Powerful evidence for Design?

[Gaber]

Not precisely. There is an external reality, independent of ourselves. However, we can never know that reality, because all we have to work with are our senses. Through the imperfect medium of our senses we build up an imperfect model of reality inside our heads. The error of reification is to mistake that imperfect model inside our heads for the actual external reality. Our internal models contain all sorts of incorrect and extraneous stuff. We need to be constantly aware that we are working with an inaccurate internal model, not with the actual external reality.

Well said. I might yet modi9fy the nature of that “external reality” relative to state of development ofthe “perceiver.” But generally, the condition you describe is at the root of wars, evil, religious contentions, personal conflicts, etc, etc, namely the human condition. It is a part of the projection mechanism that constitutes personality as destinct from self.

How did you get that from what I said? Humans are both physical and spiritual. Humans generate designs, hence our designs have both material and spiritual causes because we ourselves are both material and spiritual.

Very simplistically put, but yes.

> Do you deny the possibility that persons can change?  If there is change then there must be difference.



Yes, difference or contrast is what constues "person," or "who". Spirituality is the pusuit of what doesn't change, or "what."




> The material part of our existence can be explained scientifically.  Some of the methods of science can usefully be applied to the spiritual part as well, as advised by the Buddha in the Kalama sutta.



Yep.




> Or both or neither.  The universe is a conglomerate of many different parts.  Parts may be purposeful while other parts may be purposeless.  Is the universe hot?  Parts are hot, parts are cold and parts have no atoms present so temperature is undefined.



Again, "purposeful" is an assesment from the standpoint of mortal mind, not from Being.



> I reject reified persons, reified minds, reified spirits and reified truths.  Reification is at heart the error of mistaking our internal mental model of something for the actual thing.  One of the techniques of Buddhist meditation is to see just the bare object, without all the added mental overlays that go into our internal models.



Yes, this word "reification" is wonderfully useful and accurate as applied in this thread. Thank you for the new (to me) word! and ditto about the Buddhist practice. Eventually it is turned inward to the idea of person and then can go beyond that, Excellent. Thank you!


> rossum

 

[tonyrey]

It is amusing that those who reject Design are providing further evidence that there is Design! They assume they have the power to decide for themselves what to believe and how to live - which is precisely **why **we exist. If they deny they have that power they are undermining the value of their own conclusion. If they cannot choose what to believe their beliefs are almost certain to be false because there are countless ways of being mistaken but only one interpretation of reality that is fundamentally true.

Our power of reason, spiritual development and self-determination is not an accident. It is the antithesis of fortuitous activity. We may accept it as an inexplicable fact but it is the most significant fact of all. To live without any sense of purpose is not to live but to exist. If life seems purposeless it is also valueless and meaningless. Even the simplest living cell has a goal - to survive - without being aware of the fact. Goal-directed activity is evident in every aspect of nature. We take it for granted because it is ubiquitous but it is scientifically inexplicable.

Chemical reactions have no reference to the future. They occur according to physical necessity and are caused by past and present events. With the advent of life there was a dramatic leap into a new dimension. For the first time individual entities were not passive products of their environment but autonomous agents. They had an urge to survive which led to both co-operation and competition between individuals which have transformed this planet into an incredibly rich and beautiful biosphere. Even the most obdurate sceptic must admit this is an astonishing development that could never have been predicted by an alien observer. The miracle of life is the most formidable challenge to the opponent of Design - even without taking into account the existence of persons who are responsible for enhancing or destroying our environment.

 

[tonyrey]

According to you “reality” is a reification!

I agree.

Our designs exist but you seem to believe they have no physical or spiritual cause.

How did you get that from what I said? Humans are both physical and spiritual. Humans generate designs, hence our designs have both material and spiritual causes because we ourselves are both material and spiritual.

I agree.

You mean that “we” are not one and the same persons from moment to moment. Your view resembles Hume’s “bundles of perceptions” which have no lasting identity or continuity apart from being consecutive - which is not sufficient to justify responsibility.

The resemblance to Hume is correct, however the connection is not just “consecutive”, it is also causal. The series of instantaneous persons is causally connected, the preceding instant is part of the causes of the succeeding instant.

That is why the different series remain separate. The earlier me is causally connected to the current me, but not causally connected to the current you. Hence the two sequences remain separate.

On what do you base your belief that each of us is a series of causally connected instantaneous persons? It contravenes the principle of parsimony. Why postulate many selves when one is sufficient?

Do you deny the possibility that persons can change? If there is change then there must be difference.

We change in some respects but our fundamental identity does not change. We are the same persons regardless of how we behave and what happens to us.

Do you believe the persons in your family are no longer the persons they were last year?

The material part of our existence can be explained scientifically. Some of the methods of science can usefully be applied to the spiritual part as well, as advised by the Buddha in the Kalama sutta.

How is the spiritual part explained?

A purposeless universe is hardly nonsense because the universe either exists for a purpose or it doesn’t.

Or both or neither. The universe is a conglomerate of many different parts. Parts may be purposeful while other parts may be purposeless. Is the universe hot? Parts are hot, parts are cold and parts have no atoms present so temperature is undefined.

I am referring to the fundamental elements of the universe described by physicists.They either exist for a purpose or they don’t.

I reject reified persons, reified minds, reified spirits and reified truths. Reification is at heart the error of mistaking our internal mental model of something for the actual thing. One of the techniques of Buddhist meditation is to see just the bare object, without all the added mental overlays that go into our internal models.

They exist whether they are described as reified or not. Our concept of things and persons may be inaccurate but the things and persons exist nevertheless.

 

[rossum]

On what do you base your belief that each of us is a series of causally connected instantaneous persons? It contravenes the principle of parsimony. Why postulate many selves when one is sufficient?

One is not sufficient, so parsimony is not broken. If one were still sufficient then I would weigh a few pounds, have neither hair nor teeth and only be able to digest milk. I change through my life, so the different version of me that appear are different – there is more then one me. Hence the need for many selves.

We change in some respects but our fundamental identity does not change. We are the same persons regardless of how we behave and what happens to us.

Buddhism does not accept any “fundamental identity”. That is what the “no soul” doctrine means. What we think is our “fundamental identity”, actually isn’t. We are mistaken. Buddhism does not “destroy the self”, it gives you the understanding that there never was a self to start with – you were mistaken in thinking that such a thing existed. You cannot destroy what was never there in the first place.

Do you believe the persons in your family are no longer the persons they were last year?
How is the spiritual part explained?

They have changed, so they must be different. Change requires difference. Their spiritual part is also constantly changing. In Buddhism things change all the time.

I am referring to the fundamental elements of the universe described by physicists.They either exist for a purpose or they don’t.

Or both or neither or something else we haven’t thought of yet. I reject your false dichotomy. A carpenter uses a hammer to hammer in nails. A murderer uses a hammer to kill people. What is the “purpose” of a hammer?

They exist whether they are described as reified or not. Our concept of things and persons may be inaccurate but the things and persons exist nevertheless.

They exist as concepts inside our minds. The degree of congruence between reality and our mental concepts varies from person to person. For enlightened people, the degree of congruence is very high. The rest of us have to work towards that goal.

rossum

 

[Gaber]

It is amusing that those who reject Design are providing further evidence that there is Design!

I is also amusing to watch how the mind’s propensity to organize perceptions around a given proposition, any proposition, plays out.

They assume they have the power to decide for themselves what to believe and how to live - which is precisely **why **we exist. If they deny they have that power they are undermining the value of their own conclusion. If they cannot choose what to believe their beliefs are almost certain to be false because there are countless ways of being mistaken but only one interpretation of reality that is fundamentally true.

Who is “they?” Statistics and references, pleas.

Our power of reason, spiritual development and self-determination is not an accident. It is the antithesis of fortuitous activity. We may accept it as an inexplicable fact but it is the most significant fact of all. To live without any sense of purpose is not to live but to exist. If life seems purposeless it is also valueless and meaningless. Even the simplest living cell has a goal - to survive - without being aware of the fact. Goal-directed activity is evident in every aspect of nature. We take it for granted because it is ubiquitous but it is scientifically inexplicable.

Thank you for stating your opinion about a biological condition.

Chemical reactions have no reference to the future. They occur according to physical necessity and are caused by past and present events. With the advent of life there was a dramatic leap into a new dimension. For the first time individual entities were not passive products of their environment but autonomous agents. They had an urge to survive which led to both co-operation and competition between individuals which have transformed this planet into an incredibly rich and beautiful biosphere. Even the most obdurate sceptic must admit this is an astonishing development that could never have been predicted by an alien observer. The miracle of life is the most formidable challenge to the opponent of Design - even without taking into account the existence of persons who are responsible for enhancing or destroying our environment. It didn’t need to be predicted by an alien observer; he would have had himslef to wonder about, LOL! but taking the position of an alien observer is a very useful thing to do regarding the discovery of cross cultural universal and local differences. The best book on comparative religion I’ve ever read, it providing analytical tools not often emplyed, has this idea in its preface. I wonder if that is where you got it? At any rate, given that there is God and Creation, that still doesn’t necessitate design.

 

[Gaber]

…We change in some respects but our fundamental identity does not change. We are the same persons regardless of how we behave and what happens to us.

Do you believe the persons in your family are no longer the persons they were last year?
How is the spiritual part explained?..

Yes, “person” changes and drops away at death. And no, we may not be, if you have read any work on dramatic personality shifts due to various causes.

Yes, they are the same as last year, darn it! The “spiritual part” can vbe explained, or not, in endless ways, as we have seen. Best may be to not attempt to explain it to another, as we are so wont to do one here (but we ask, lol!) but to engage a voyage of discovery that is beyond the mind. The results, then, are inevitable and uniform.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, “person” changes and drops away at death. And no, we may not be, if you have read any work on dramatic personality shifts due to various causes.

Yes, they are the same as last year, darn it! The “spiritual part” can be explained, or not, in endless ways, as we have seen. Best may be to not attempt to explain it to another, as we are so wont to do one here (but we ask, lol!) but to engage a voyage of discovery that is beyond the mind. The results, then, are inevitable and uniform.

I hope your voyage of discovery is successful.

 

[tonyrey]

On what do you base your belief that each of us is a series

That is the Buddhist belief but it is not shared by the law courts or the majority of people in the world.

We change in some respects but our fundamental identity does not change. We are the same persons regardless of how we behave and what happens to us.

                    Buddhism does not accept any "fundamental identity".  That is what  the "no soul" doctrine means.  What we think is our "fundamental  identity", actually isn't.  We are mistaken.  Buddhism does not "destroy  the self", it gives you the understanding that there never was a self  to start with -- you were mistaken in thinking that such a thing  existed.  You cannot destroy what was never there in the first place.

If there is no self then self-control is an illusion.

Do you believe the persons in your family are no longer the persons they were last year?
How is the spiritual part explained?

They have changed, so they must be different. Change requires difference. Their spiritual part is also constantly changing. In Buddhism things change all the time.

I am referring to the fundamental elements of the universe described by physicists.They either exist for a purpose or they don’t.

Or both or neither or something else we haven’t thought of yet. I reject your false dichotomy. A carpenter uses a hammer to hammer in nails. A murderer uses a hammer to kill people. What is the “purpose” of a hammer?

So you disagree that the physical universe exists **either **for the purpose of sustaining life or not for the purpose of sustaining life?

They exist whether they are described as reified or not. Our concept of things and persons may be inaccurate but the things and persons exist nevertheless.

They exist as concepts inside our minds. The degree of congruence between reality and our mental concepts varies from person to person. For enlightened people, the degree of congruence is very high. The rest of us have to work towards that goal.

Working towards a goal is a purpose we have not invented or created for ourselves - whether we acknowledge it or not…

 

[tonyrey]

It is amusing that those who reject Design are providing further evidence that there is Design!

The proposition is either true or false.

They assume they have the power to decide for themselves what to believe and how to live - which is precisely **why **we exist. If they deny they have that power they are undermining the value of their own conclusion. If they cannot choose what to believe their beliefs are almost certain to be false because there are countless ways of being mistaken but only one interpretation of reality that is fundamentally true.

Who is “they?”

They are those who reject Design.

Statistics and references, pleas.

Statistics and references don’t determine whether a conclusion is true or false.

Our power of reason, spiritual development and self-determination is not an accident. It is the antithesis of fortuitous activity. We may accept it as an inexplicable fact but it is the most significant fact of all. To live without any sense of purpose is not to live but to exist. If life seems purposeless it is also valueless and meaningless. Even the simplest living cell has a goal - to survive - without being aware of the fact. Goal-directed activity is evident in every aspect of nature. We take it for granted because it is ubiquitous but it is scientifically inexplicable.

Thank you for stating your opinion about a biological condition.

Can you explain why it is false?

Chemical reactions have no reference to the future. They occur according to physical necessity and are caused by past and present events. With the advent of life there was a dramatic leap into a new dimension. For the first time individual entities were not passive products of their environment but autonomous agents. They had an urge to survive which led to both co-operation and competition between individuals which have transformed this planet into an incredibly rich and beautiful biosphere. Even the most obdurate sceptic must admit this is an astonishing development that could never have been predicted by an alien observer. The miracle of life is the most formidable challenge to the opponent of Design - even without taking into account the existence of persons who are responsible for enhancing or destroying our environment.

It didn’t need to be predicted by an alien observer; he would have had himslef to wonder about, LOL! but taking the position of an alien observer is a very useful thing to do regarding the discovery of cross cultural universal and local differences. The best book on comparative religion I’ve ever read, it providing analytical tools not often emplyed, has this idea in its preface. I wonder if that is where you got it? At any rate, given that there is God and Creation, that still doesn’t necessitate design.

Do you mean that God had no purpose in creating anything or anyone?

 

[rossum]

That is the Buddhist belief but it is not shared by the law courts or the majority of people in the world.

Argumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy: “The majority of people in the world are not Catholic, hence Catholicism is wrong.”

If there is no self then self-control is an illusion.

We use our illusion of self-control to control our illusory selves. Both self and self-control are working on the same level, so there is no problem. We think we have a self, and we think we are controlling it.

So you disagree that the physical universe exists either for the purpose of sustaining life or not for the purpose of sustaining life?

Its purpose is to provide useful employment for astronomers and cosmologists. It has many other purposes, but all such purposes are extrinsic to the physical universe and not intrinsic to it.

Working towards a goal is a purpose we have not invented or created for ourselves - whether we acknowledge it or not…

It is a purpose we have created for ourselves. Who else can set our purpose?

rossum

 

[Gaber]

The proposition is either true or false.

And you view it in a one valued logic sytem. It may be also irrelevant. What if it is semantically null?

those who reject Design.Lks like a straw man to me. Even if there is a loose “category” of “those who reject design,” do they all, without exception, have your alleged reasn for doing what you label as “rejection?” Too sloppy.

Statistics and references don’t determine whether a conclusion is true or false.

A neither do your opinions from questionable premises.

                                        Can you explain why it is false?

Do you mean that God had no purpose in creating anything or anyone?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Gaber]

The proposition is either true or false.

And you view it in a one valued logic sytem. It may be also irrelevant. What if it is semantically null?

They are those who reject Design.

Lks like a straw man to me. Even if there is a loose “category” of “those who reject design,” do they all, without exception, have your alleged reasn for doing what you label as “rejection?” Too sloppy.

Statistics and references don’t determine whether a conclusion is true or false.

A neither do your opinions from questionable premises.

Can you explain why it is false?

It doesn’t need to be false. It is only irrelevant.

Do you mean that God had no purpose in creating anything or anyone?

The statement assumes that there is a God who “created” anything or anyone. It also uses and anthropomorphic idea: “purpose” which is functionally a human and relative term. It is in the realm of psychology, not spirituality.

BTW: listen to Rossum. He is accurate.

 

[tonyrey]

And you view it in a one valued logic sytem. It may be also irrelevant. What if it is semantically null?
Lks like a straw man to me. Even if there is a loose “category” of “those who reject design,” do they all, without exception, have your alleged reasn for doing what you label as “rejection?” Too sloppy.
A neither do your opinions from questionable premises.It doesn’t need to be false. It is only irrelevant.
The statement assumes that there is a God who “created” anything or anyone. It also uses and anthropomorphic idea: “purpose” which is functionally a human and relative term. It is in the realm of psychology, not spirituality.

BTW: listen to Rossum. He is accurate.

There is clearly no point in attempting to have a discussion with a person who rejects the law of contradiction…

 

[tonyrey]

That is the Buddhist belief but it is not shared by the law courts or the majority of people in the world.

It is not an *Argumentum ad Populum *but an excellent reason for rejecting your belief that each of us is “a series of causally connected instantaneous persons” which not only contravenes the principle of parsimony but also contradicts the scientific view of the body as a single, enduring organism, the legal view that a person is the same person from birth till death and the pragmatic view that a person is not a series but an entity. Why specify an arbitrary “instant” as a person’s life span?

If there is no self then self-control is an illusion.

We use our illusion of self-control to control our illusory selves. Both self and self-control are working on the same level, so there is no problem. We think we have a self, and we think we are controlling it.

So we are illusions who have illusions? How do illusions recognise the fact that they are illusions? Or is that also an Illusion?

So you disagree that the physical universe exists either

for the purpose of sustaining life or not for the purpose of sustaining life?
Its purpose is to provide useful employment for astronomers and cosmologists.

So the universe exists to give some people a job?

It has many other purposes, but all such purposes are extrinsic to the physical universe and not intrinsic to it.

You mean that the universe serves many purposes but there is no reason why it does so?

Working towards a goal is a purpose we have not invented or created for ourselves - whether we acknowledge it or not…

It is a purpose we have created for ourselves. Who else can set our purpose?

Then you believe we are creators without a Creator?

 

[buffalo]

Design is NOT a “theory” in natural science. It is not testable. What is the null hypothesis ? Who are the “natural scientists” that are testing it, and how are they testing it ?

Do you accept the Universal Probability Bound?

 

[buffalo]

More powerful evidence for design - If two very different species have the identical DNA sequence in different parts of their genome for the same trait is the evidence stronger for design or evo?

 

[Gaber]

There is clearly no point in attempting to have a discussion with a person who rejects the law of contradiction…

No, not at all. But that has to be used where an actual contradicton canbe defined, or another factor doesn’t enter in. Your arguments just aren’t demonstrably congruent with actuality as some know it to be. You are not dividing things finely enough to use the rule you attribute your “logic” to. All that works very well in the realm where you think you have a self and self control. It’sjust that that is not where things or human experience or being stops or is entierly contained.

When you arrive at the only possible outcome of your spiritual practice, not your logical one, you will have a vastly different premise to reason from than what you are now attemptiing to cobble together, as wonderfully well as it works in your own mind, to explain things. And that’s fine, but you are attemptiing to convince people, at least some people, who operate from a radically different expereince, not book learning, of what theism is about. It just won’t work, and we will always be at odds until you move on to another kind of premise,one based on and in reality, not what reality *appears *to be to the senses and the work of “the adversary” as it is personalized.

 

[buffalo]

Natural Limits to Variation, or Reversion to the Mean: Is Evolution Just Extrapolation by Another Name?

“On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type,” Alfred Russel Wallace’s title for his original 1858 paper proposing the theory of evolution, clarifies what evolutionists are supposed to show – indefinite departure; or microevolution that is observed to continue on to macroevolution. The claim that this is a central feature of the history of life is what we usually mean by evolution.
The Origin of Species explored what animal breeders had shown in Darwin’s day (he was himself a pigeon fancier). The varieties he described were often flamboyant and extravagant, but reflected only micro-evolutionary development and did not show speciation.
I became interested in these issues years ago when I read Norman Macbeth’s Darwin Retried. What follows are some questions and reflections, offered in the hope of sparking further discussion.
In an early chapter, “What Do the Breeders Show?” Macbeth pointed out that the variation achieved by breeding was quite limited. The species of which they were variants stayed the same. Darwin said they were “incipient species,” but he lacked conclusive evidence. By 1859 the theory of evolution was really a theory of extrapolation. Evolutionists assume, of course, that macroevolution has happened. But that has remained an assumption.
In Chapter 1 of the Origin, Darwin brought up another subject – reversion to the mean. He referred to a statement often made by naturalists, “namely that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but certainly revert in character to their aboriginal stocks. Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature.”

more…

 

[rossum]

Do you accept the Universal Probability Bound?

Every time I shuffle three packs of cards together I break the Universal Probability Bound. It is not a magic incantation that automatically blocks processes that are inconvenient for you.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It is not an *Argumentum ad Populum *.

What you presented was exactly that.

If I ask an adult, “Are you the same now as you were when you were aged ten?”, their answer would be “No, I’ve changed since then.”

So we are illusions who have illusions?

We are not illusions. We have an illusion that we have a “self”. That is the root of many of our problems.

You mean that the universe serves many purposes but there is no reason why it does so?

The reason that it does so is that many different people assign the universe different purposes. None of those different purposes are intrinsic to the universe; all of them are externally assigned.

Then you believe we are creators without a Creator?

Then you believe in a Creator without a Creator?

rossum