Caught between two infinities

[Icarus]

Man is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness. When he looks at the small he sees himself as great. When he compares himself to the vastness of the universe he becomes insignificant.

In the same token, man is capable of both great acts and atrocities. To what end can science account for this duality in man?

[Curious]

A) Evolution presupposes human intellect ex nihilo.

B) If the evolution of intellect presupposition holds true then man is not capable of accurate reasoning.

C) Therefore man is caught between knowing and not knowing (greatness and nothingness/wretchedness).

Surely evolutionists would more likely say that rather than the intellect "arising from nothing" it is a direct function of the brain which itself arises through evolutionary mechanisms.

[Icarus]

Curious,
Yes they could claim that but not support it. Time and Chance. Time cannot produce anything. Chance cannot produce anything. If an evolutionist makes that claim that "mechanisms" begat mechanisms then the first mechanism had to have had intellect. Evolution's own theory must make use of natural explanations only.

Either way, man would still be caught between knowing and not knowing.

[Curious]

Curious,
Yes they could claim that but not support it. Time and Chance. Time cannot produce anything. Chance cannot produce anything. If an evolutionist makes that claim that "mechanisms" begat mechanisms then the first mechanism had to have had intellect. Evolution's own theory must make use of natural explanations only.

Either way, man would still be caught between knowing and not knowing.

But a function can be made up of seemingly useless sub functions which are themselves made up of other sub functions. The smallest "functional" part may well be simply a function of a physical structure. In isolation these sub functions may have a completely different beneficial function but together they might act in unison to fulfill a higher function. Now there is no reason, from the perspective of the evolutionist, that all these sub functions have to occur spontaneously and simultaneously. So there really is no reason for intellect to have been a necessary prerequisite for the evolution of intellect.

[Icarus]

So there really is no reason for intellect to have been a necessary prerequisite for the evolution of intellect.

Again, either way it places man between knowing and not knowing.

[QED]

Curious,
Yes they could claim that but not support it. Time and Chance. Time cannot produce anything. Chance cannot produce anything. If an evolutionist makes that claim that "mechanisms" begat mechanisms then the first mechanism had to have had intellect. Evolution's own theory must make use of natural explanations only.

Either way, man would still be caught between knowing and not knowing.

But a function can be made up of seemingly useless sub functions which are themselves made up of other sub functions. The smallest "functional" part may well be simply a function of a physical structure. In isolation these sub functions may have a completely different beneficial function but together they might act in unison to fulfill a higher function. Now there is no reason, from the perspective of the evolutionist, that all these sub functions have to occur spontaneously and simultaneously. So there really is no reason for intellect to have been a necessary prerequisite for the evolution of intellect.

Again, either way it places man between knowing and not knowing.

Where it places man is in a novel position that's for sure. Before our evolution equipped us with brains capable of looking beyond our immediate needs for survival no animal had ever realized that it was standing on a huge rock hurtling around a star which in turn was orbiting the centre of a vast galaxy of stars (etc.) This is a pretty big revelation to get over after 3.5 billion years of blissful ignorance. I'm not in the least bit surprise that at some deep level the adjustment is still taking place in some minds...

[Lotan]

A) Evolution presupposes human intellect ex nihilo.

No, evolution presupposes human intellect ex prehuman intellect.

B) If the evolution of intellect presupposition holds true then man is not capable of accurate reasoning.

It doesn't. He is.

C) Therefore man is caught between knowing and not knowing (greatness and nothingness/wretchedness).

Knowing and not knowing what? Humans exhibit variability. This variability exists well within the limits of infinite this and infinite that. So what? No one is infinitely great, or wretched, or knowledgeable. Why should they be? This hardly seems like some unsolved mystery of science.

[Icarus]

No, evolution presupposes human intellect ex prehuman intellect.

Same thing. This statement above just seems to stop at the "prehuman" section. It does not answer how or where that prehuman intellect came from.

It doesn't. He is.

I am not entirely sure of your answer, but if you are saying that man is capable of accurate reasoning, how do you know? Evolution is changing, life is changing, knowlege would be changing, information is changing, reasoning is changing, there are no absolutes...

So what? No one is infinitely great, or wretched, or knowledgeable. Why should they be?

I did not say anyone IS infinitely great/wretched. I said man is caught between the two. And that evolution cannot conjur up a reason. Genesis does. Natural science chooses to ignore the question because it has only two answers God or Meaninglessnes. When science did get a few words out on the side of Meaninglessness of man, we got Hitler and Stalin (and some others).

This hardly seems like some unsolved mystery of science.

Then you don't understand the ramifications of the question or its answer.

[QED]

...if you are saying that man is capable of accurate reasoning, how do you know? Evolution is changing, life is changing, knowlege would be changing, information is changing, reasoning is changing, there are no absolutes...

I think you're wrong to say that there are no absolutes. It's true that many things are relative but physical laws like thermodynamics are absolutes (within this universe anyway). And then there is the addition of integers, from which the entire structure of mathematics can be assembled.

I did not say anyone IS infinitely great/wretched. I said man is caught between the two. And that evolution cannot conjur up a reason. Genesis does. Natural science chooses to ignore the question because it has only two answers God or Meaninglessnes. When science did get a few words out on the side of Meaninglessness of man, we got Hitler and Stalin (and some others).

This is a very inflammatory and spurious remark. As far as I know, no science has ever been conducted that provides an answer that is God. As for meaningless, this is a subjective term and would have no value as a scientific conclusion. How did you draw a connection between the findings of science and the likes of Hitler and Stalin I wonder? I sincerely hope you enjoy a long and healthy life, but if you should be so unfortunate as to suffer a serious illness I suspect you will be very grateful for science.

This hardly seems like some unsolved mystery of science.

Then you don't understand the ramifications of the question or its answer.

That's only to be expected from the way you put the question. Don't mince with your words, spell it out so everyone is in no doubt about your point. What is your point?

[Icarus]

Ah, but if all is evolving than absolutes are not absolute. Even our understanding of math or physics may then be wrong. Because we've found patterns with math and physics would not make them certain.

I do not find the inflammatory remark towards science in my statement. Hitler's Mein Kampf emphasized his total belief in Darwins Theory. Stalin firmly believed in what Evolution Science stated and executed his vision with utmost disregard for any punishment, (other than the paranoia of other more stronger leaders to come along).

Let me clarify my overall thoughts on science. I love it. I believe we are charged with figuring out this world and how God made it, makes it work, keeps it working, be creative with it, etc.. I believe science is a value to man kind in many facets.

I do not believe scientists are correct in some of its conclusions about the big picture of life. I also believe that Natural Science (particularly the Evolutionary niche) has a flaw in its premise. It automatically eliminates a likely answer BEFORE testing it. Or even developing a test to see if there are other explanations outside of our natural universe.

I also would like to state here that while many here have stated that most wars are of religious feuds and desires. That is a factual fallacy. A look at actual wars in the last 200 years are more from political fame and from the belief that there is no God, therefor no punishment for crimes. As well as it is science that created gun powder, guns, swords, nukes, tanks... with which we kill each other. (note: I am also not excusing any religious war here either).

What is your point?

I've already stated it. Science cannot answer this question. The Genesis account in the Bible does.

Answer A) There is a God, He is personal and He has told us why we are in the predicament we are in and how to get out of it.

Answer B) There is no God and therefore no moral, ethical or absolute truths. (any other reasoning after this answer would likely make a moral statement and therefore takes it into another realm of discussion about absolutes and a moral agent guide post)

[Lotan]

Then you don't understand the ramifications of the question or its answer.

I understand that this isn't a science question. The terms "great" and "wretched" are subjective. There is no standard by which to measure them. You may as well have said "gnarly" and "bogus". Why don't you give us a specific example of what you are talking about, or rephrase your question in objective terms as I asked you to previously?