well I'll try; each living thing when it reproduces, some offspring have minor differences some of no use, some that can aid survival, the latter because they aid survival they get passed on, call them minor differences or quirks or whatever you wish to call them please yourself but these are the chance happenings that I referred to in my former post.

But are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances - like environment (think of the evolution of plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution), the availability of food, etc.?

Does your kind of response mean that evolution can't be mentioned unless followed by a complete up to date explanation of the whole process, surly not?

In view of youer incredibly simplistic take on evolution given here - perhaps we need to be made aware of just how you are defining evolution everytime you mention it.

Sorry, if someone recovers from a certain death type ailment Mr Magic didit and then if they die after a long bout of suffering Mr Diabolo, I forgot how simple it is to explain life in your world.

Oh, so that's how you believe things happen.  I begin to understand why you find things so difficult.  Just for your information, the Christian perspective is that God is in overall control - he has won the war, as it were - but evil still wins the occasional battle.  Death is a natural event, which we will all ultimately experience.  For some, like my father, that experience will be very brief (he is thought to have died even before hitting the Underground station platform he was standing on, following a massive heart attack); for others it will be longer (my mother became increasingly ill over a period of 2 - 2.5 years before she died).  For others, that experience will be far longer than that 2-2.5 year period.  There is nothing within Christian thought that suggests that a healing or a death in less than X months is down to God, and a death in more than x months being down to Satan. 

I can appreciate that trying to convince yourself that there is, helps you to keep reality at arm's length, but then, keeping reality at anything other than part and parcel of yourself is very dangerous - it can lead to mental ill-health.

[Shaker]

But are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances - like environment (think of the evolution of plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution), the availability of food, etc.?

ippy's suspicion that you don't understand the basis of EbNS has been vindicated.

I can appreciate that trying to convince yourself that there is, helps you to keep reality at arm's length, but then, keeping reality at anything other than part and parcel of yourself is very dangerous - it can lead to mental ill-health.

Is this "reality" the same one for which, despite repeated requests by umpteen different posters, you can offer no methodology whatsoever?

[Hope]

ippy's suspicion that you don't understand the basis of EbNS has been vindicated.

So, you would disagree with this, from wikipedia?

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.)

As I said, evolution takes place, at least in part, in response to external factors such as the external environment.

Is this "reality" the same one for which, despite repeated requests by umpteen different posters, you can offer no methodology whatsoever?

Well, when the parameters for a methodology that is acceptable to some here are limited to those that are scientifically verifiable, 'reality' is limited to a very narrow concept.

[ippy]

Not my problem Hope if you don't know the basis of how evolution works; well I'll try; each living thing when it reproduces, some offspring have minor differences some of no use, some that can aid survival, the latter because they aid survival they get passed on, call them minor differences or quirks or whatever you wish to call them please yourself but these are the chance happenings that I referred to in my former post.

But are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances - like environment (think of the evolution of plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution), the availability of food, etc.?

Does your kind of response mean that evolution can't be mentioned unless followed by a complete up to date explanation of the whole process, surly not?

In view of youer incredibly simplistic take on evolution given here - perhaps we need to be made aware of just how you are defining evolution everytime you mention it.

Sorry, if someone recovers from a certain death type ailment Mr Magic didit and then if they die after a long bout of suffering Mr Diabolo, I forgot how simple it is to explain life in your world.

Oh, so that's how you believe things happen.  I begin to understand why you find things so difficult.  Just for your information, the Christian perspective is that God is in overall control - he has won the war, as it were - but evil still wins the occasional battle.  Death is a natural event, which we will all ultimately experience.  For some, like my father, that experience will be very brief (he is thought to have died even before hitting the Underground station platform he was standing on, following a massive heart attack); for others it will be longer (my mother became increasingly ill over a period of 2 - 2.5 years before she died).  For others, that experience will be far longer than that 2-2.5 year period.  There is nothing within Christian thought that suggests that a healing or a death in less than X months is down to God, and a death in more than x months being down to Satan. 

"I can appreciate that trying to convince yourself that there is, helps you to keep reality at arm's length, but then, keeping reality at anything other than part and parcel of yourself is very dangerous - it can lead to mental ill-health.

"But are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances - like environment (think of the evolution of plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution), the availability of food, etc."?

You've repeated what I have said, why's that?

"In view of youer incredibly simplistic take on evolution given here - perhaps we need to be made aware of just how you are defining evolution everytime you mention it".

I see we do need a detailed description of evolution every time it's mentioned, I thought as much.

Oh, so that's how you believe things happen.  I begin to understand why you find things so difficult.  Just for your information, the Christian perspective is that God is in overall control - he has won the war, as it were - but evil still wins the occasional battle.  Death is a natural event, which we will all ultimately experience.  For some, like my father, that experience will be very brief (he is thought to have died even before hitting the Underground station platform he was standing on, following a massive heart attack); for others it will be longer (my mother became increasingly ill over a period of 2 - 2.5 years before she died).  For others, that experience will be far longer than that 2-2.5 year period.  There is nothing within Christian thought that suggests that a healing or a death in less than X months is down to God, and a death in more than x months being down to Satan". Very funny

I can appreciate that trying to convince yourself that there is, helps you to keep reality at arm's length, but then, keeping reality at anything other than part and parcel of yourself is very dangerous - it can lead to mental ill-health.

ippy

P S, the very funny statement of mine stands other than where it could apply to your loss of family which of course isn't in the least bit funny.

ippy

[ippy]

Shakes, I'm beginning to worry about Hope, I thought he had lost his grip, but after that last lot, well?

ippy

[Shaker]

ippy's suspicion that you don't understand the basis of EbNS has been vindicated.

So, you would disagree with this, from wikipedia?

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.)

As I said, evolution takes place, at least in part, in response to external factors such as the external environment.

This has no bearing on your previous post. You asked: "Are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances?" The answer is that they are chance happenings. Evolution isn't "controlled" by circumstances; natural selection acts upon random events, acting as a sieve or filter upon stochastic occurrences - genetic chance and environmental necessity, as Jacques Monod famously put it.

Your example of "plumage colour in certain British birds as a result of pollution" is presumably a reference to industrial melanism in the peppered moth - one of the best-known examples, literally a textbook case, of evolution in action.

Well, when the parameters for a methodology that is acceptable to some here are limited to those that are scientifically verifiable, 'reality' is limited to a very narrow concept.

Except of course you've no way of knowing that your "reality" is less limited because you've no means of showing it to be so.

[Andy]

I rather see it as this.
We can posit a universe which is timeless in the sense that there is no net energy change nor net movement since where can it move or get or lose energy?
So we can have a timeless entity.

Given that there can be the illusion of time due to the interaction of internal components.

The Christian view of God is that of the trinity or internal components.

Thus if we have successfully posited a possible timeless universe where things can internally happen. We can posit other entities with the same capabilities.

The Christian view of the trinity fits the format better than other monolithic conceptions of God.

So you're positing a timeless universe, which would mean it makes no sense to talk of it not existing, so that you can pander to the idea that timeless things are possible so you can get to god - the thing you think is required for a timeless universe to exist. There's a razor for that.

I posit a timeless universe to demonstrate that your idea, that there can be no entities which are timeless, is wrong.

Positing just a timeless universe is though problematic isn't it? Since the universe is giving the appearance of having had a beginning.

So what ''data'' do we have in respect of all this so far. We know a timeless entity can exist.
We know there can be change ''within it'' or rather between it's different ''components''.

It looks to all intents and purposes that the universe we know and particularly as described by physicists had a beginning.

And lastly Ockhams razor in the way you are using it does not deal with the most basic question of all which would still remain even if we had a timeless unconscious universe beloved of today's philosophical naturalists.......''Why is there anything anyway?''

Where have I said it's my idea? I've been talking about it making logic useless. Regardless of that, you haven't demonstrated anything, only posited something... for which you don't believe anyway.

The issue with whether something can exist without time (the concept or otherwise) is a knock on effect from the problem with logic. We're at a point where it doesn't make sense to say that something exists if the antithesis of this (not existing) isn't even excluded. So no, we don't know whether timeless things can exist because our language doesn't cater for it so that we can make sense of it.

Yes, the best model we have of the observable universe suggests it began. I don't think that means the metaphysical concept of time only applies from that point, but time relative to the objects that make up the observable universe. You're positing the existence of some sort of mind that exists outside the concept of time, and I fail to see how such a thing can function without it and still be considered a mind.

As for the "why is there anything anyway", I see no reason to beg the purpose question and put the cart before the horse. Asking "why" doesn't bring you to the existence of an entity that has purpose, an entity that has purpose brings you to ask them why.

[Sassy]

It is for people who claim nonsensical things to be true, like the so called gifts of the spirit to put up the evidence or shut up!

OK, Floo, what do you mean by nonsensical?

Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...

[Leonard James]

Be careful, Floo,
Avoid blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... For your own sake...

Wooo...wooo...wooo

(Accompanied by much sackcloth and ashes.)

[Hope]

This has no bearing on your previous post. You asked: "Are they chance happenings or are they happenings that are, at least in part, controlled by circumstances?" The answer is that they are chance happenings. Evolution isn't "controlled" by circumstances; natural selection acts upon random events, acting as a sieve or filter upon stochastic occurrences - genetic chance and environmental necessity, as Jacques Monod famously put it.

Have to say that whenever we studied evolution at school, it was made clear that there are 2 types of evolution, macro- and micro-.  As far as I can make out, micro-evolution is very much in response to circumstances - the environment, for instance - as it can happen in as short a time as 3 or 4 generations, much quicker than macro-evolution. 

Except of course you've no way of knowing that your "reality" is less limited because you've no means of showing it to be so.

We do have the means.  The evidence is there to be seen by all humanity - in the New Testament, for instance - but since it doesn't fit the physical, materialistic parameters that you feel everything has to occur within then, of course, you can't see it.