Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1242 by kenblogton]

Once again, none of this relates to the truth of the transcendent, let alone of Christianity. Were it a valid point it'd be a moot one.

Does the fact that it isn't Christian exclusive indicate that the transcendent isn't Christian? Did the majority of Christian transcendences have Christian or Christian-consistent experiences? Did non-Christians have a higher rate of non-Christian and Christian inconsistent experiences? Were all experiences too vague to be inconsistent with Christianity or not directly in support of it?

You miss the significance of the authors' point. God is not a Christian God. Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews, there was God who built the capability for communication into human creatures. God communicates with all humans, who unfortunately do not always listen. If you're interested, you can read the book
When God Spoke to Me by DavidPaul Doyle.
kenblogton

[Artie]

You miss the significance of the authors' point. God is not a Christian God. Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews, there was God who built the capability for communication into human creatures.

Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews there were 13.7 billion years of nobody, then dinosaurs for 135 million years, then 66 million years and then somebody with an imaginative brain came up with the idea that there are gods and the belief in one particular single universal god evolved.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1244 by kenblogton]

I have yet to see good reason to believe there was, is, will or even could be any God.

[kenblogton]

You miss the significance of the authors' point. God is not a Christian God. Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews, there was God who built the capability for communication into human creatures.

Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews there were 13.7 billion years of nobody, then dinosaurs for 135 million years, then 66 million years and then somebody with an imaginative brain came up with the idea that there are gods and the belief in one particular single universal god evolved.

I believe the imagination is with those who deny the obvious: God.
kenblogton

[Elijah John]

You miss the significance of the authors' point. God is not a Christian God. Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews, there was God who built the capability for communication into human creatures.

Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews there were 13.7 billion years of nobody, then dinosaurs for 135 million years, then 66 million years and then somebody with an imaginative brain came up with the idea that there are gods and the belief in one particular single universal god evolved.

I believe the imagination is with those who deny the obvious: God.
kenblogton

Moderator Comment

This can be considered an unsupported one-liner, as God's existence may or may not be reality. Either way God's existence is not obvious to all.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[kenblogton]

You miss the significance of the authors' point. God is not a Christian God. Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews, there was God who built the capability for communication into human creatures.

Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews there were 13.7 billion years of nobody, then dinosaurs for 135 million years, then 66 million years and then somebody with an imaginative brain came up with the idea that there are gods and the belief in one particular single universal god evolved.

I believe the imagination is with those who deny the obvious: God.
kenblogton

Let me give you a full response for the existence of God.
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.
2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.
3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal. We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

You miss the significance of the authors' point. God is not a Christian God. Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews, there was God who built the capability for communication into human creatures.

Before there were Muslims, Christians and Jews there were 13.7 billion years of nobody, then dinosaurs for 135 million years, then 66 million years and then somebody with an imaginative brain came up with the idea that there are gods and the belief in one particular single universal god evolved.

I believe the imagination is with those who deny the obvious: God.
kenblogton

Let me give you a full response for the existence of God.
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

It does not follow from "something exists" that "something cannot come from nothing". That is a complete non-sequitur.

"If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such."
This is also not true - first off, if by nothing you mean the absence of anything, then there is not and I see no reason to believe that there ever will be nothing. If nothing includes the absence of time, we'll never have nothing by definition. If nothing includes the absence of space, we'll find nothing nowhere by definition.

If nothing means no thing, then "something coming from nothing" means "something coming from no thing" means "something not coming from a thing", which is abbreviated "something not coming", e.g. something not beginning, such as your God.
What you actually mean by nothing, is a state prior to the Universe (whatever is meant by that, considering you believe the big bang was the beginning of time, you effectively thing this state was before the beginning).

As for the question, since you believe that nothing coexists with everything (by your argument "why don't we see something coming from nothing"), the question is wrong in the use of the word rather. "Why something and nothing?"
But addressing the original question anyway, if there were nothing and not something, why would there be nothing rather than something? You make many ad hoc assumptions such as "nothing needs no explanation". If that is justified merely by you stating it I can say the same for something.

Demanding a reason for everything that does or doesn't happen is a childish personification. "Why did we have to lose?" "Why does it have to rain today?"

2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.

P1. A cause precedes an effect
P2. Time begun with the big bang
M1. From P1 - A cause for the big bang must precede the big bang
M2. From P2 - Nothing precedes the big bang
C - From M1 and M2 - There was no cause for the big bang
(aka the cause for the big bang was nothing)

Not to mention that change only implies a beginning of change. It is a composition fallacy to say the change of an object implies the beginning of the object, and it is a fallacy of false equivalence to say the beginning of an object is equivalent to the object coming into existence.

We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe

I don't see the design.

and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed

The law of conservation of mass-energy states that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, however it is violated for short periods of time (in fact, it needs to be for virtual particles to propagate forces).

The laws of physics make no statements about "material or physical" things, they do not imply the existence of non "material or physical" things.

One would wonder why you don't apply Occam's razor to the spiritual.

Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.
kenblogton

What repeatable and demonstrable epistemology can you give to distinguish between revelation from the entity and personal delusion?

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1250 by Jashwell]

kenblogton wrote: Let me give you a full response for the existence of God.
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

Jashwell wrote: It does not follow from "something exists" that "something cannot come from nothing". That is a complete non-sequitur.

kenblogton replied: A non-sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Please show where the logic breaks down?

kenblogton wrote: "If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such."

Jashwell wrote: This is also not true - first off, if by nothing you mean the absence of anything, then there is not and I see no reason to believe that there ever will be nothing. If nothing includes the absence of time, we'll never have nothing by definition. If nothing includes the absence of space, we'll find nothing nowhere by definition.

kenblogton replied: This is a perfect example both of a non-sequitur and a deliberate evasion/distortion of the issue. Anything that has no examples is, as previously explained, an empty set. You speak of delusions later on in you post. Believing in something which does not exist is delusional.

Jashwell wrote: What you actually mean by nothing, is a state prior to the Universe (whatever is meant by that, considering you believe the big bang was the beginning of time, you effectively thing this state was before the beginning).

kenblogton replied: Another example of a non-sequitur. Since time begins with the big bang/dense singularity, there is no prior to the big bang, prior being a time-dependent term.

Jashwell wrote: As for the question, since you believe that nothing coexists with everything (by your argument "why don't we see something coming from nothing"), the question is wrong in the use of the word rather. "Why something and nothing?"
But addressing the original question anyway, if there were nothing and not something, why would there be nothing rather than something? You make many ad hoc assumptions such as "nothing needs no explanation". If that is justified merely by you stating it I can say the same for something.

kenblogton replied: What is your explanation of nothing and why does it need explanation? Another non-sequitur.

Jashwell wrote: Demanding a reason for everything that does or doesn't happen is a childish personification. "Why did we have to lose?" "Why does it have to rain today?"

kenblogton replied: There is a reason for everything that happens, though we may not always know the reason.

Jashwell wrote: It is a composition fallacy to say the change of an object implies the beginning of the object, and it is a fallacy of false equivalence to say the beginning of an object is equivalent to the object coming into existence.

kenblogton replied: Change of anything, not necessarily an object, implies a beginning. The anything is something, and the something has a beginning. It is fallacy to state otherwise.

kenblogton wrote:We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe

Jashwell wrote: I don't see the design.

kenblogton replied: This is blindness to the obvious.

Jashwell wrote: The laws of physics make no statements about "material or physical" things, they do not imply the existence of non "material or physical" things.

kenblogton replied: The laws of physics only make statements about physical things.

Jashwell wrote: What repeatable and demonstrable epistemology can you give to distinguish between revelation from the entity and personal delusion?

kenblogton replied: In Newberg, A., D’Aquili, E.G. and Rause, V. WHY GOD WON’T GO AWAY: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002, they explain the difference between delusion and transcendent contact: 2. “Science…has not been able to empirically prove that mysticism is a product of distraught or dysfunctional minds. Significant research, in fact, seems to show that people who experience genuine mystical states enjoy much higher levels of psychological health than the public at large…. Finally, mystics and psychotics tend to have very different interpretation of the meaning of their experiences. Psychotics in delusional states often have feelings of religious grandiosity and inflated egotistical importance…. Mystical states, on the other hand, usually involve a loss of pride and ego, a quieting of the mind, and an emptying of the self – all of which is required before the mystic can become a suitable vessel for God…. Mystical experiences are also set apart, from all hallucinatory states, by the high degree of sensory complexity they usually involve. First, hallucinations usually involve only a single sensory system – [visual, auditory, emotive]. Mystical experiences, on the other hand, tend to be rich, coherent, and deeply dimensioned sensory experiences. They are perceived with the same… [or with an] increased…degree of sensory complexity with which we experience ‘ordinary’ states of mind. [And] the mind remembers mystical experience with the same degree of clarity and sense of reality that it bestows upon memories of ‘real’ past events…. We believe this sense of realness strongly suggests that the accounts of mystics are not indications of minds in disarray, but are the proper, predictable neurological result of a stable, coherent mind willing itself toward a higher spiritual plane…. Humans, in fact, are natural mystics blessed with an inborn genius for effortless self-transcendence…. In broad terms, meditative techniques fall into two general categories. There are the passive approaches, in which the intention is to clear the mind of all conscious thought, and active approaches, in which the goal is to focus the mind completely on some object of attention…. [In a passive state] of total deafferentation [or complete information deprivation] of the orientation area, the mind would perceive a neurological reality consistent with many mystical descriptions of the ultimate spiritual union…. [There is] no subjective sense of self at all….” (108-119)

It is delusional to believe in something for which there are no examples, past, present or future, like something coming from nothing.

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1250 by Jashwell]

kenblogton wrote: Let me give you a full response for the existence of God.
1. The existence of something. The question is �Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam�s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

Jashwell wrote: It does not follow from "something exists" that "something cannot come from nothing". That is a complete non-sequitur.

kenblogton replied: A non-sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Please show where the logic breaks down?

There isn't any logic between "something exists" and "something cannot come from nothing". If you really think that's not a non-sequitur, show us the intermediary stages of the chain of thought between those two statements.

Asking me for where is like if I say "Bears exist, therefore bears cannot come from Canada", you call it a non-sequitur, and I ask where it breaks down.
There's no reason to think the second from the first, and there's no reason you would have to give an example to say that.

kenblogton wrote: "If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such."

Jashwell wrote: This is also not true - first off, if by nothing you mean the absence of anything, then there is not and I see no reason to believe that there ever will be nothing. If nothing includes the absence of time, we'll never have nothing by definition. If nothing includes the absence of space, we'll find nothing nowhere by definition.

kenblogton replied: This is a perfect example both of a non-sequitur and a deliberate evasion/distortion of the issue. Anything that has no examples is, as previously explained, an empty set. You speak of delusions later on in you post. Believing in something which does not exist is delusional.

"Anything that has no examples is an empty set" you're mixing conversations
I have mentioned "if by nothing you mean the absence of anything", now I agree that nothing by this definition does not exist. Because something exists, and if something exists then the absence of something doesn't exist.

It is relevant, and a valid objection. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; absence of reasonably expected evidence is evidence of absence. If we never have/will have "nothing", then it stands to reason that anything we expect from "nothing" won't be expected. (For the same reason you expect an apple that someone lets go of in the air to fall down, you don't expect an apple to fall down if there isn't one in the air)

Jashwell wrote: What you actually mean by nothing, is a state prior to the Universe (whatever is meant by that, considering you believe the big bang was the beginning of time, you effectively thing this state was before the beginning).

kenblogton replied: Another example of a non-sequitur. Since time begins with the big bang/dense singularity, there is no prior to the big bang, prior being a time-dependent term.

Not a non-sequitur. Yet you have previously called nothing a state.
You have previously said "prior to the big bang" and "then the big bang", and imply a transition from nothing to the Universe.
This is an objection I have raised to you enumerable times.

Jashwell wrote: As for the question, since you believe that nothing coexists with everything (by your argument "why don't we see something coming from nothing"), the question is wrong in the use of the word rather. "Why something and nothing?"
But addressing the original question anyway, if there were nothing and not something, why would there be nothing rather than something? You make many ad hoc assumptions such as "nothing needs no explanation". If that is justified merely by you stating it I can say the same for something.

kenblogton replied: What is your explanation of nothing and why does it need explanation? Another non-sequitur.

Not a non-sequitur.
I'm not saying nothing does need an explanation. I'm saying that if you think "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a reasonable question, you should also think the opposite "why is there nothing rather than something" would be a reasonable question if there was nothing. In which case the whole question seems kind of meaningless.

The question itself implies there is a reason, and implies something is somehow more deserving of an explanation than nothing.

Jashwell wrote: Demanding a reason for everything that does or doesn't happen is a childish personification. "Why did we have to lose?" "Why does it have to rain today?"

kenblogton replied: There is a reason for everything that happens, though we may not always know the reason.

Faith based assertion.
Regular appeals to Occam's razor yet lack of application to own beliefs.
"There is an additional property of EVERYTHING called a reason, and we can't detect measure or interact with it most of the time" - flies in the face of occam's razor.

Jashwell wrote: It is a composition fallacy to say the change of an object implies the beginning of the object, and it is a fallacy of false equivalence to say the beginning of an object is equivalent to the object coming into existence.

kenblogton replied: Change of anything, not necessarily an object, implies a beginning. The anything is something, and the something has a beginning. It is fallacy to state otherwise.

It is not a fallacy, a fallacy is not a simple falsity, but regardless, I don't see how it is false.
The change of something implies the beginning of change - because change is a bounded transition, one can always take the bounds and call one the beginning and one the end. This is not equivalent to saying that the object that is changing must have a beginning.

If you think that "the something has a beginning", then why would you need to mention change?

kenblogton wrote:We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe

Jashwell wrote: I don't see the design.

kenblogton replied: This is blindness to the obvious.

Nice of you to insult rather than address the point.

Jashwell wrote: The laws of physics make no statements about "material or physical" things, they do not imply the existence of non "material or physical" things.

kenblogton replied: The laws of physics only make statements about physical things.

Either you're defining physical to be "things to which the laws of physics apply" in which case that is a tautology, or you're just asserting that.

The laws of physics don't once mention "the physical". I'd challenge you to name a law of physics that explicitly mentions the physical.

Jashwell wrote: What repeatable and demonstrable epistemology can you give to distinguish between revelation from the entity and personal delusion?

kenblogton replied: In Newberg, A., D�Aquili, E.G. and Rause, V. WHY GOD WON�T GO AWAY: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002,

Kind of biased.
If it's true, surprising the rest of the academic community haven't caught on.
Surprising the best book on this is from 2002 if it's rigorously scientific and eminently plausible.

2. �Science�has not been able to empirically prove that mysticism is a product of distraught or dysfunctional minds.

"Well you can't prove it's not true..."

Significant research, in fact, seems to show that people who experience genuine mystical states enjoy much higher levels of psychological health than the public at large�

Unsurprisingly, and not at all relevant to the truth.

Finally, mystics and psychotics tend to have very different interpretation of the meaning of their experiences. Psychotics in delusional states often have feelings of religious grandiosity and inflated egotistical importance�. Mystical states, on the other hand, usually involve a loss of pride and ego, a quieting of the mind, and an emptying of the self � all of which is required before the mystic can become a suitable vessel for God�.

Doesn't sound like the mystic said that. Sounds like the authors did.

And I'm pretty sure considering yourself a vessel for God requires quite high ego, but regardless, whether or not someone is egocentric is no bearing on the truth.

Mystical experiences are also set apart, from all hallucinatory states, by the high degree of sensory complexity they usually involve. First, hallucinations usually involve only a single sensory system � [visual, auditory, emotive].

If by "usually" you mean "some of the time".
Many hallucinations use multiple sensory systems.

Mystical experiences, on the other hand, tend to be rich, coherent, and deeply dimensioned sensory experiences.

"Rich, Coherent, Deeply dimensioned"? Could we see some examples of what the mystics have said about their experiences? All three of those words in this context are highly subjective.

They are perceived with the same� [or with an] increased�degree of sensory complexity with which we experience �ordinary� states of mind. [And] the mind remembers mystical experience with the same degree of clarity and sense of reality that it bestows upon memories of �real� past events�.

As do many of the delusional. So it should also say "of real and not real past events", or just not specify.

We believe this sense of realness strongly suggests that the accounts of mystics are not indications of minds in disarray, but are the proper, predictable neurological result of a stable, coherent mind willing itself toward a higher spiritual plane�.

I could have guessed from the title of the book that they believed that.

Humans, in fact, are natural mystics blessed with an inborn genius for effortless self-transcendence�. In broad terms, meditative techniques fall into two general categories. There are the passive approaches, in which the intention is to clear the mind of all conscious thought, and active approaches, in which the goal is to focus the mind completely on some object of attention�. [In a passive state] of total deafferentation [or complete information deprivation] of the orientation area, the mind would perceive a neurological reality consistent with many mystical descriptions of the ultimate spiritual union�. [There is] no subjective sense of self at all�.� (108-119)

Quite the jump to make with no evidence to justify it. The entire paragraph would not follow if what they've said about mystical experiences being true was actually the case.

It is delusional to believe in something for which there are no examples, past, present or future, like something coming from nothing.

I don't know how many more times I'll need to say this.
When I say "something coming from nothing" I mean something that is eternal.
I'm not going to say for the 15th time why this is exactly the same semantically, provided "nothing" means "no thing", but that is besides the point.

I've even mostly stopped using the proper terminology and started using the more flawed word eternal.

The Universe (across the whole timeline) is eternal. If eternal things can't exist, your God can't exist.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1252 by Jashwell]

As I see it, you have failed to substantially address any of the points I've made, so I have no further comments until you do. I perceive your posts as verbal gymnastics.
kenblogton