Tier 1 Level Philosophy: Can you identify Intelligent Design in a system where all physical relationships happen by chance?

[Wozza]

Wozza:

This is better: I’m an optimist:

Video Edit: “we found a better place, we can always move on…after we have destroyed our home-world.”

Well, that’s true I guess IWG. I’d prefer the move not to be a contingency plan.

 

[IWantGod]

Well, that’s true I guess IWG. I’d prefer the move not to be a contingency plan.

Do you know about Project Orion?

Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IWantGod]

I know it’s completely off topic, but here is my favorite video on the topic

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

The title has been criticized because it wrongly states that evolution is progressive. Where life is reduced to the interaction of atoms and their constituent quantum parts, there is no fundamental change. Any difference between ourselves and apes is serendipitous, if at all this adjective is valid beyond its reflecting our capacity to better survive the challenges of the environment.

That is one big reason why evolutionary theory does not make sense.

To me, the highlighted commentary makes no sense when arguing for goal direction. If one is arguing, (And I would say rightly so) that evolution isn’t progressive, then it’s fallacious to say that modern humans are superior to australopithecines for example. They’re simply different. But this would imply that there really is no goal direction in the evolution of man from ancient hominins to modern humans.

But to argue for goal direction one must argue that modern humans are indeed superior to ancient hominins. But how does one justify that claim, other than by sheer human ego?

It has been my experience that:

We see what we expect to see and all arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Much in life is known as one knows of one’s own existence. It is intuited that reality is such and such. As one might alternatively say, it is faith that teaches us how things are.

For example, we understand that empiricism is a way of understanding the workings of the world. We assume a structure that is observable, understandable and able to be manipulated.

I’m not sure one can prove the existence of final causes any more than one can prove the existence of the other. One realizes the existence of a direction to time that is not merely a consequence of thermodynamics, but in the reality that we exist as a past-present-future, which is esential to our nature although we can imagine ourselves at any point in space-time, for example at a singularity, presumably from which all this began. We are a journey in life.

We know there to be an underlying goal, when we find our purpose, a meaning to our existence. It’s not so much ego, because it is personal. Although one might attach oneself to transient goods such as fame, power, pleasure or wealth that are expressions of self-interest and aggrandisement, Ecclesiastes powerfully describes the folly of seeking meaning in worldly things. Betrayed by the world’s offerings, one may fall into bitterness and resentment, philosophically tending towards nihilism. There is so much to be done in this world; it is a wonder that people don’t see it or perhaps it is in fact a lack of self-esteem that keeps them back from meeting the challenge of participating in making this world a better, more loving place.

 

[Wozza]

You lost me at ‘It has…’

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You lost me at ‘It has…’

Perhaps this is a case in point then, because I thought that Aloysium was spot on. But I suppose that sometimes it’s not so much that we see what we expect to see, but rather, it’s what experience, preconditioning, and open mindedness enables us to see.

Quite possibly. But I’ve given up trying to work through his stream-of-consciousness…posts. I’m sure he enjoys what he writes.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You lost me at ‘It has…’

Perhaps this is a case in point then, because I thought that Aloysium was spot on. But I suppose that sometimes it’s not so much that we see what we expect to see, but rather, it’s what experience, preconditioning, and open mindedness enables us to see.

And in response to your post…

We only see a tiny fraction of what is available. Sagan was trying to point that out. Some use religion to find the answer.

I’d like to think that in times past, as people were sacrificing a goat or burning incense, one of my direct ancestors was looking at the mountains in the distance and wondering what was beyond.

Religion seems so small to me.

 

[IWantGod]

And in response to your post…

We only see a tiny fraction of what is available. Sagan was trying to point that out. Some use religion to find the answer.

I’d like to think that in times past, as people were sacrificing a goat or burning incense, one of my direct ancestors was looking at the mountains in the distance and wondering what was beyond.

Religion seems so small to me.

You act like religion is addressing the same question that science is, and yet my understanding of both these subjects is that they are operating in two different epistemological contexts.

For example the question of how physics works is not directly a philosophical or religious subject matter, although they may be some meta-scientific questions of interest to the philosopher, and it is true that some people try to mix up religion with science like you seem to be doing; but i would be the first to reject religion as an alternative science. Whereas the question of why there is something rather than absolutely nothing at all, is a philosophical and theological question that cannot in principle be addressed by science… Questions like, does physical reality exist for a purpose, is there any meaning to it, is there any point to it at all; all these questions are philosophical and religious in nature.

That’s why most people turn to religion and philosophy for an answer, mostly for answers that make intelligible sense of the meaning they find in their emotional experiences. Most people wouldn’t turn to science for that and it would be peculiar if they did.

 

[Wozza]

You have two types of people (being simplistic). Those sacrificing goats and those trying to get across the mountain.

Both believe that they will discover what the purpose of life actually is.

 

[IWantGod]

Both believe that they will discover what the purpose of life actually is.

And my point is, that you cannot find the purpose of life through the scientific method. It’s a sign of misunderstanding that anyone would look to science for such an answer.

 

[STT]

And my point is, that you cannot find the purpose of life through the scientific method. It’s a sign of misunderstanding that anyone would look to science for such an answer.

I am wondering what religion says about meaning.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Both believe that they will discover what the purpose of life actually is.

And my point is, that you cannot find the purpose of life through the scientific method. It’s a sign of misunderstanding that anyone would look to science for such an answer.

Climbing over the mountain is a metaphor. And it’s not a metaphor for the ‘scientific method’. Why did you think it was?

 

[buffalo]

The ladder is a tree with extant species on the outer reaches of the branches. Or as @Buffalo insists, and quite rightly so, it’s more a tangled bush (he perhaps doesn’t understand that these simple metaphors are meant to convey a basic concept in a simplified manner so that those who have difficulty with the subject can better understand it. It is a lot more complex than one could accurately describe using simple diagrams).

HGT has tangled the bush.

 

[IWantGod]

The mind is very good at taking diverse, incomplete, and sometimes contradictory information and weaving it into a coherent form.

That depends on whether somebody is willing to be rationally consistent and not compromise for biases. There is no mistaking that square-circles cannot exist so long as you accept the principle of non-contradiction, but some people have been willing to think that nothing is an actual thing, so others don’t see it as important and would be willing to speculate the impossible to avoid a rational conclusion. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is only one rational conclusion.

But others find no assurance in science at all,

Science can only assure the kind of knowledge that it is designed to reveal.

And there’s no problem in seeking answers outside of it.

Of course not. For example I would not look to science to provide an explanation of the meaning that i find in my emotional experiences, and neither would i look to science to provide an ontological explanation of it’s existence. That’s a question of philosophy and religion.

That’s what Wozza is doing when he’s contemplating the stars.

He seeks a specific kind of knowledge in the stars that cannot possibly be found in the stars. In other-words he seeks scientific answers to philosophical questions.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s what it looks like.

And that’s what you’re doing when you’re contemplating God.

I have found that the kind of answers i seek can only be found in God, that’s why i am drawn to God. Otherwise i would be an materialist if materialism made intelligible sense of my experiences as a personal being.

You’re both doing the same thing, looking for answers to the unknown.

Metaphysically speaking, I’m looking for answers to what is known, and so far God is the only concept that makes intelligible sense of what i know.

The problem lies in not realizing that the purpose of life isn’t to find the answers, the purpose is to seek the answers.

Why would someone seek answers if there was no hope in finding them. And if you find the answers then wasn’t that the point of seeking them, the hope of finding an answer? Otherwise what is the point?

I’ll try not to dismiss yours,

I would only dismiss your claim if it conflicted with the principle of non-contradiction which is the principle method of metaphysics.

For example if you claimed that you could knowingly cause something to exist and at the same time have no knowledge that you caused it, i would reject that claim and i wouldn’t need science or your agreement to justify it. I would be the rational one, even if you thought that you was correct.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

You have two types of people (being simplistic). Those sacrificing goats and those trying to get across the mountain.

Our greatest commandment is to love god and to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. It is a recipe for living in peace with each other, if we can live in peace with each other, then climbing over mountains together can be more beneficial.