On Darwin.

[turtle]

typist ---how well do you understand the evolution from non-life to life???

[Typist]

typist ---how well do you understand the evolution from non-life to life???

Can't say as do, how about you?

[turtle]

typist ---how well do you understand the evolution from non-life to life???

Can't say as do, how about you?

not much...i do know that amino acids can form peptides under abiotic conditions...some believe they know alot about evolution...there is alot to be learned...

[Tab]

Quite a lot. Great book - mitochondria: power sex suicide - rock "bubbles" in volcanic tubules I think I remember.

"And in the beginning there was the membrane"

[Only_Humean]

And once the highly skilled mechanics understood how the mechanism works, they are satisfied, because this is the nature of a mechanic. This is all very useful indeed, truly it is, but....

This mechanical analysis doesn't touch the infinite scale questions.

According to you, nothing does, or can. They are beyond logic, reason, comprehension. Ineffable/numinous. Correct?

That's a religious, not a philosophical assertion. You're welcome to offer it, but you can give no reason to accept it. As Wittgenstein said, a nothing will do as well as a something about which nothing can be said.

The problem is, our ape genes are absolutely fascinated by social competition agendas, and so the simple truth that nobody is superior to anybody else is immediately rejected by all parties. This is the triumph of ancient primitive emotion over reason.

How is that a simple truth? We are all clearly, measurably better and worse than each other at certain things. Some people are better at almost everything than some other people. There's no objective standard of valuation for these, though, so out of context "superior" is very difficult to use in a meaningful way. I suspect your statement is possibly more emotive or political than rational or descriptive (I don't mean political in a derogatory way, just in the sense of being connected to policy).

The "philosophy is all social competition" line is often brought out, almost always by people who see themselves as the rare exceptional Seeker of Real Truth, but I think most people here are interested in thinking clearly and thinking well.

Then I have no reason to pay any heed to your assertion, surely?

There you go, you're catching on now. You have no reason to believe the bible thumpers, or the scientists, or me, or yourself, or anybody else. You are left with nothing. That's where an objective observation of reality will lead you. To nothing.

And then the question might become, what shall I do with this nothing?

This is a very practical question, come to by reason alone. No gods were invoked in the production of this message. A person of reason is in no way in conflict with their loyalty to reason by seeing the limits of reason. It's a very reasonable process!

You don't believe in God, based on a lack of evidence. Good work, no problem so far.

Now....

You don't believe in your ability to come to an answer to infinite scale questions, based on a lack of evidence of such an ability.

I've already given you the evidence. I can draw conclusions, etc etc., as I said a few posts back. Billions of people have answers regarding the existence or otherwise of God; they all have the ability. It seems that you are the rare exception

If by "infinite scale questions" you mean "meaningless propositions", I will concur though. However, you can't very well use your conclusions on the subject to argue against anyone else's, and certainly not to embarrass them.

[Typist]

This mechanical analysis doesn't touch the infinite scale questions.

According to you, nothing does, or can. They are beyond logic, reason, comprehension. Ineffable/numinous. Correct?

Have you ever tried to talk to a Jehovah's Witness? The experience of talking to any committed ideologue is the same, including atheist ideologues. I've explained this 500 times. If 500 times didn't work, one more won't either. It's the simplest thing, and when you want to understand it you will.

That's a religious, not a philosophical assertion. You're welcome to offer it, but you can give no reason to accept it.

Then don't accept it, and go right on thinking you are qualified to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, a term you can't even define.

As Wittgenstein said, a nothing will do as well as a something about which nothing can be said.

Thank you for your nothing.

There's no objective standard of valuation for these, though, so out of context "superior" is very difficult to use in a meaningful way.

Have you ever been to an Internet forum?

The "philosophy is all social competition" line is often brought out, almost always by people who see themselves as the rare exceptional Seeker of Real Truth,

I've said repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly that none of us are vaguely qualified to know "Real Truth".

I've already given you the evidence. I can draw conclusions, etc etc., as I said a few posts back. Billions of people have answers regarding the existence or otherwise of God; they all have the ability. It seems that you are the rare exception

Yes, and my answer is that the cream cheese in my refrigerator is God.

If by "infinite scale questions" you mean "meaningless propositions",

No, that's not what I mean. I mean theories about the nature of everything.

However, you can't very well use your conclusions on the subject to argue against anyone else's, and certainly not to embarrass them.

I've already done both.

Look, what's tripping you up is how incredibly simple this is.

1) We can't define what reality is, how big it is etc.

2) So why would any of us know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of reality, this thing we can't even define?

See? Simple!

Here's more simpleness. Have you considered how small the sample size is in the OP's thesis? Darwin's theory concerns life on earth. Are you aware of how unimaginably small the earth is, even in comparison to the known universe?

If I were to search my closet for dress shoes and find none, would it be reasonable to conclude that therefore dress shoes don't exist?

I apologize for my impatience here, I know this is my weakness. But really, you guys are all too intelligent to get bogged down in this kind of thing.

We have no clue.

Get over it!

[lizbethrose]

Typist, would you please explain your understanding of infinite scale so we can all be on the same page? We humans have an observable universe the scale of which is so far unknown, as I understand it. Nor can we say whether or not there are other universes beyond ours. I image it as the fireworks that throw out sparks that ignite other sparks that ignite other sparks. I've also written about the 'mini-bangs' that have been observed within our observable universe and have wondered if those mini-bangs (small to us because of the distance from us at which they occur) weren't evidence of new universes at the moment of their creation--i.e., BBs.

Quantum physics deals with the activity of unseen matter. If QM and QP can establish patterns that remain constant throughout our universe, can't we assume they would remain constant in every universe?
IOW, universal theories, or the Laws of Nature, would be the same, not matter in what universe matter exists.

Charles Darwin proposed a theory On the Origin of Species. It was a mind-blowing theory, back in the 1800s that's yet to be disproven. Isaac Newton developed Newtonian Mechanics and the Theories of Motion, another mind-blower of its time (late 1600s.) Because of the infinite scale of probable universes, it's difficult to conceptualize a creative God, unless the God is the creator of the "Laws of Nature."

God is a word and a word is a concept--"In the beginning was the Word,,,and the Word was God." How one interprets that concept is as unique as is each individual. Imm, the OP explained why/how science--in at least one area-- has replaced the God Concept.

[Only_Humean]

Have you ever tried to talk to a Jehovah's Witness? The experience of talking to any committed ideologue is the same, including atheist ideologues. I've explained this 500 times. If 500 times didn't work, one more won't either. It's the simplest thing, and when you want to understand it you will.

Why are you assuming I'm an atheist? I'm just saying that the theory of evolution removes the -necessity- of an intelligent designer, and hence the Blind Watchmaker argument loses its force. And I have said that the OP overstated the case.

That's a religious, not a philosophical assertion. You're welcome to offer it, but you can give no reason to accept it.

Then don't accept it, and go right on thinking you are qualified to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, a term you can't even define.

I shall, and you may keep demanding all the answers to meaningless questions that you wish.

The "philosophy is all social competition" line is often brought out, almost always by people who see themselves as the rare exceptional Seeker of Real Truth,

I've said repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly that none of us are vaguely qualified to know "Real Truth".

And you insist that that truth overrides other people's scientific/theological pretences at truth.

If by "infinite scale questions" you mean "meaningless propositions",

No, that's not what I mean. I mean theories about the nature of everything.

Theories that have to work outside logic and reason, which are apparently subsidiary to 'everything', no?

Look, what's tripping you up is how incredibly simple this is.
1) We can't define what reality is, how big it is etc.
2) So why would any of us know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of reality, this thing we can't even define?

We can certainly define what "reality" is. We can define it well or badly. I don't think it's something to which "size" can be applied, unlike, say, the universe. I'm not sure it's something that has a heart. Do you know what you mean by "the heart of reality", in any precise terms, or is it a vague reference to something you feel? If the latter, it's no wonder it's a mystery.

You see, if you start by defining your terms, you can decide whether your questions make sense. Philosophy is, at least to me, largely about asking sensible questions.

Here's more simpleness. Have you considered how small the sample size is in the OP's thesis? Darwin's theory concerns life on earth. Are you aware of how unimaginably small the earth is, even in comparison to the known universe?

If I were to search my closet for dress shoes and find none, would it be reasonable to conclude that therefore dress shoes don't exist?

If all you knew of dress shoes were bronze-age myths and fairy stories, it would be absolutely reasonable. I have no unicorns in my closet, no fairies in the cupboard under my sink, and have yet to find leviathan in my garden pond.
If "dress shoes" were supposed to be concept beyond my understanding, intimated solely by an appeal to my sense of the mysterious, I'd not feel any compulsion to give it the time of day.
And I'd certainly wonder at the motivations of those who kept insisting that dress shoes exist - particularly when (in line with the analogy) they'd spent all their lives in my closet, with me.

If you're asking what is reasonable, you have to look at reasons.

[Typist]

Typist, would you please explain your understanding of infinite scale so we can all be on the same page?

I agree the phrase "infinite scale" is less than fully helpful. I've struggled with it, and so far have failed to find a replacement. Perhaps it's just stuck in my head like a thorn in one's shoe.

I've tried to use the example of forums. Tell me if this analogy works, or suggest a better one.

This forum has rules. These rules might be compared to laws of the natural world such as physics etc. As members of this forum, we are bound by the rules of the forum. Our actions are limited by these rules, thus our actions as members can to some degree be predicted by an understanding of the rules. We have established what rules define the local scale, and thus the rules can be used to analyze the local scale.

The forum owner is in a different position than we are. As the creator of the rules, the forum owner has the choice whether to follow the rules or not. As the creator, the forum owner may create new rules at any time. The forum owner is above and outside of the rules that we live within. The forum owner could be said to be "infinite scale". They can do ANYTHING.

If the forum owner decides to constrain themselves within the rules, then the rules could be used to analyze the forum owner as well. The problem here is that we have no way of knowing if the forum owner has made this choice, or when they might change their mind. Thus, we have no idea if our understanding of the rules is useful in analyzing the behavior of the forum owner. It might be, or maybe not, who knows?

Put more simply, the essence of the God proposal is of something outside of the rules. Thus, if we insist on analyzing the proposal with the rules, we are revealing we don't actually understand the proposal we are attempting to debunk. In such cases we are proposing that the forum owner too would be bound by the rules. That is, the rules themselves are turned in to a god.

Hopefully something in there is helpful. Obviously, if I have to explain my phrase to this degree, which I often do, my phrase needs work.

We humans have an observable universe the scale of which is so far unknown, as I understand it. Nor can we say whether or not there are other universes beyond ours.

Right, agreed. And what this means is that we have no idea what our sample size is. What we currently know about could be 85% of all of reality, and thus a quite useful sample size. Or, what we currently know about could be .0000000000000000000000000000001% of all of reality, and thus a thoroughly worthless sample size.

What see here are people who claim passionate loyalty to reason, coming to sweeping deeply held conclusions about the fundamental nature of everything, based on a sample size they can not begin to define.

This is very useful information to any atheist who actually wants to understand religion, and not just play around at trying to debunk it. That is, if we really want to understand faith, the best place to conduct that investigation is by looking at our own faith, which readily available in abundance.

I've also written about the 'mini-bangs' that have been observed within our observable universe and have wondered if those mini-bangs (small to us because of the distance from us at which they occur) weren't evidence of new universes at the moment of their creation--i.e., BBs.

My favorite theory is that all of reality as we know it is just a subatomic particle on some higher level. I've found that beer greatly enhances the development of this theory.

Quantum physics deals with the activity of unseen matter. If QM and QP can establish patterns that remain constant throughout our universe, can't we assume they would remain constant in every universe?

Everyone is free to assume what they wish of course, but such an assumption about unknown universes would have to be labeled speculation, given that the assumption is based on exactly no data from those other universes, should they exist.

IOW, universal theories, or the Laws of Nature, would be the same, not matter in what universe matter exists.

Could be, or not, we have no clue. My best guess, which is itself nothing but wild speculation, is as follows.

Due the dualistic nature of our minds, we continually pose dualistic either/or type questions. Does God exist, or not, etc. I think we fail to account fully for the built-in bias created by the limitations of the mental equipment we are using to make the observations and construct the questions.

If the God question could be answered, my guess is the answer would be unintelligible to us, due to those limitations. That is, it seems likely to me that reality is likely quite a bit larger and more complicated than the human mind. As evidence of our limitations, we seem to be chronically incapable of recalling that only a few thousand years ago we were living in caves. Would we look at a cave man and say, "Yes, this hairy dirty fellow can understand all of reality!"

Because of the infinite scale of probable universes, it's difficult to conceptualize a creative God, unless the God is the creator of the "Laws of Nature."

Yes, difficult to conceptualize an intelligence of that scale, agreed. By the word "intelligence" we are usually referring to something like human intelligence. An intelligence the scale of a god would be so different that the word "intelligence" is probably no longer useful. Sincere and highly intelligent people of religion figured all this out thousands of years ago.

God is a word and a word is a concept--"In the beginning was the Word,,,and the Word was God."

Indeed, indeed. God is a word. And a word is not the thing it points to. This is a fundamental problem.

The purpose of a noun is to conceptually divide one part of reality from another part. This is a less than useful tool if one is trying to inquire in to the fundamental nature of everything.

Imm, the OP explained why/how science--in at least one area-- has replaced the God Concept.

It explains how the theory of evolution has been used to replace the God concept among people who are looking for a way to replace the God concept.

More objective science-like observers stick to the facts, and understand the theory of evolution brilliantly describes the mechanical process by which life on a planet called Earth (a single planet in one of billions of galaxies) continually adapts to it's environment.

[Ierrellus]

So much infighting here!
I'm with Heraclitus who noted that the only constant is change. Darwin's theories have been revised (Gould, et.al.), but have not been refuted. Add Mendel to Darwin and you get all these notions of teleology and predictability. The genetic continuum does seem to be moving in ways that favor survival of our species. This may amount to misinterpretation in many instances. But the very minterpretions have a basis in physical precedents of "mind."
I'm with those who would not rule out that God did it, provided God is the sum total of all that exists. Of the dance of exchanging matter and energy who can saw exactly what is what.

[Typist]

Add Mendel to Darwin and you get all these notions of teleology and predictability.

Could you elaborate on this perhaps?

[James S Saint]

"Infinite scales";
What is the cause of the cause of the cause,...ad infinitum?
What is reality like at 10^-100 times smaller than an atom? Science currently accepts that it doesn't exist at all.
What is reality like at 10^+100 times larger than the known universe?
What is the 10^+100th decimal number for Pi?
What does a woman really want?

[phyllo]

'Real Truth' is a statue within a block of marble. By slowly and painstakingly chipping away at the block, the 'Real Truth' is revealed.

[Typist]

Ok, I'll play...

Real truth is what's left over after you've chipped away the entire block of marble looking for the real truth.

Here's a version of that for science types. What words might best describe the overwhelming vast majority of the known universe?

[phyllo]

Real truth is what's left over after you've chipped away the entire block of marble looking for the real truth.

That is nihilism.

[James S Saint]

Ok, I'll play...

Real truth is what's left over after you've chipped away the entire block of marble looking for the real truth.

"Real Truth" is why the block is there in the first place.

Here's a version of that for science types. What words might best describe the overwhelming vast majority of the known universe?

"irrelevant"
"insignificant"
"fascinating"
"awesome"
"dust in the wind"
"the result of an uncaused bubble pop"
"anything other than God"

[Typist]

That is nihilism.

Explain nihilism for the uneducated backwoods bubbas amongst us? You know, um, those people over there.

[phyllo]

Explain nihilism for the uneducated backwoods bubbas amongst us? You know, um, those people over there.

Why? You gave a perfect example - the belief that there is nothing inside the block. The nihilist destroys truth with that belief so it is a self-fulfilling philosophy.

[Typist]

Why?

Because I asked nicely? Because I walked right up to the edge of admitting there's something in the universe that I don't know, and you could have pushed me right off the cliff?

You gave a perfect example - the belief that there is nothing inside the block.

I was referring to the assumption inherent in the example, that the truth is a "something". An easter egg hidden in the garden that we kiddies hope to find. And then when we find it we'll have it.

What if the truth isn't a "something"?

What if it's a "no-thing"?

You know, like 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the rest of reality.

Like that.

[James S Saint]

I was referring to the assumption inherent in the example, that the truth is a "something". An easter egg hidden in the garden that we kiddies hope to find. And then when we find it we'll have it.

What if the truth isn't a "something"?

What if it's a "no-thing"?

You know, like 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the rest of reality.

Like that.

Yep. That would be nihilism.
"I looked and didn't see anything that I can identify as truth, therefor there is no truth."
...and dat's da truth.
Actually it is "deconstructive nihilism".

[phyllo]

Why?

Because I asked nicely? Because I walked right up to the edge of admitting there's something in the universe that I don't know, and you could have pushed me right off the cliff?

You gave a perfect example - the belief that there is nothing inside the block.

I was referring to the assumption inherent in the example, that the truth is a "something". An easter egg hidden in the garden that we kiddies hope to find. And then when we find it we'll have it.

What if the truth isn't a "something"?

What if it's a "no-thing"?

You know, like 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the rest of reality.

Like that.

You have already demonstrated your mastery of nihilism. Others can learn for your excellent examples. I see no need to go pedantic.

A real truth is based on what is and therefore it also is.

[Typist]

Yep. That would be nihilism."I looked and didn't see anything that I can identify as truth, therefor there is no truth."...and dat's da truth.
Actually it is "deconstructive nihilism".

I didn't say we can't see anything we can identify as truth. Nor did I say there is no truth. And I definitely didn't say "dats da truth".

[James S Saint]

Yep. That would be nihilism."I looked and didn't see anything that I can identify as truth, therefor there is no truth."...and dat's da truth.
Actually it is "deconstructive nihilism".

I didn't say we can't see anything we can identify as truth.

You said "what if truth is a no-thing".
If it is a "no-thing", then it cannot be "seen".
Thus in Science, it doesn't exist.

The point is merely that such a view tends to head the casual mind toward the conclusion that there is no truth, "there is no mind", "there is no spirit", "there is no soul", and so on - nihilism.

Anyone actually capable of thinking doesn't make that slide into oblivion.

[Typist]

A real truth is based on what is and therefore it also is.

A real truth is based on what is. Yes, perfect.

So.... What is?

When we observe reality at either the cosmic or subatomic scale...

99% of the time....

What's there?

What is?

This should be a huge clue to anybody who wants to base their philosophy on observation of the real world and straightforward reasoning. The simple obviousness of it is all that makes it tricky.

The real truth is based on what is...

and the vast majority of what is....

is.....

what?

[James S Saint]

99% [100%] of the time....

What's there?

What is?

"Affectance" - the total sum field of all affects = existence.