Criteria of 'Existence'

[Oreoracle]

Alright ynotzap. I will explain what happened to you. You may very well be offended, especially since I won’t be as gentle as inocente has been.

You were at work, and some guys thought they would have fun by playing a popular game with you. Upon seeing your reaction, it amused them enough to do it a second time. When they realized you were starting to panic, they let you “win” by pretending they couldn’t lift you as they had before.

That’s it. It’s a boring explanation, certainly not as exciting as the paranormal or Satan himself trying to deceive you. But it works.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . You were at work, and some guys thought they would have fun by playing a popular game with you. Upon seeing your reaction, it amused them enough to do it a second time. When they realized you were starting to panic, they let you “win” by pretending they couldn’t lift you as they had before. . .

This cynicism is what prevents you from accepting the word of God.
It is all a trick, right. You most certainly have to beware where I am coming from. What are my intentions?
It is your own mind that is tricking you. :twocents:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There’s an immense difference between scientific theories and statements made by scientists. The former are robust and testable, the latter include the ramblings of Dawkins and Hawking et al. Neither they nor Newton are authorities.

The only authorities you recognize are on U-tube?

Am I supposed to take them against Newton, Darwin, and Einstein?

We can’t escape using authorities because we can’t know everything by ourselves.

It’s a matter of whom do you trust.

I trust the instincts of scientists who allow God as the master puzzle solver.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Source? I trust you’ve heard of the experiments which show that amino acids and the like could arise naturally from the composition of Earth’s ancient atmosphere.

Those experiments are now ancient news that has not been improved upon.

Moreover, those experiments were intelligently designed, no? So if you have to intelligently design an experiments that produces amino acids, why wouldn’t you have to intelligently design primitive conditions that would generate living organisms?

Amino acids are not even living organisms.

There is no way to avoid a supreme intelligence behind all creation.

As for predictions, as pointed out earlier, the only way you could predict life to exist almost anywhere in the universe would be on the condition that hydrogen would be the dominant element of the universe. So how was it all that hydrogen got made? Did it design (predict) itself to be the dominant element?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

inocente, I know you really have no use for philosophy, but there is a thing called the philosophy of science. That philosophy is not conducted in a laboratory. It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. The principles of science are axiomatic. When scientists draw positive philosophical conclusions from their science, they are speaking on the basis of plausibility or probability. That being the case, you have to take all the evidence in toto, rather than piecemeal.

In toto:

The universe is not eternal.

The universe was created.

The universe is not infinite.

The universe is governed by laws, not by chaos.

The universe appears to be created to produce life.

All the above have empirical bases. Their opposites have no empirical bases.

The conclusion that many scientists have drawn is that science provides reasons to believe it plausible, even probable, that a creator God exists. Science says nothing about the nature of that God, except to suggest that God has infinite power and intelligence.

This is a legitimate activity of science, to draw philosophical conclusions based on scientific discoveries.

“True science to an ever-increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each closed door opened by science.” Pope Pius XII

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,** having been originally breathed by the Creator **into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

 

[Oreoracle]

This cynicism is what prevents you from accepting the word of God.
It is all a trick, right. You most certainly have to beware where I am coming from. What are my intentions?
It is your own mind that is tricking you. :twocents:

I’ve always found the inclusion of Satan and other trickster spirits into Christianity rather confusing. They don’t perform a vital function. If Satan and his fellow demons were erased from Christianity, its morality would still be intact, God’s nature would still be intact, the capacity for evil would still be intact (after all, if one uses Satan to explain temptation, then how was Lucifer originally tempted?). He seems to exist mostly as a scare tactic.

His existence also causes problems. If he can trick us, how do you know when you’re feeling God’s presence? What if it’s actually his presence?

Those experiments are now ancient news that has not been improved upon.

I’m not sure if they’ve been improved upon or not, as I haven’t read up on it. But it certainly was a progression of our understanding that could have never occurred if we simply shrugged our shoulders and said “Goddidit”. I don’t know a single instance in which Goddidit led to a correct prediction of new information. As we’ve established, in most cases it leads to no predictions at all, but rather attempts only to agree with information we already gained from legitimate science.

Moreover, those experiments were intelligently designed, no? So if you have to intelligently design an experiments that produces amino acids, why wouldn’t you have to intelligently design primitive conditions that would generate living organisms?

All experiments are designed in the sense that they are contrived to model some situation. That doesn’t mean the situations they model are so contrived. For instance, Galileo designed his experiments for studying the acceleration of projectiles. That doesn’t imply that every instance of projectile motion is designed; in fact, most instances aren’t (rain is a good example).

In the case of abiogenesis experiments, the experiments were intended to model a typical situation of ancient Earth, “typical” meaning that the materials in the experiment were represented in the same proportions as they were in Earth’s ancient conditions.

Amino acids are not even living organisms.

Yes, I know the creationists won’t be satisfied until we cook up an amoeba from scratch in a laboratory. Scientists aren’t even claiming to know how life began. All they’ve done is show that it is possible for the materials necessary for life to occur naturally. Again, this is an increase of our understanding that Goddidit would never have produced.

As for predictions, as pointed out earlier, the only way you could predict life to exist almost anywhere in the universe would be on the condition that hydrogen would be the dominant element of the universe. So how was it all that hydrogen got made? Did it design (predict) itself to be the dominant element?

I don’t know, ask a cosmologist. The fact that some college kid on the Internet can’t answer your question doesn’t mean scientists have overlooked gaping holes in their theories.

And again, even if you invoke a God, what’s next? Goddidit, now what? Any predictions of new information from this idea?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

It seems a lot of disputes have at their heart disagreement about what constitutes ‘existence’ (e.g. does God exist, does the soul exist, etc.)

Now, what would be the definite criteria for existence, such that, if X meets them, I may say, “X exists”.

My proposal is that the criteria might be the occupation of space and/or time. Some things (people, rocks) ocuppy both space and time, and truly ‘exists’. Other things, like thoughts and actions (and thus the mind) occupy only time, without space, but are also truly said to ‘exist’. Things like abstract concepts do not occupy either space nor time, and therefore do not exist in themselves (although the ‘act of thinking them’, as occupying time, does exist)

Perhaps its just a matter of linguistic convention, but it would seem useful to have a precise criteria for existence. Can someone come up with a good definition?

I would say the “the occupation of space and/or time” as a criterion of existence limits existence to physical objects. And without justifying that limitation–especially in the face of an over 2500 yr theistic tradition in the West–it is arbitrary.

I would argue that the “measure” of existence would be the intersection of two criteria.

(1) mind independence [as opposed to mind dependent] = what is presented to sense perception or intellectual cognition. “Mind independence” can be a property of intellectual or other mental acts as objects of reflection: these acts are objects of consideration independent of the mind presently considering them.

(2) actual [as opposed to potential] - a thing or event does not yet exist so long as it is only potential. When the potential is actualized then it exists. Although a match has the potency to produce fire, the fire it can give rise to is not (yet) real and existent so long as it has not been struck.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, I know the creationists won’t be satisfied until we cook up an amoeba from scratch in a laboratory. Scientists aren’t even claiming to know how life began. All they’ve done is show that it is possible for the materials necessary for life to occur naturally. Again, this is an increase of our understanding that Goddidit would never have produced.

Cooking up an amoeba from scratch in a lab would be fine with me. It would demonstrate nothing more than that an intelligently designed process was behind cooking up the very first amoeba. And, of course, that would be God.

I don’t believe any scientist has ever stopped looking for how to explain the laws of nature because he already thought that Goddidit and that’s all we need to know. Certainly that’s not true of Newton and Galileo who were Christians. Even Einstein could see that his discoveries had reinforced the notion of a deity at work. Asserting that God did anything is never an excuse for abrogating our individual responsibility to follow our own vocations with the gifts God gave us. The artist never ceases to create, the builder never ceases to build, the ruler never ceases to rule on the principle that God has done everything and we not do any more. That is equally true of the philosopher and the scientist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All experiments are designed in the sense that they are contrived to model some situation. That doesn’t mean the situations they model are so contrived. For instance, Galileo designed his experiments for studying the acceleration of projectiles. That doesn’t imply that every instance of projectile motion is designed; in fact, most instances aren’t (rain is a good example).

In the case of abiogenesis experiments, the experiments were intended to model a typical situation of ancient Earth, “typical” meaning that the materials in the experiment were represented in the same proportions as they were in Earth’s ancient conditions.

There is no “typical situation” of early Earth. The conditions for producing a typical situation have long vanished. So the experiments you say were intelligently designed to duplicate the early conditions need to be regarded as decidedly tentative and doubtful. The scientific lab environment that is supposed to ape the primitive earth is not really a scientific lab in the sense of of a lab that exists today, one that is tightly controlled by intelligent human experiments.

Abiogenesis had no model upon which to build the first living organism. It had only two possible courses of action: pure luck or intelligent design.

Many of the greatest scientists seem to think pure luck is decidedly unlikely.

Other great scientists (the atheists) will vote for luck because they have no other way to go.

Werner Heisenberg: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t believe any scientist has ever stopped looking for how to explain the laws of nature because he already thought that Goddidit and that’s all we need to know. Certainly that’s not true of Newton and Galileo who were Christians.

The converse was true in Newton’s case. He thought Goddidit because he couldn’t tackle questions such as the source of gravity and how it held our solar system together, hence his assertion that only God could have designed the solar system. So sometimes scientists invoke God, and then give up asking questions. Other times they can’t tackle a question, so they invoke God.

I would be fine with scientists saying, “I think God did it” and still trying to find an explanation. But it’s interesting that, in every case thus far in the history of science, Goddidit has always been dropped at the first sign of something better. For instance, Newton attributed the structure of the solar system to God, but his successors eventually found a godless explanation for it. If Goddidit is such a useful notion, wouldn’t they have studied God to gain this understanding? Wouldn’t Goddidit have prompted more questions for Newton to ask? Wouldn’t it have lead to more predictions and experiments?

The main question I’d like you to answer is: Why do you think that Goddidit never seems to lead to more predictions if it’s such a useful explanation? Again, when I say “prediction”, I am referring to new information. Coinciding with old information isn’t the same as predicting.

There is no “typical situation” of early Earth. The conditions for producing a typical situation have long vanished. So the experiments you say were intelligently designed to duplicate the early conditions need to be regarded as decidedly tentative and doubtful. The scientific lab environment that is supposed to ape the primitive earth is not really a scientific lab in the sense of of a lab that exists today, one that is tightly controlled by intelligent human experiments.

Their claim is that the experiment did represent ancient conditions, so you are implying that those scientists are either lying or they’re incompetent.

Abiogenesis had no model upon which to build the first living organism. It had only two possible courses of action: pure luck or intelligent design.

I don’t think anyone has devised a method to determine the likelihood of life originating from inanimate materials. (In fact, you actually said a few posts ago that no one can test the probability that it would occur.) So the claim that it must have been luck is unfounded.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Their claim is that the experiment did represent ancient conditions, so you are implying that those scientists are either lying or they’re incompetent.

I don’t know how their duplication of the ancient conditions would be possible, unless they were there observing the ancient conditions, which would have made them older than Methuselah. That would certainly have been empirical evidence anyone could live with.

But I see we are starting to repeat ourselves.

I leave you with the testimony of great scientific minds that humble me.

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And here are some more:

Fred Hoyle Astrophysicist

“The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing-747.”

Stephen Hawking Radiation Theory of Black Holes

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 127

CHARLES TOWNES Nobel Laureate in Physics.

On May 24, 2002, Charles Townes wrote a letter to the compiler T. Dimitrov. To the inquiry, “What do you think about the existence of God?” Prof. Townes gave the following answer: “I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.” (Townes 2002a).

WILLIAM PHILLIPS Nobel Laureate in Physics.

“I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. …I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.” (Phillips 2002b).

SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG Nobel Laureate in Physics:

“What should be the principles of a nation? …Christ stated them in the form of two Commandments: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart’, and ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ ” (Bragg, as cited in Caroe 1979, 111).

ALEXIS CARREL Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

“We are loved by an immaterial and all-powerful Being. This Being is accessible to our prayers. We must love Him above all creatures. And we ourselves must also love one another.”

“Christianity offers men the very highest of moralities. …It presents to them a God who can be adored because He is within our reach and Whom we ought to love.” (Carrel 1952, Chap. 9, Part 4). “I want to be like smoke in the wind at God’s disposal.” (Carrel, as cited in Newton 1989).

SIR JOHN ECCLES Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

In his article “Modern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God” that he wrote for the book, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society (1984), John Eccles came to the following conclusion:

“We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” (Eccles 1984a, 50).

In an interview published in the scientific anthology, The Voice of Genius (1995), Prof. Eccles stated: “There is a Divine Providence over and above the materialistic happenings of biological evolution.” (Eccles, as cited in Brian 1995, 371).

JOSEPH MURRAY Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

In an interview for the National Catholic Register (December 1-7, 1996), Prof. Joseph Murray asserts that there is no conflict between religion and science:

“Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist - I don’t see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation - the way it emerged - it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I’ve never seen a conflict.” (Murray, as cited in Meyer 1996).

“We’re just working with the tools God gave us. …There’s no reason that science and religion have to operate in an adversarial relationship. Both come from the same source, the only source of truth - the Creator.” (Murray, as cited in Meyer 1996).

SIR ERNST CHAIN Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

Concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution Professor Ernst Chain (who is a theistic evolutionist) states:

“I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. …I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts.” (Chain, as cited in Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1985, pp. 147-148).

In his public lecture “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society” (University of London, February 1970) Sir Ernst Chain declared:

“As far as my own actions are concerned, I am trying to be guided by the laws, ethics and traditions of Judaism as formulated in the Old Testament, which are, of course, also the basis of Christianity. I am convinced, and have been for many years, that it is impossible to construct a sort of absolute and generally applicable code of ethical behaviour on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, if only for the reason that our knowledge about the basic problems of life is far too fragmentary and limited, and will always remain so.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And these:

GEORGE WALD Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology:

In 1954 Prof. George Wald (who was still an atheist at that time) wrote in Scientific American:

“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” (Wald 1954, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American.

By the 1980s Wald had repudiated materialism:

“Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

SIR DEREK BARTON Nobel Laureate in Chemistry:

Prof. Barton wrote: “God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.” (Barton, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, 144).

“The observations and experiments of science are so wonderful that the truth that they establish can surely be accepted as another manifestation of God. God shows himself by allowing man to establish truth.” (Barton, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, 145).

CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN Nobel Laureate in Chemistry:

To the question, “Many prominent scientists - including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck - have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?” Christian Anfinsen replied:

“I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” (Anfinsen, as cited in Margenau and Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997, 139).

 

[Aloysium]

In discussing the scientific method in relation to Truth, Freddy Nietzsche (who should be hated more by atheists than any theist) also comes to mind.

One should not understand this compulsion to construct concepts, species, forms, purposes, laws (‘a world of identical cases’) as if they enabled us to fix the real world; but as a compulsion to arrange a world for ourselves in which our existence is made possible:—we thereby create a world which is calculable, simplified, comprehensible, etc., for us.

In order to cope with this world, some people hide in what is order-able, that which can be manipulated and controlled, while unknowingly spiraling off into meaninglessness and chaos, where in the end, suicide appears as the only choice.

It follows from the laws of order of rankle that scholars, insofar as they belong to the spiritual middle class, can never catch sight of the really great problems and question marks; moreover, their courage and their eyes simply do not reach that far—and above all, their needs which led them to become scholars in the first place, their inmost assumptions and desires that things might be such and such, their fears and hopes all come to rest and are satisfied too soon. . . .

It is no different with the faith with which so many materialistic natural scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have its equivalent and its measure in human thought and human valuations—a “world of truth” that can be mastered completely and forever with the aid of our square little reason. What? Do we really want to permit existence to be degraded for us like this—reduced to a mere exercise for a calculator and an indoor diversion for mathematicians? Above all, one should not wish to divest existence of its rich ambiguity that is a dictate of good taste, gentlemen, the taste of reverence for everything that lies beyond your horizon. That the only justifiable interpretation of the world should be one in which you are justified because one can continue to work and do research scientifically in your sense (you really mean, mechanistically?)—an interpretation that permits counting, calculating, weighing, seeing, and touching, and nothing more—that is a crudity and naivete, assuming that it is not a mental illness, an idiocy.

Would it not be rather probable that, conversely, precisely the most superficial and external aspect of existence—what is most apparent, its skin and sensualization—would be grasped first—and might even be the only thing that allowed itself to be grasped? A “scientific” interpretation of the world, as you understand it, might therefore still be one of the most stupid of all possible interpretations of the world, meaning that it be one of the poorest in meaning. This thought is intended for the ears and consciences of our mechanists who nowadays like to pass as philosophers and insist that mechanics is the doctrine of the first and last laws on which all existence must be based as on a ground floor. But an essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world. Assuming that one estimated the value of a piece of music according to how much of it could be counted, calculated, and expressed in formulas: how absurd would such a “scientific” estimation of music be! What would one have comprehended, understood, grasped of it? Nothing, really nothing of what is “music” in it!

 

[Nihilist]

I would say the “the occupation of space and/or time” as a criterion of existence limits existence to physical objects. And without justifying that limitation–especially in the face of an over 2500 yr theistic tradition in the West–it is arbitrary.

I would argue that the “measure” of existence would be the intersection of two criteria.

(1) mind independence [as opposed to mind dependent] = what is presented to sense perception or intellectual cognition. “Mind independence” can be a property of intellectual or other mental acts as objects of reflection: these acts are objects of consideration independent of the mind presently considering them.

(2) actual [as opposed to potential] - a thing or event does not yet exist so long as it is only potential. When the potential is actualized then it exists. Although a match has the potency to produce fire, the fire it can give rise to is not (yet) real and existent so long as it has not been struck.

Yes, but isn’t there circularity in the second criteria: Something is held to be actual, rather than potential, if it actually ‘exists’. But existence is precisely what is to be defined…

I distinguish a fire on a struck match from a merely potential one, only insofar as I perceive it to be lit. Hoe else can the actual be distinguished from the potential- apart from by being percieved- or by simply deferring to a mysterious thing called ‘existence’- whose criteria seem to remain obscure.

As for acts of thoughts, concepts,- how could these be independent of mind? I see that they can be independent of any particular mind- that must be in some mind- otherwise they are thoughts or concepts…

Unless, we simply say they are in the mind of God- but even then, they are not independent of ANY mind…

 

[Nihilist]

In discussing the scientific method in relation to Truth, Freddy Nietzsche (who should be hated more by atheists than any theist) also comes to mind.

In order to cope with this world, some people hide in what is order-able, that which can be manipulated and controlled, while unknowingly spiraling off into meaninglessness and chaos, where in the end, suicide appears as the only choice.

I like that quote! But, is suicide the only option in a meaningless chaos? Lots of people lives they believe to be meaningless, and often are boring, frustrated an unpleasant. They just quitely serve their time, doing a meaningless job, to cover the expenses of living a life they never wanted. If they had the option of never being born, of course, they’d gladly take it- but suicide is a troublesome and unpleasant act for all concerned, so they just wait for nature to take its course.

I’d say that is the reality of 90% of the population in the West.

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t know how their duplication of the ancient conditions would be possible, unless they were there observing the ancient conditions, which would have made them older than Methuselah. That would certainly have been empirical evidence anyone could live with.

I don’t think you want to seriously commit yourself to the idea that we need to actually have been somewhere observing something in the past to make inferences about past events. If you did, you would have to give up substantial portions of biology (development of our ancestors) and chemistry (radioactive decay), most of geology (geologic column, age of Earth), and nearly all of cosmology (the Big Bang). Not to mention any forensic investigation techniques besides catching something on camera.

And you didn’t address the crucial question: If Goddidit is such a useful explanation, why does it never seem to lead to any new predictions?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Yes, but isn’t there circularity in the second criteria: Something is held to be actual, rather than potential, if it actually ‘exists’. But existence is precisely what is to be defined…

Yes, defined; not proven. So circularity is not an issue. Although certainly one shouldn’t use the word to be defined in a definition.

But your title is “criteria,” which is not the same as a definition; and in fact a criterion can use the word under consideration.

Therefore I don’t see how any of the criteria I gave could be circular. And as a criterion (2) still stands as far as I can see.

Further, I went with “measure” (or “criteria”) of existence because existence is fundamental. Take the principle of non-contradiction which is the most fundamental of them (except for, perhaps, the principle of identity), yet it uses existence in its definition. “A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.” So one can define it and find a measure/criteria of it, but not prove it. What would be more fundamental such that it could serve as a proof of the notion of existence?

So again I don’t see circularity as an issue in the criteria I gave. Definitions, as opposed to criteria, are below.

I distinguish a fire on a struck match from a merely potential one, only insofar as I perceive it to be lit. Hoe else can the actual be distinguished from the potential- apart from by being percieved

Exactly, as per my criteria (“presented to sense perception or intellectual cognition”), given that a flame is an empirically perceptible object–“physical” in a broad sense given matter is involved. No one is disputing the role of sense perception in the formation of knowledge. I just reject limiting existence/reality/being to physical objects until proven that one should do so.

• or by simply deferring to a mysterious thing called ‘existence’- whose criteria seem to remain obscure.

I think my criteria are clear and cover the issue . . . as criteria.

As far as a definition goes I would offer the following.
to have real being whether material or spiritual (Merriam-Webster)
to have actual being : to be (Dictionary.com)
to be, or to be real : to have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood (Cambridge Dictionary)
what has reality of its own and not merely in potency (Bernard Wuellner, SJ, Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy

As I said the act of existence IS fundamental.

As for acts of thoughts, concepts,- how could these be independent of mind? I see that they can be independent of any particular mind- that must be in some mind- otherwise they are thoughts or concepts… Unless, we simply say they are in the mind of God- but even then, they are not independent of ANY mind…

Sure, they are mental or cognitive acts. But they can also be considered as given phenomena or objects to be investigated. And being given (or data, if you will) they are objects of consideration independent of the mind presently considering them.

One can consider and discuss the experience of thirst, pain, love, choosing, or discuss and consider a reasoning process or an assertion, and while one is doing so these things are objects of consideration independent of the act of presently considering them. We are doing this right now since the perceptible words are only signs of our thoughts, assertions, arguments.

 

[yppop]

#94 Yppop

Just out of curiosity, could you name a few of the confirmed “predictions” of evolutionary theory? .

I listed several in post #90.

I read post #90 the day you submitted and didn’t respond because it seemed like a complete misuse of the word “predict” and nothing contained in that post would answer my simple question so I ignored it until I read your claim in your Post #92:

#92 Oreoacle

As I’ve pointed out, evolutionary theory yields many confirmed predictions that no other theory has yet improved upon.

Your claim regarding **many confirmed predictions ** compelled me to go back and respond to your Post #90

#90 Oreacle

This is partially correct. Evolutionary theory says that the way in which life develops depends on the ambient environment. Since we can’t predict natural disasters in the distant future, the development of life is also hard to predict.

I would argue that evolution provides an accurate scheme for predicting how life adapts to known environmental changes. If memory serves, I read an article a while back about the observation that, due to the increase in ocean temperature from climate change, some species of fish were gradually adapting to survive at higher temperatures.

How can evolution “provide an accurate scheme for predicting how life adapts to known environmental changes” if according to your first comment natural disasters can’t be predicted? In fact, any sort of environmental changes can’t be predicted, therefore evolutionary theory has no predictions.

#90 Oreoacle

Evolutionary theory predicted the geologic column. Darwin even wrote about such a thing before it was discovered.

Evolution theory is based on the survival of differences of individuals of a species to changes in the environment. How does that predict the stratification of the earth’s layers?

The Principles of Geology was published by Charles Lyall in the early 1830’s. William Smith published a geological map in 1815 that depicted the stratification of Britain. Darwin’s book was published in 1859. Darwin met Lyall in 1836 and they became friends. Surely the geologic column existed before evolution could have predicted it.

#90 Oreoacle

The idea that we originated from the great apes led to an interesting prediction. We have one fewer pair of chromosomes than apes, so if we descended from them in (relatively) recent history, there must have been some mutation that fused the apes’ chromosomes together. Scientists have identified where this occurred in our genome.

The Great Apes or taxonomic family Hominidae includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans so we didn’t “originate” from the great apes, we are one. As the missing pair of chromosomes in the other three members of the family, that wasn’t predicted it was observed and explained by evolution.

#90 Oreoacle

And even creationists admit that evolution hits the nail on the head when it comes to so-called “microevolution”. The need for new vaccines is easily predicted by evolution.

This is what you might call a “DUH!” prediction. Yes, we know bacteria can adapt to resist specific vaccines, but you don’t need the theory of evolution to predict the need. If a pathogist assumed that the mechanism he was dealing with was a mutation - diversification - selection of the most resistant - evolutionary type mechanism he would stand a good chance of going down the wrong road because: there are a number of proposed mechanisms for explaining the bacterial adaptation of vaccine resistance.

#90 Oreoacle

If you could point to similar predictions made by intelligent design not already predicted by evolutionary theory, then that might be more convincing.

Here is the classic example of assuming the not so obvious, namely that there are predictions associated with the theory of evolution. As far as I am concerned you haven’t given any examples of evolutionary predictions.

You don’t need to answer unless you can supply a legitimate prediction.
Yppop

 

[Oreoracle]

How can evolution “provide an accurate scheme for predicting how life adapts to known environmental changes” if according to your first comment natural disasters can’t be predicted? In fact, any sort of environmental changes can’t be predicted, therefore evolutionary theory has no predictions.

This is like saying that the theory of plate tectonics makes no predictions because we can’t always tell when plates will shift. It predicts that earthquakes will occur when the plates shift. Likewise, evolutionary theory predicts that adaptions occur most rapidly when the environment changes. Sometimes we can tell when the environment will change, and sometimes we can’t.

It’s pretty rare that one theory is able to account for all phenomena that may be relevant to it. If that’s the standard to which you hold evolutionary theory, then I’d be interested in knowing what you think of meteorology. We have trouble reliably predicting weather beyond a week or so! Is meteorology therefore worthless?

Evolution theory is based on the survival of differences of individuals of a species to changes in the environment. How does that predict the stratification of the earth’s layers?

It doesn’t predict the stratification, but it does predict that each layer will be associated with different fossils. If creationism were true, the distribution of fossils among the layers would be homogeneous. There would be no such thing as ancient/primitive species, because speciation doesn’t happen with creationism. If there had been a Great Flood that caused rapid stratification as many creationists believe, then it’s rather remarkable that different species managed to be sorted nicely into different layers in the deluge.

The Great Apes or taxonomic family Hominidae includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans so we didn’t “originate” from the great apes, we are one. As the missing pair of chromosomes in the other three members of the family, that wasn’t predicted it was observed and explained by evolution.

I think you know what I meant by coming from the great apes.

Scientists anticipated the fusion before they observed it thanks to the theory of evolution. That, my friend, is a confirmed prediction. If it’s so easy to pull off this sort of thing, why can’t the intelligent design crowd do it?

This is what you might call a “DUH!” prediction. Yes, we know bacteria can adapt to resist specific vaccines, but you don’t need the theory of evolution to predict the need.

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you explain the need without evolutionary theory? How does a creationist, who by definition believes all life was created in more or less the form in which it exists today, explain the adaptations of bacteria?

What could one say? “Well, God made everything as we see it today, except for bacteria. He likes to make those simpler organisms change pretty rapidly just to baffle us.”

Also, I noticed that you completely skipped the points about vestigial organs and un-intelligent design. How do you account for those things? God likes giving animals extra organs for decoration?