T
tonyrey
Guest
Materialists have dispensed with goals by moving the goalposts so that anything (or nothing!) counts as a goal but they fail to realise that they have only succeeded in scoring a goal against themselves!
- Status
J
Jason_Firestone
Guest
ONLY if the universe is intuitively logical. It has been proven to be not so. Therefore EVERY assumption, “design”, “causality”, is called into question. Relativity is demonstrable. (Therefore the universe is not intuitive). Do you have a GPS in your car ? if so you USE it everyday, and proves my point, countless times per hour.
Re: “being is different than non-being” … thank you. Seriously. Excellent point, BUT you have still not proposed a property of being, (existence), which does NOT require time, (and therefore spacetime). Cardinal Pell was trying to make this point last month in his debate with Dawkins. He is not a very effective debator, but his point was left unanswered.
“Since time is the measurement of change, then various attributes of God do not require time – immutability, being, goodness, wisdom, immensity.”
The nature of time is not established. It may be a result of entropy, or it may be a continuing collapse or intersection AND collapsing wave functions. “Being”, and “goodness”, are (anthropomorphic projected ) “qualities”, not properties. We assert immutability, yet at the same time assert salvation was “accomplished”. THAT requires time.
“Physics has no category for natural reason or for theological proofs either for that matter.”, exactly but the divisions are ultimately artificial. “Proofs” exist ONLY in Mathematics. Nowhere else, (and certainly not in science). I refuse to keep the categories separate. I can’t eat Philosophy for dinner.
“If we could not find logic in nature, then you would not be able to try to convince me of that point.”
Exactly the point. There is none, and I am saying there is none, and your perception that there IS, is unreliable. Are you saying unreliability is proof of reliability ? That is absurd.
Thanks for your excellent points and help.
J
Jason_Firestone
Guest
We know from Chaos Theory that what humans “perceive” as order, arises spontaneously, given enough time. The reasons for that are under examination…but maybe just a point in a discovery process. If a human saw an airliner fly over 100 years ago, the perception would have been “it’s a supernatural event”. They would have been wrong. I’m trying to understand why, and at what point the choice to abandon reason is made. Is the abandonment done secondary to psychology ? What I perceive as order may be different from anyone else. It’s an individual perception event. The design discussion assumes both a non-existent “directed” order, (which is unnecessary, as Probability has demonstrated), and that perception is both reliable and objective, which it is not.
Why is infinite regression NOT possible, and why isn’t the “usual answer” NOT Special Pleading ?
Why is infinite regression NOT possible, and why isn’t the “usual answer” NOT Special Pleading ?
J
Jason_Firestone
Guest
Time, (and it does not exist separately from space, as has been demonstrated), is not a “measure of change”. Time may arise from properties of the universe. The question is, can the properties arise spontaneously. Does the POSSIBILITY that they can’t justify the “leap” and “abandonement” ? Time is RELATIVE. There is no absolute time, and thus no absolute space. (The universe is not intuitive).
We are left in the Cloud of Unknowing. No ? Where one goes from there … is the question. OR is the question, the motivation for the direction chosen at the fork ?
We are left in the Cloud of Unknowing. No ? Where one goes from there … is the question. OR is the question, the motivation for the direction chosen at the fork ?
G
Gaber
Guest
Pretty simple. By what factor or agency do you perceive that there is a Cloud, or anything, including thoughts, for that matter? Look into that.
T
tonyrey
Guest
“direction” is the keyword! Choosing a direction implies having a reason for doing so…
R
reggieM
Guest
I appreciate your candor and clarity on this. If every assumption is called into question (and that does seem to follow correctly from the view that causality, rationality, logic and design are not reliable) then we would really have to look for where we have common agreement on things.
When the task is to explain the origin of Being, we can’t refer to time – since time would have to precede being.
Yes, because of the Incarnation, we can see God’s action within time. But certainly, if we discuss this subject as two Catholics and not as if you are an atheist – then we have much more information about reality to work with. For example, when we talk about “salvation”, that is not reducible to physical, material processes alone. It’s not something that science can investigate. But it does have a reference to material human beings – since salvation is in response to sin.
I think it’s essential to keep the categories separate. Science uses certain, limited methods for investigating reality. Philosophy uses other methods. We cannot use science to test the meaning of words, for example, or the moral qualities of human behavior.
I have to start by accepting that I can know the truth about things. That’s a solid foundation. With that, I can understand that God exists and that He has given us His revelation.
R
reggieM
Guest
Those are interesting thoughts.We know from Chaos Theory that what humans “perceive” as order, arises spontaneously, given enough time. The reasons for that are under examination…but maybe just a point in a discovery process. If a human saw an airliner fly over 100 years ago, the perception would have been “it’s a supernatural event”. They would have been wrong. I’m trying to understand why, and at what point the choice to abandon reason is made. Is the abandonment done secondary to psychology ? What I perceive as order may be different from anyone else. It’s an individual perception event. The design discussion assumes both a non-existent “directed” order, (which is unnecessary, as Probability has demonstrated), and that perception is both reliable and objective, which it is not.
Why is infinite regression NOT possible, and why isn’t the “usual answer” NOT Special Pleading ?
Before even talking about a directed order … the design discussion assumes that human beings can communicate with one another and understand correctly what each other is saying.
But to do that, we have to distinguish between truth and falsehood.
When you say “What I perceive as order may be different from anyone else. It’s an individual perception event.” – you could say the same about any perception at all.
What you perceive as “blue” may be a different color from everyone else. What you perceive as the number 2 may be something totally different than what most people see.
But you test your perceptions and learn through discussion and communication with others that you don’t have a totally unique perception.
Regarding “order” – that is not an entirely subjective category. We see the order present in a written text and can distinguish that from a jumble of letters.
We see a sculpture having a much higher degree of directed-order than a pile of rocks after an avalanche.
We can find order in encrypted text – and distinguish it from gibberish. Or as forensics science sees intentionality, purpose and design in the seemingly random effects at a crime scene.
So, we see the same thing in the DNA code. It is highly specific, functional information which directs operations and processes in the cell.
We know of no random source that can produce that kind of order. So, intelligent design is really the only reasonable origin of that kind of order.
The same is true in the universe itself. There are many finely tuned properties of the universe which cosmologists have observed and described.
The fact that they see these things and agree on them means that order is not just an individual perception.
R
reggieM
Guest
Yes, that’s why we have faith and trust. We build it based on the knowledge that reality is consistent and reliable and that God has created a world where we can know the truth about things.
T
tonyrey
Guest
A superb analysis, Reggie.
G
Gaber
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Design is not an anthropomorphic but a** ratiocentric** explanation of reality which corresponds to the fact that reason is the sole means by which the persons on this planet or anywhere else can reach provisional and analogical interpretations of existence. If any other form of insight cannot be subjected to rational criteria it is worthless. Otherwise one can spout sheer nonsense without fear of being contradicted!
The power of reason is limited but it is an essential stepping-stone - unless of course one is divine…
G
Gaber
Guest
There you go. How do you suppose that the lesser–mortal mind reasoning with supposotitious premises–will contain the Greater, the ALL-ness of God?
But why does you rationalization centric position not admit of mysticism, and its fulfillment, contemplation, as the time honored timeless way of direct perception? How can you even approach this question if you have not learned to shut of your discursive mind, that being the chief obstacle by means of diversion and division, to actually seeing what it is that sees reason itself? You don’t even have a useful premise to proceed from until you can experientially discover what it is that is the ground of your thinking that you do not see, account for, or proceed from, and ignoring it go wonkers with the adversary of your mind?
Make your mind your friend by going beyond it, and then you will have an actual premise of substance to reason from. If you can do it, you will have a radically different opinion of your thought structures regarding design, or anything for that matter, and have the best belly laugh of your entire life.
Then your reason will be your servant, not your chains binding you to limits. You will be able then to reason out from the Star, not up to it, attempting a tower of Babel of intellectual stone and mortar.
J
Jason_Firestone
Guest
Reggie,
“If every assumption is called into question (and that does seem to follow correctly from the view that causality, rationality, logic and design are not reliable) then we would really have to look for where we have common agreement on things.”
Agree 100% It’s a Linguistic problem.
“When the task is to explain the origin of Being, we can’t refer to time – since time would have to precede being.”
That’s the problem. And you are the first person I have ever spoken to who actually gets that. Time DOES have to precede being, (or at the very least arise concurrently). Time in this universe does not exist apart from space, so we don’t know if if exists elsewhere, in another “form”. I am not trying to “explain” being, just attempting to point out the lingusitic inconsistency. If time has to preceded being, then “creation” (by God) is impossible. So that is not consistent with faith, because then time is required for God’s existence, which is not consistent with faith.
“Yes, because of the Incarnation, we can see God’s action within time. But certainly, if we discuss this subject as two Catholics and not as if you are an atheist – then we have much more information about reality to work with. For example, when we talk about “salvation”, that is not reducible to physical, material processes alone. It’s not something that science can investigate. But it does have a reference to material human beings – since salvation is in response to sin.”
But sin happened in time. And salvation happened in time. Do we say that atonement was required ? If so, it implies to the human brain, that a change occurred, (in That which is posited to be immutable). So it’s back to the Linguistic problem.
“We cannot use science to test the meaning of words, for example”
Oh but we do. Linguistics does that every day.
“I have to start by accepting that I can know the truth about things. That’s a solid foundation.”
Depends. You can know some of the truth, AFTER you have some evidence for thinking it’s true. If the universe is non-intuitive, then you have to do the investigation, before you can accept something. It’s only a “solid foundation” if it’s a solid foundation. What that is, is a human judgement, which you have criteria for. The question is, “are they sound ?”
“If every assumption is called into question (and that does seem to follow correctly from the view that causality, rationality, logic and design are not reliable) then we would really have to look for where we have common agreement on things.”
Agree 100% It’s a Linguistic problem.
“When the task is to explain the origin of Being, we can’t refer to time – since time would have to precede being.”
That’s the problem. And you are the first person I have ever spoken to who actually gets that. Time DOES have to precede being, (or at the very least arise concurrently). Time in this universe does not exist apart from space, so we don’t know if if exists elsewhere, in another “form”. I am not trying to “explain” being, just attempting to point out the lingusitic inconsistency. If time has to preceded being, then “creation” (by God) is impossible. So that is not consistent with faith, because then time is required for God’s existence, which is not consistent with faith.
“Yes, because of the Incarnation, we can see God’s action within time. But certainly, if we discuss this subject as two Catholics and not as if you are an atheist – then we have much more information about reality to work with. For example, when we talk about “salvation”, that is not reducible to physical, material processes alone. It’s not something that science can investigate. But it does have a reference to material human beings – since salvation is in response to sin.”
But sin happened in time. And salvation happened in time. Do we say that atonement was required ? If so, it implies to the human brain, that a change occurred, (in That which is posited to be immutable). So it’s back to the Linguistic problem.
“We cannot use science to test the meaning of words, for example”
Oh but we do. Linguistics does that every day.
“I have to start by accepting that I can know the truth about things. That’s a solid foundation.”
Depends. You can know some of the truth, AFTER you have some evidence for thinking it’s true. If the universe is non-intuitive, then you have to do the investigation, before you can accept something. It’s only a “solid foundation” if it’s a solid foundation. What that is, is a human judgement, which you have criteria for. The question is, “are they sound ?”
T
tonyrey
Guest
How does one go “beyond” one’s mind? By going out of one’s mind?There you go. How do you suppose that the lesser–mortal mind reasoning with supposotitious premises–will contain the Greater, the ALL-ness of God?
But why does you rationalization centric position not admit of mysticism, and its fulfillment, contemplation, as the time honored timeless way of direct perception? How can you even approach this question if you have not learned to shut of your discursive mind, that being the chief obstacle by means of diversion and division, to actually seeing what it is that sees reason itself? You don’t even have a useful premise to proceed from until you can experientially discover what it is that is the ground of your thinking that you do not see, account for, or proceed from, and ignoring it go wonkers with the adversary of your mind?
Make your mind your friend by going beyond it, and then you will have an actual premise of substance to reason from. If you can do it, you will have a radically different opinion of your thought structures regarding design, or anything for that matter, and have the best belly laugh of your entire life.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The only “thing” that is non-intuitive is the fact that we are aware of our thoughts, emotions, decisions and perceptions.
G
Gaber
Guest
No, that can happen only if you continue to identify with its serving suggestions as your “self.” So the way to do it is to ask who it is that sees the presentations of the mind. What is this awareness? This can start to sort things out in terms of what changes and what doesn’t. Thoughts constantly change, and are not there as perceptions in deep sleep. So who is there to witness the arisal of the sense of “me” and of the world that arises with it as its seeming object? Both, the me and the world, are contents of awareness, yes? And the awareness is reflexive, You always know “I am.”How does one go “beyond” one’s mind? By going out of one’s mind?
So the factor we call “I” is the only alspect of “you” that does not change. So inquire into what this “I am” is. “Am I this?” No. “Am I that?” No. I am no object that can be distinguished as an object of thought. And here is where the root of the word “object” becomes experientially meaningful. “Object” means, at its root, to throw out, or put before, as to project. The mind is soon discovered to be a projector of thoughts. Fins what is the light that allows you to see the thoughts and you will see the projector, the mind, for what it is. You will have gone “beyond” it and see clearly what your sense of self is in realtion to what the mind is and does. From that standpoint you can actually reason about how and what things are in a reality far greater and inclusive of the one you think you inhabit now.
But that has been the end of meditation in “ours” or any tradition, as few as have achieved it in perfection notwithstanding. It needs to be known that such is a possibility for anyone who makes an effort in that way. Of course, in a way the effort is futile, because one is looking for what is doing the looking. It is the last barrier. It is kind of like practicing doing nothing. But at some point the barrier is broken, and one sees. There just isn’t anything like it that words can describe. The world as you thought it was is yanked unceremoniously out from under you, you are on a new footing that is immovable, and yet the world is still what it is. Rather blessed amazing, if you are graced to experience it. “All things shall be new in a moment” is no lie.
G
Gaber
Guest
And yet that awareness is the root of any experience of intuition.
J
Jason_Firestone
Guest
The question was not the direction. The question was the motivation for the CHOICE at or before the fork.
J
Jason_Firestone
Guest
a. Unfortunately that is not the case. We do know how that specific example of order likely arose, (you may not). How many courses in Evolutionary Biology have YOU taken, exactly ? You have it wrong, and it’s precisely the mistake ALL ID folks make. You place the “randomness” in the wrong place in the paradigm.
b. Even if the (essentially “god of the gaps” … because you, right now can’t see it) argument is accepted, it does not lead us to OUR God.
c. Which leads me to what I forgot to ask about before : Someone said, that this discussion, (among Catholics), is in essence, somehow qualitatively different from one between those with no faith. If that is really true, then why are we doing this ? If the position of faith is assumed, before the discussion iis had, then we’re wasting our time. So can a person of faith even, with any intelectual honesty, have this discussion, if the outcome is not really already determined ?
Thanks again for all your help. I’m going on retreat, (at the monastery), and won’t be back for a while.
- Status