Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Categories
Atheism
Control vs Anarchy
Food for thought
Politics
rhetoric
worldview
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
KF @ 269: Excellent. Thank you!Truth Will Set You Free
April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
@KF Thanks KF. I would certainly consider writing a guest post. I'd only ask that you allow me to write it in May if that is okay, as I have a fairly large assignment due for school at the end of April—which is currently eating up a lot of my spare time. And yes, the post would certainly be written from the perspective of an ordinary/average individual—myself.KRock
April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
KR, if you want to try a guest post that would be great (I can be contacted through the web page linked through my handle). If you just want to comment, that would do, given that this thread is so wide-ranging. The response of ordinary people to ID is something we need to ponder in the midst of all that is going on. KFkairosfocus
April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
@ KF Absolutely! Would you prefer an email, or via a post/thread? Some of the people I speak of are fellow co-workers of mine, and when the topic of ID has been brought up in conversation, a number of them—althought not overtly versed in the subject—see ID as far more plausible concerning the origin of life, and most don't hold to any religious conviction(s).KRock
April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
KR, thanks. Do you want to share a thought or two or some of those stories? KFkairosfocus
April 17, 2017
April
04
Apr
17
17
2017
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
@KF Keep up the good work here at UD KF; you'd be surprised as to just how many people think ID is is a viable explanation for the origin of life.. I hear it from people all the time.KRock
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
If you cannot take a few minutes to read and digest a substantial presentation on one of the pivotal issues of our time, you are not ready for this level of discussion. I suggest you take a moment to see The laws by Plato, start with Book X: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.10.x.html KF PS: I clip just one little snippet:
Ath. Well, then; what shall we say or do?-Shall we assume that some one is accusing us among unholy men, who are trying to escape from the effect of our legislation; and that they say of us-How dreadful that you should legislate on the supposition that there are Gods! Shall we make a defence of ourselves? or shall we leave them and return to our laws, lest the prelude should become longer than the law? For the discourse will certainly extend to great length, if we are to treat the impiously disposed as they desire, partly demonstrating to them at some length the things of which they demand an explanation, partly making them afraid or dissatisfied, and then proceed to the requisite enactments. Cle. Yes, Stranger; but then how often have we repeated already that on the present occasion there is no reason why brevity should be preferred to length; who is "at our heels"?-as the saying goes, and it would be paltry and ridiculous to prefer the shorter to the better. It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do. The demonstration of this would be the best and noblest prelude of all our laws. And therefore, without impatience, and without hurry, let us unreservedly consider the whole matter, summoning up all the power of persuasion which we possess. Ath. Seeing you thus in earnest, I would fain offer up a prayer that I may succeed:-but I must proceed at once . . .
kairosfocus
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Nice post. I would add that in addition to rationality and custom as sources of our norms, I think there is some common biologically-based psychological needs/perceptions that form a foundation upon which social norms are built. The need to be a part of a group, for instance, certainly has a rational basis but it also a basic part of our biological human nature.jdk
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
KF, trying to drown your opposition in thousands of words is a tried and true form of debate. But a dishonest one. You can do better. I have asked a very simple question that should be able to be answered with a very simple question. All I am asking you to do is to envision the type of world that would exist if a world-root IS does not exist that grounds OUGHT. I argue that it would look very much like the world we live in and the one that we have observed through recorded history. In short, societies doing the best they can given the limitations of a subjective system of rules and morals. Subjective is not analagous to your favourite flavour of ice cream, or colour, as the more dishonest here would claim. Not killing, not stealing and not lying are rules that most rational people can reason for themselves as a course that will benefit them in a gregarious society. And anything that is repeatedly taught to us by parents, teachers, societal leaders and peers, or anything that we do repeatedly, becomes ingrained in our personality. We feel compelled to follow those subjective rules. That does not make them objective. If you disagree with the power of this "indoctrination" through constant reinforcement and simple repetition, try getting up tomorrow and changing the order of your morning rituals. It is amazing how something that has no objective value appears to be important.Armand Jacks
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
F/N: At long last an attempt to respond to a point, the IS-OUGHT gap. Let us hope this reflects enough of a changed heart that I can suspend for the moment the please leave this thread. Unfortunately, it also utterly misunderstands the challenge and turns the issue into a strawman target:
You are presupposing [--> read that, begging the question (a misreading of the comparative difficulties worldview roots challenge already)] that there is a world-root IS that grounds OUGHT. Yet what we see through all of recorded history, and what we see around us every day, does not support this presupposition. What we see is a group of societies that agree on an assemblage of subjective values and don’t agree on others . . .
As was shown above and elsewhere, we are inescapably under moral government. Even in argument those who challenge us are implying that they full well know that normal people find an urge within to the truth and the right as part of their conscious mindedness. Conscience, in one word. The issue then is, is this merely a subjective, perhaps psycho-socially conditioned perception, shaped in the end by nature and nurture through blind chance and necessity as part of what makes us jumped up apes from the E African savannahs? (Or, actually, Darwin spoke of monkeys -- though he misplaced the challenge, selectively hyperskeptically using it to blunt doubts regarding evolutionism.) Let's cite Darwin for a moment, from his July 31 1881 letter to William Graham in response to the latter's book in which the latter argued inter alia from an orderly, law-governed cosmos to purpose in that cosmos:
. . . you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? . . . . Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.
Yes, a troubling context indeed. Including a chilling foresight of the impact of his thinking on the future history of Europe in C20. Notice, Darwin here starts from an inner conviction that he obviously struggles against, that points to purpose and governing order. Why does he struggle? Because he serves a system of thought that tends to regard that conviction as something delusional. It is in that context that he proceeds to speak to how the issue of the jumped up monkey mind smothers that conviction in favour of his system. In so doing, he falls into precisely the self-referential incoherence, letting grand delusion loose trap that I and others have repeatedly highlighted; and ends up making a chilling prediction that fully bears out Plato's warning in The Laws Bk X that I have so often pointed to, including at 247 above. Here is Nancy Pearcey's comment in Finding Truth:
People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem [of self-referential incoherence tied to evolutionary epistemology]. They typically cite Darwin's famous "horrid doubt" passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy." But, of course, Darwin's theory itself was a "conviction of man's mind." So why should it be "at all trustworthy"? Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his "horrid doubt" selectively -- only when considering the case for a Creator. From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his "inward conviction ... that the Universe is not the result of chance." It was in the next sentence that he expressed his "horrid doubt." So the "conviction" he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance. In another passage Darwin admitted, "I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man." Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: "But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?" That is, can it be trusted when it draws "grand conclusions" about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey's "instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." In short, it was on occasions when Darwin's mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory . . . . Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, "If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones." Thus "to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals ... undermines confidence in the scientific method." Just so. Science itself is at stake. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, "the mind that does science ... is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science." Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively . . .
Where of course conscience and its convictions are an integral part of our rationality, thus of warrant and of warranted credibly true beliefs, i.e. knowledge. We here see how there are no firewalls in mindedness and so once a system lets grand delusion loose in the mind, that snowballs then avalanches into self-falsifying self-referential incoherence in which the key functions of mindedness reduce to delusion. Indeed, conscious existence and accurate perception of the world within and without are caught up in the grand collapse. Bringing in the community and its institutions, they too become destabilised and are caught up in the devastating cascade. So, we see reductio ad absurdum, and know we need to back away and start afresh. The first point of that fresh start is that we must recognise that while we do err, we are not under grand delusion, i.e. the major functions of mindedness including conscience have to be regarded as able to give us accurate guides to reality in general, sufficiently so that we can establish plumbline truths that then allow us to build on a sounder footing. Among these obviously are the recognition that distinct identity has the first principles of right reason as immediate corollaries, the laws of identity, the excluded middle and non-contradiction (or coherence). Moral government and the voice of conscience are integral to that, and it raises the question I have pivoted on above: What sort of world do we have to live in for there to be creatures like us? Where:
. . . a physicalist account of mindedness (much less, guidance by light of conscience) faces an ugly, impassable gulch. In effect, rocks — even refined and carefully organised rocks — have no dreams; computation is not intentional contemplation. At this point, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers — and nope you cannot properly, conveniently open up rhetorical daylight between some vague agnosticism and full-blown evo mat to deflect this — face an impassable gulch. One, that brings out what was already highlighted: mindedness, consciousness, reasoned inference and conscience’s compass-pointing alike are all reduced to grand delusion on evo mat premises. Grand delusion would collapse responsible, rational freedom and so falls into irretrievable incoherence and absurdity. Thence, the necessary falsity Pearcey and others have pointed to. But in reality, rational, responsible, conscience-compass bearing consciousness is our first undeniable empirical fact. The fact through which we perceive all others. This is the familiar extraordinary phenomenon, the pivot on which the project of building a sound worldview turns. In effect, unless a worldview is compatible with our being responsible, reasonable, conscience-guided and significantly free beings, it cannot even sit to the table for a discussion of comparative difficulties. It is silenced by being inconsistent with rationality. It is patently, irretrievably absurd and necessarily false. (Evo mat and fellow traveller ideologies, I am looking straight at you.)
So, we live in a world in which is and ought are credibly real and are inextricably inter-twined and entangled. That naturally points to the need for a coherent account of reality from its roots that inseparably unifies these. For, at the same time there is the IS-OUGHT gap highlighted in recent centuries by Hume, who clearly succeeded in showing that the gap could not be resolved at any later level. IS and OUGHT must go down to the roots of reality and must be inextricably fused there. So, we face the triple-challenge worldviews comparative difficulties test: factual adequacy, coherence, explanatory power and balance. Where it is precisely this grand inference to the best explanation challenge that moves us beyond question-begging, where we know that an infinite stepwise regress of either reasons or causes is absurdly futile. Where, every core worldviews option is under test, and where we already see the huge factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power challenges failed by evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies. That's why in this thread I started with general worldviews issues and took time to address this institutionally dominant but self-falsifying and amoral system. It is in that context that we went on to a fresh start, so acting as though one is seeing mere question-begging presuppositions sets up and knocks over a strawman caricature. In which context it becomes spectacularly revealing to see that there was a failure to put forward a credible worldview level alternative to ethical theism. All that would be required to demolish the case above (esp at 153 with 178 and particularly 219 above followed by 234) is to articulate such a scheme. We cannot but notice how it continues to be missing, given the energy with which activists, adherents and actual thinkers supporting evo mat scientism and its fellow travellers patrol the internet. If they have a solid answer, it would long since have been put forward. The attempt to suggest that I have simply begged the question is eloquent proof in itself that the alternative stands missing. So, if I am wrong, simply produce it: ___________ (Of course, the basic problem is that we are generally ill educated on worldviews. A major fault of formal and informal education in our time.) So, in the end, we are forced to address the IS-OUGHT gap at world-root level, and the best option on the table remains as already outlined in 219:
Back to us, as being able to significantly freely discuss our concerns responsibly and rationally, and having an inner compass-sense that insistently points to the truth and the right — conscience. What sort of world must this be to allow such, and what must be in its frameworking structure? First, we already saw that the denial of responsible, rational, significant freedom lets grand delusion loose and instantly ends in absurdity. Self-evidently, this is a world in which responsibly rational and significantly free, morally governed creatures are possible and in fact actual. That’s already a huge result and it sweeps away all worldviews — their name is legion — that are incompatible with such creatures. This of course includes evolutionary materialistic scientism, its fellow travellers, radical subjectivism and radical relativism. (Cf. the chain of comments here on, above.) Next, we face the implication of the IS-OUGHT gap, on many levels. A world with moral government has to be such that OUGHT is well-rooted in the fabric and framework of reality. Post Hume et al and post Euthyphro et al, that can only be in the very root of reality, i.e. there must be a necessary being that so fuses IS-ness and OUGHT-ness, that they are inextricably entangled in the roots of reality. What sort of being is capable of such? The answer is utterly challenging, and I have long thought it is best posed in light of comparative difficulties and worldview level inference to the best candidate explanation. We need to look at serious candidates (as opposed to something like a flying spaghetti monster, which will not be a necessary being — made up from bits and pieces, i.e. composite.) There is just one serious candidate, after centuries of debate: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature (thus, the law of our nature). This is not an arbitrary imposition, if you doubt, simply put up a viable alternative: ________ (this is after all comparative difficulties analysis). Prediction: hard to do. [--> now clearly fulfilled.] This also has a further highly relevant implication. For a serious candidate necessary being will either be impossible as a square circle is, or else it will be possible thus would exist in at least one world. And, as it would be a frameworking reality, it would be present in every possible world, including our own — an actual world. (And yes, I am not saying THE actual world.) The God of ethical theism as described, is a serious candidate [e.g. NB’s have no beginning or end, are eternal]. This means that God is either impossible as a square circle is impossible, or he is actual. And decades ago, the problem of evils used to be trotted out to make that argument, but that option is effectively dead post-Plantinga and in fact post Boethius. Then, too, if one claims to be an atheist or agnostic, s/he implies knowing good reason to doubt or dismiss the God of ethical theism as impossible even as a square circle is impossible. It would be interesting to hear what such a reason is: _______ (esp. post, problem of evils as a serious view as opposed to a handy piece of intimidatory rhetoric). So, now, we are at a very important threshold, the God of ethical theism is on the table as a serious candidate necessary being, root of reality that grounds a world in which responsibly and rationally free creatures such as ourselves are possible and indeed actual. That is a momentous turning-point, and it would be interesting to see if we will hear of the viable alternatives, including reasons why such a God is an impossible being.
After days, we are right back to this point. Let us see what substantial response will be forthcoming. KFkairosfocus
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
@ rvb8 #231 "Not really, I merely disabuse new Chinese Protestant Christians of their faith, and am quite good at it." Wow! Like I said, you're a real culture warrior... I mean really, It's wonderful that you just pick and choose the types of Christians to disabuse! There's nothing like a self proclaimed erudite who likes to bully people out of their beliefs. I wonder rvb8, how many muslim students have you disabused? My guess, probably zero...! Your problem isn't with religion—as I believe you've mentioned already—its your utter hatred for one particular religion in general, Christianity; and its plainly visible in your posts. You can clench your fists in anger all you like, but you'll never quell the distribution of the gospel message and the human thirst for it! For you, the game will go back in the box at the end of the day, quite literally, and your efforts will enter the ranks of futile, like so many before you—just part of a meaningless existence that, unfortunately for you, will never know it actually existed in the first place. Good luck with that crusade of yours...KRock
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
KF:
Pondering that points to the need for a world-root IS that inherently grounds OUGHT, and after centuries of debates it is quite clear that there is but one serious candidate:
I believe that we have been over this before. You are presupposing that there is a world-root IS that grounds OUGHT. Yet what we see through all of recorded history, and what we see around us every day, does not support this presupposition. What we see is a group of societies that agree on an assemblage of subjective values and don't agree on others. Sometimes the assemblage of values is stable for long periods of time and sometimes it is short lived. It may be uncomfortable, but it reflects reality.Armand Jacks
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
FFT8: It strikes me that Cicero's Marcus in De Legibus provides relevant food for thought on doing the right in accord with our evident nature in this classic remark:
{M:} . . . law is highest reason, implanted in nature, which orders those things that ought to be done and prohibits the opposite. The same reason is law when it has been strengthened and fully developed in the human mind. [19] And so they think that law is prudence, the effect of which is to order persons to act correctly and to forbid them to transgress. They also think that this thing has been called [from] the Greek name for “granting to each his own,” whereas I think it comes from our word for “choosing.” As they put the effect of fairness into law, we put the effect of choice into it. Nevertheless, each one is appropriate to law. But if it is thus correctly said, as indeed it mostly and usually seems to me, the beginning of right should be drawn from law. For this is a force of nature; this is the mind and reason of the prudent man; this is the rule of right and wrong. But since our entire speech is for the people’s business, sometimes it will be necessary to speak popularly and to call that a law which, when written, consecrates what it wants by either ordering [or forbidding], as the crowd calls it. In fact let us take the beginning of establishing right from the highest law, which was born before any law was written for generations in common [corrupt text here] or before a city was established at all . . . . [21] M: Then, Pomponius, do you grant me this (for I know Quintus’s opinion), that all nature is ruled by the force, nature, reason, power, mind, majesty—or whatever other word there is by which I may signify more plainly what I want—of the immortal gods? Now if you do not approve this, I must begin my case from there before anything else. A: Of course I grant it, if you expect it. And because of the harmony of the birds and the rumbling of the rivers I do not fear that any of my fellow students [fellow Epicureans] will clearly hear. M: Yet beware: They often become quite angry, as good men do. They will not tolerate it if they hear that you have betrayed the excellent man’s first sentence, in which he wrote that god cares for nothing, either his own or another’s. [22] A: Continue, I beseech [you]. For I expect [to hear] how what I have admitted to you is relevant. M: I will not make you wait longer. It is relevant at this point: This animal—foreseeing, sagacious, versatile, sharp, mindful, filled with reason and judgment—that we call a human being has been begotten by the supreme god in a certain splendid condition. It alone, of all kinds and natures of animate beings, has a share in reason and reflection, in which all the others have no part. Moreover, what is more divine than reason—I will not say in a human being but in the entire heaven and earth? When it has grown up and been fully developed, it is rightly named wisdom. [23] Therefore, since nothing is better than reason, and since it [is] in both human being and god, the primary fellowship of human being with god involves reason; and among those who have reason in common, correct reason is also in common. Since that is law, we should also consider human beings to be united with gods by law. Furthermore, among those who have a sharing in law, there is a sharing in right. And for them these things are [missing text here] and they must be recognized as being of the same city—if they obey the same commanders and men in power, even much more so. Moreover, they obey this celestial system, the divine mind and very powerful god, so that now this whole universe should [be] thought to be one city in common between gods and human beings. And the fact that in cities positions are distinguished by blood relations of families—according to a method that will be spoken of in a suitable place—is all the more magnificent and splendid in the nature of things, so that human beings are held to be in the “blood relation” and “race” of the gods. [24] Now when all nature is inquired about, it is usual to argue the following (and without doubt it is so): In the perpetual celestial courses [and] revolutions there emerged a sort of ripeness for planting the human race. When it was scattered and planted over the earth, it was increased by the divine gift of souls. And although human beings have taken the other things of which they are composed from mortal stock, and those things are fragile and frail, the soul has been implanted by god. From this, in truth, there is what can be recognized as a blood relation, or a family or a lineage, between us and the heavenly beings. Thus out of so many species there is no animal besides the human being that has any notion of god. And among human beings themselves there is no nation either so tame or so wild that it does not know that it should have a god, although it may be ignorant of what sort it ought to have. [25] From this it follows that he recognizes god because he, so to speak, recollects whence he arose. Moreover, the same virtue is in human being and god, and it is not in any other species besides; and virtue is nothing other than [nature] fully developed and taken all the way to its highest point. Therefore, the similarity between human being and god is natural. Since this is so, what in the world can be a nearer, more certain kinship? And so nature has generously given such a richness of things for human convenience and use that things that are given birth seem to have been donated to us by design, not originated by chance—not only those things that are poured out as the produce of the earth [laden] with crops and fruits, but also animals, which it is clear have been procreated partly for human use, partly for enjoyment, partly for feeding on. [26] In fact countless arts have been discovered through the teaching of nature, which reason imitated in order to attain skillfully the things necessary for life. The same nature not only adorned the human being himself with swiftness of mind, but also allotted [to him] the senses as escorts and messengers, as well as the obscure, insufficiently elucidated conceptions of many things as, so to speak, a sort of foundation of knowledge. It also gave to the body a shape manageable and suitable to the human intellect. For although it made the other animate beings prostrate for grazing, it raised up the human being alone and aroused him to a view of the heaven as if it were a view of his kin and original domicile. Then it shaped the appearance of his face so as to portray in it the character hidden within. [27] For the expressive eyes say beyond measure how we have been affected in the mind; and what is called the countenance, which can exist in no animate being besides the human being, indicates character. The Greeks know the significance of this, but they do not have a name for it at all. I omit the fitness and abilities of the rest of the body, the control of the voice, the force of speech, which is the greatest matchmaker of human fellowship (not all things are for this debate and time, and, as it seems to me, Scipio expressed this point sufficiently in the book [On the Republic] you have read). Now since god [thus] begot and adorned the human being—that is, he wanted him to have precedence over other things—it is clear (so that not everything must be discussed) that nature itself proceeds further by itself: even with no one teaching it, it has taken its start from those things the characteristics of which it recognized from its first, rudimentary intelligence; it alone strengthens and fully develops reason.
Things are so bad, we have discarded and forgotten so much, that we need to go back and hear the pagans. KFkairosfocus
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Charles, At this point, we can see that the themes you raised point to a set of deeper, worldview comparative difficulties questions. These bring us full circle to issues you have raised in the OP and early in the thread. Let us sum up and focus. We can see that it is actually irrational to adhere to the self-refuting and amoral ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers. By contrast, simply recognising and pondering the responsible, rational freedom that allows us to have a serious discussion points to our being under moral government and raises the question as to what sort of world must we inhabit if we are to be able to be rational. Pondering that points to the need for a world-root IS that inherently grounds OUGHT, and after centuries of debates it is quite clear that there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of our loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. That of course implies that we are under a law of our nature that is often communicated to us by properly functioning consciences. However, conscience and culture alike can be warped, as is ever so evident in our civilisation that is on a march of folly to ruin. Emblemised by the ongoing holocaust of our posterity in the womb that triggers blood guilt, enabling behaviour and destructive, hellish warping of thought and institutions. This leads to the context where we inherently should be unsurprised to see evidence that the creator God is there and is not silent. No wonder, conscience speaks as the candle of The Lord, communicating neighbour love, duty to God and Man, duty to truth, reason, responsibility, the right and justice. Likewise to see that the world of life cries out with signs of design. Likewise, to see that there is a tradition of God's spokesmen, oral and in writing. In Amos' words:
Amos 3:6 If a trumpet is blown in a city [warning of danger] will not the people tremble? If a disaster or misfortune occurs in a city has not the Lord caused it? 7 Surely the Lord God does nothing [a]Without revealing His secret plan [of the judgment to come] To His servants the prophets. 8 The lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken [to the prophets]! Who can but prophesy? [AMP]
The principle here, is that God has a relationship with a nation that acknowledges him, especially with those who spend time with him who God can trust with his messages; the prophets. God does not act without speaking to his prophets, and just as a lion's roar inspires fear, God's speaking equips people to speak in his name, with his voice. A voice that will call out to conscience within, but which will also be resisted as it rebukes those who profit from wrong. And of course one means of authenticating that voice in the face of its critics and opponents is its predictive power in the context of an overall message of redemption, repentance, reformation and transformation under the blessing of God. From this, it is but a step to see that prophecy can be written down, resulting in scriptures that give us a deposit of the tested, time-proved authentic word of God. A word that is so powerful that if we heed it, we will taste and know that The Lord is good. In which context, the tested, proved, genuine scriptures will be a plumbline that tests other claims, teachings and voices. If they speak not according to this word, there is no light of day in them. For, we are warned of false prophets who will err or even if they make some correct predictions will do so only to call us away from patent duty under God. Hence, we see:
2 Tim 3:12 Indeed, all who delight in pursuing righteousness and are determined to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be hunted and persecuted [because of their faith]. 13 But evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in the things that you have learned and of which you are convinced [holding tightly to the truths], knowing from whom you learned them, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings (Hebrew Scriptures) which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus [surrendering your entire self to Him and having absolute confidence in His wisdom, power and goodness]. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately—behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; 17 so that the [a]man of God may be complete and proficient, outfitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work. [AMP]
In this context, in our day, we are confronted with the core gospel message:
Paulo Apostolo Mart: Rom 1:1 Paul, a [a]bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle (special messenger, personally chosen representative), set apart for [preaching] the [b]gospel of God [the good news of salvation], 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the sacred Scriptures— 3 [the good news] regarding His Son, who, as to the flesh [His human nature], was born a descendant of David [to fulfill the covenant promises], 4 and [as to His divine nature] according to the Spirit of holiness was openly designated to be the Son of God with power [in a triumphant and miraculous way] by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 It is through Him that we have received grace and [our] apostleship to promote obedience to the faith and make disciples for His name’s sake among all the Gentiles, 6 and you also are among those who are called of Jesus Christ to belong to Him . . . [AMP] Also, Peter: 2 Pet 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories or myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were [h]eyewitnesses of His majesty [His grandeur, His authority, His sovereignty]. 17 For when He was invested with honor and [the radiance of the [i]Shekinah] glory from God the Father, such a voice as this came to Him from the [splendid] Majestic Glory [in the bright cloud that overshadowed Him, saying], [j]“This is My Son, My Beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased and delighted”— 18 and we [actually] heard this voice made from heaven when we were together with Him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more certain. You do well to pay [close] attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and light breaks through the gloom and the [k]morning star arises in your hearts. 20 [l]But understand this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of or comes from one’s own [personal or special] interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved [--> with typhonic force] by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [AMP] As well, Luke: Luke 1:1 Since [as is well known] many have undertaken to compile an orderly account of the things which have been fulfilled among us [by God], 2 exactly as they were handed down to us by those [with personal experience] who from the beginning [of Christ’s ministry] were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word [that is, of the teaching concerning salvation through faith in Christ], 3 it seemed fitting for [a]me as well, [and so I have decided] after having carefully searched out and investigated all the events accurately, from the very beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been [b]taught [that is, the history and doctrine of the faith] . . . . Ac 1:1 The first [a]account I made, Theophilus, was [a continuous report] about all the things that Jesus began to do and to [b]teach 2 until the day when He ascended to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given instruction to the apostles (special messengers) whom He had chosen. 3 To these [men] He also showed Himself alive after His suffering [in Gethsemane and on the cross], by [a series of] many infallible proofs and unquestionable demonstrations, appearing to them over a period of forty days and talking to them about the things concerning the kingdom of God. 4 While being together and eating with them, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Of which,” He said, “you have heard Me speak. 5 For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized and empowered and united with the Holy Spirit, not long from now.” 6 So when they had come together, they asked Him repeatedly, “Lord, are You at this time reestablishing the kingdom and restoring it to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority. 8 But you will receive power and ability when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will be My witnesses [to tell people about Me] both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth.” [AMP] Paulo Apostolo Mart, again: 1 Cor 15:Now brothers and sisters, let me remind you [once again] of the good news [of salvation] which I preached to you, which you welcomed and accepted and on which you stand [by faith]. 2 By this faith you are saved [reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, and set apart for His purpose], if you hold firmly to the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain [just superficially and without complete commitment]. 3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that
Christ died for our sins according to [that which] the Scriptures [foretold],
4 and that
He was buried,
and that
He was [bodily] raised on the third day according to [that which] the Scriptures [foretold],
5 and that
He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the [a]Twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, the majority of whom are still alive, but some have fallen asleep [in death]
.
7 Then He was seen by James, then by all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to one [b]untimely (prematurely, traumatically) born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least [worthy] of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I [at one time] fiercely oppressed and violently persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the [remarkable] grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not without effect. In fact, I worked harder than all of the apostles, though it was not I, but the grace of God [His unmerited favor and blessing which was] with me. 11 So whether it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed and trusted in and relied on with confidence. [AMP] Where, of course, the capstone prophecy dates to c 700 BC, in Isaiah 53:
Isa 53:1 Who has believed [confidently trusted in, relied on, and adhered to] our message [of salvation]? And to whom [if not us] has the arm and infinite power of the Lord been revealed? 2 For He [the Servant of God] grew up before Him like a tender shoot (plant), And like a root out of dry ground; He has no stately form or majestic splendor That we would look at Him, Nor [handsome] appearance that we would [a]be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and pain and acquainted with grief; And like One from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we did not appreciate His worth or esteem Him. 4 But [in fact] He has borne our griefs, And He has carried our sorrows and pains; Yet we [ignorantly] assumed that He was stricken, Struck down by God and degraded and humiliated [by Him]. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was crushed for our wickedness [our sin, our injustice, our wrongdoing]; The punishment [required] for our well-being fell on Him, And by His stripes (wounds) we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, We have turned, each one, to his own way; But the Lord has caused the wickedness of us all [our sin, our injustice, our wrongdoing] To fall on Him [instead of us]. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth [to complain or defend Himself]; Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before her shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 [b]After oppression and judgment He was taken away; And [c]as for His generation [His contemporaries], who [among them] concerned himself with the fact That He was cut off from the land of the living [by His death] For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke [of death] was due? 9 His grave was assigned with the wicked, But He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 Yet the Lord was [d]willing To crush Him, [e]causing Him to suffer; If [f]He would give Himself as a guilt offering [an atonement for sin], He shall see His [spiritual] offspring, He shall prolong His days, And the will (good pleasure) of the Lord shall succeed and prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the [g]anguish of His soul, He shall see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge [of what He has accomplished] the Righteous One, My Servant, shall justify the many [making them righteous—upright before God, in right standing with Him], For He shall bear [the responsibility for] their sins. [AMP]
Cf discussion here on in context.) That is why our civilisation, which more than any civilisation before has had this word of light, is so utterly without excuse. We must now wake up, turn back from folly and build anew on the gospel and the scriptures that undergird it. Of course, far too many are mockers, and Peter aptly warned:
2 Peter 3:3 First of all, know [without any doubt] that mockers will come in the last days with their mocking, following after their own human desires 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming [what has become of it]? For ever since the fathers fell asleep [in death], all things have continued [exactly] as they did from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they willingly forget [the fact] that the heavens existed long ago by the word of God, and the earth was formed [a]out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly people. 8 Nevertheless, do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day. 9 The Lord does not delay [as though He were unable to act] and is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is [extraordinarily] patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will vanish with a [mighty and thunderous] roar, and the [material] elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and the works that are on it will be [b]burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be [in the meantime] in holy behavior [that is, in a pattern of daily life that sets you apart as a believer] and in godliness [displaying profound reverence toward our awesome God], 12 [while you earnestly] look for and await the coming of the day of God. For on this day the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the [material] elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But in accordance with His promise we expectantly await new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 14 So, beloved, since you are looking forward to these things, be diligent and make every effort to be found by Him [at His return] spotless and blameless, in peace [that is, inwardly calm with a sense of spiritual well-being and confidence, having lived a life of obedience to Him]. 15 And consider the patience of our Lord [His delay in judging and avenging wrongs] as salvation [that is, allowing time for more to be saved] . . . [AMP]
We stand duly warned, KFkairosfocus
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT
AJ, PLEASE LEAVE THE DISCUSSION, you have now insistently spoken in disregard to the truth, where you have been repeatedly corrected and pointed to still open threads where any substance in your talking points were long since answered and you have been presented above with an outline that points to a pivotal historical exemplar of reformation in the face of holocaust level loss of life. Had you taken time to at least attempt a reasonable response to the substantial issues on the table, it would have been different. Had you first raised a concern here that, too would be different -- a response or correction and return to main focus would have been in order. Had you simply gone to the relevant threads and responded in the light of the substantial discussion there, that would have been different. Instead, in this thread, you made your trollish intent and attitude of insisting on manifestly false accusations all too plain. KFkairosfocus
April 16, 2017
April
04
Apr
16
16
2017
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
KF, is this your way of saying that you refuse to answer my questions? Duly noted.Armand Jacks
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
THAT'S Enough trollish behaviour, you need to back off from false accusations and address the focal matter of the thread. Where, you full well know what was addressed in the linked threads long since put up at 103 above. If you were interested in responsible discussion, you would have long since gone where it is germane and where there is an existing discussion that cogently speaks to legitimate points you may have had, instead of repeatedly trying to divert this thread through untrue descriptions of what transpired elsewhere; all enabling of an ongoing holocaust. It seems you have an obsession with projecting to us hostility to women with crisis pregnancies, and imagine it gives you unanswerable talking points. Only, the points were answered in principle over 200 years ago by the principled, reformational approach Wilberforce took in the face of another great evil with holocaust-level death toll. Enough is enough, either clean up your act or please leave this thread. Sgd, Thread OwnerArmand Jacks
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
F/N: let me clip from another thread, on the design inference:
The reality is, it is a common sense issue to recognise what FSCO/I is, and it is a fairly simple step to extend the game of twenty questions or the like to understand a description language capable of specifying functional configurations as a chain of structured y/n q’s, as in the end AutoCAD does. This allows us to understand how complex, functionally specific organisation is richly informational. It is trivial in this digital age to look at how a bus width of n bits leads to 2^n possible addresses and thereby to understand how we get a configuration space. I admit, that is the easy backdoor route that avoids dealing with the concept of phase space, but it is good enough. FSCO/I then takes on full force where we naturally see why there are islands of function due to the need for properly arranged and coupled components to achieve relevant function. We can then readily see the difference between: ORDER: asasasasas . . . as RANDOMNESS: fghwugiuehgirejjjhphugourkkd754kou78du[6;ki and, ORGANISATION: such as this s-t-r-i-n-g of glyphs spelling out a message Order in the natural world whereby there is a reliable pattern on given initial conditions is normally regarded as the result of mechanical necessity, leading to a search for the underlying ordering law and dynamics. Chance gives rise to high contingency with stochastic distributions not biased towards functionality based on FSCO/I. It often appears as scatter in experimental results, or patterns familiar from tossing dice or fair coins, or more exotically, sky noise etc. Functionally specific organisation beyond a reasonable threshold of complexity is beyond the search capacity of the observed cosmos or the sol system, and it is on trillions of cases, the reliable result of intelligently directed configuration. That is, FSCO/I, for cause, is an empirically reliable, analytically plausible sign of design as key cause. That would be readily tested, by trying to show the first two factors giving rise to FSCO/I. Years ago, objectors used to try that, dozens of times. Uniform failure. Random text generation is now up to about 2 dozen ASCII characters in coherent English, a factor of 10^100 short of the conservative sol sys threshold 500 bits. The 1,000 bit threshold is the square of that, it utterly dwarfs the search resources of the observed cosmos. Now, the above outline is based on common sense science and math, drawn out to introduce a few new points. That is good, because it means ordinary people are just as knowledgeable on this as experts and can see how experts committed to the evolutionary materialist scheme struggle to address a supertask that was not on the table when their favoured darwinist scheme became dominant. That is why OOL research is a mess, and given that we can readily see that OO body plans would require 10 – 100+ mn bases of genetic info, far beyond the threshold, where for every additional bit the config space DOUBLES. The sort of resorts in the face of that challenge are revealing about the elites of our civilisation and its key institutions. Now, of course, if I and others are wrong, there should be any number of ready to hand cogent refutations on the Internet. Nope, not fallacy laden dismissals and attacks. Actual demonstrations of FSCO/I by credible chance and/or necessity, for one. Let us see one: ______________ Not dismissals on sniffing about “big numbers” but actual demonstrations of how we get to OOL then to OOBP without increments that run into the island of function challenge. (I call this the continent of function thesis.) I start by pointing to the distribution of protein fold domains in AA sequence space and wider organic chemistry. Go find us some molecular and genetic stepping stone missing links that amount to 100k – 1 mn bases for 1st cell based life and 10 to 100+ millions for origin of body plans: ____________ While you are at it, address the search for golden search challenge, by which it is easy to see that searches in a config space are subsets, so that the space for searches of a space of n configs, comes from the power set, of scale 2^n possibilities. So, magic bullet search algorithms are positively loaded with functional information. (And indeed this is where Dembski and Marks et al have discussed active information as the injection that allows us to intelligently overcome search challenge — and this is of course already published in the literature, as is the world of Abel and Trevors et al that speaks to search challenge and universal etc plausibility bounds.) Let us hear your response, which at this stage might as well be a shot at the still open after several years darwinist essay challenge. Remember, potentially, one shot one kill for ID. ID is utterly falsifiable in principle. Just, rather unlikely at this stage to actually be falsified in fact.
KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Long since answered cf 103 onward links. Notice, enabling of global holocaust, and rhetoric of projection rather than addressing the substantial, focal issues. Sad.kairosfocus
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
KF:
The proper place for such a discussion would be there on, but in fact even there there was a substantial discussion from several directions that was never cogently addressed by one who refuses to understand the nature of reform.
I agree that you produced a substantial number of words, but to call it a discussion would be a lie. At no point did you provide a rational answer to these two questions that is consistent with your world view. Your responses were nothing more than lame equivocations. Onlookers are encouraged to follow KF's links and find out for themselves who is speaking the truth. If a fetus is a human being with the same right to life as any of us, its premeditated killing is first degree murder. Plain and simple. Yet he is opposed to those charges. This inconsistency can easily be explained by either hipocrysy or misogyny. He has steadfastly refused to provide another option. This speaks volumes. And not in KF's favour. If abortions are murder and a holocaust as KF claims, then he should support proven means to significantly reduce them (sex Ed, unrestricted access to contraceptives) rather than means that have been proven not reduce abortion rates (criminalizing abortion). I really don't think that KF will answer either of these questions honestly because it will reveal the fatal flaws in his worldview. And I don't blame him. Admitting that there are serious flaws in your personal world view is something that is very difficult even for the best of us.Armand Jacks
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
The attempt to dismiss substantiation without a cogent response is duly noted for what it is, for a first step we suggest onlookers scroll up to here at 80 above, and then onwards. As for the ID is creationism smear, that has long been answered, cf the UD weak argument correctives. Nothing above carries that implication, we see here a wrenching of what was said to suit a rhetorical agenda and of course the creation of yet another sidetrack. What was shown above is that the worldview of ethical theism, a philosophical view, is independent of the design inference issue. It was noted that evolutionary materialism by contrast, was constructed in significant part to in effect make it seem plausible that here was nothing for God to do, and there was no empirical evidence that could be held to point to him, so God could be dismissed as a serious consideration. The strawman caricature of Paley's key watch arguments we often see (as in, there is studious gliding over the self-replicating time keeping watch discussed in Ch 2 of his work), and the appeals to god of gaps talking points suffice to show in a nutshell where that point comes from. Onward, I will take time to show that there is evidence that points to design of the world of life and of the observed cosmos. The former does not imply that God is designer. the latter points to an extracosmic designer capable of building a cosmos such as we inhabit. One that set up a cosmos in which c-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life is enabled. Of course, one of the chief advocates of same was lifelong agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle so it would seem passing strange to ascribe that to Bible-based Fundy creationism in any reasonable sense. The results are not necessary, but do fit in and do point beyond themselves in ways that invite serious worldview level discussion. As opposed to darwinist rhetorical games. Where of course, the core issues are again studiously avoided, telling us something. KF PS: The further attempt to side track the thread in enabling of holocaust is duly noted and the onlooker is again pointed onward to where a substantial discussion occurred, through the links at 103 above. The proper place for such a discussion would be there on, but in fact even there there was a substantial discussion from several directions that was never cogently addressed by one who refuses to understand the nature of reform.kairosfocus
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
KF:
Why then has there been such a hot debate over design, and why has it been laced with accusations about creationism in a cheap tuxedo and the like?
When an accusation is true, it becomes a statement of fact.
Simple: evolutionary materialistic scientism, from the outset in modern times [this is demonstrable historic fact], has tried to come up with a designer substitute that would plausibly put the creator-God out of a job.
Then you agree that ID is just a re-packaging of creationism. Thank you for your honesty.Armand Jacks
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
KF:
It is in that context that I then proceeded to show why evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers have been tried and found wanting as inherently incoherent, self-falsifying, necessarily false views.
Your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted.
They cannot get us to a responsibly, rationally free, morally governed, warranting, knowing mind. So they fail the test of our being able to have a rationally guided discussion.
Your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted. Repeating the same lame tropes over and over will not make them come true. All you have is the fact that there are things that we do not yet fully understand, and you squeeze god in the holes. The classic god of the gaps argument. But, since you have brought up moral governance, maybe you can answer the following moral governance questions: 1) Why is it morally acceptable to charge a woman with first degree murder for the premeditated murder of another human being when that human being is outside the womb, but not when it is still inside the womb? 2) Why is it morally acceptable to criminalize abortion and not actually reduce the abortion rate but morally unacceptable to significantly reduce the abortion rate through the teaching of comprehensive sex education at an early age, promoting a non-judgmental attitude towards sex, and providing unrestricted access to birth control? The only conclusion I can draw is that you are more interested in the sexual behaviour of consenting adults than you are about mass murder. If that is an example of your objective morality, I will stick with the subjective morality of myself and fellow travellers.Armand Jacks
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
FFT7: But, isn't the whole exercise of a pretended ID science an attempt to dress up dubious religion in scientific clothes, with intent to impose onward some sort of right-wing Christofascist theocratic tyranny that for instance robs women of their "rights" to their own bodies -- and maybe would gaol them for even a miscarriage? Etc? I am of course outlining a summary of trends of strawman caricature argument commonly encountered over the years. A serious-minded glance above will rapidly demonstrate that the main discussion I have made so far under the FFT theme, has been PHILOSOPHICAL, not theological, first and foremost setting the worldviews comparative difficulties context for discussion. It is in that context that I then proceeded to show why evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers have been tried and found wanting as inherently incoherent, self-falsifying, necessarily false views. They cannot get us to a responsibly, rationally free, morally governed, warranting, knowing mind. So they fail the test of our being able to have a rationally guided discussion. It will be quite evident above, that active objectors and those lurking from the penumbra of attack sites, have no real answer to this. That's not new, I have seen that for years at UD and for decades elsewhere. Before me, the point traces back to the likes of Plantinga, C S Lewis and even leading evolutionary theorist J B S Haldane. He aptly says:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
I invite the reasonable onlooker to scan above and see for himself, if there is a cogent answer forthcoming from the usual objectors or their backers across the Internet. The truth will be evident, there is no non-incoherent evolutionary materialistic account of mindedness. As for the associated amorality, radical relativism and reduction to nihilistic might and manipulation make 'truth' 'right' etc, that unanswered problem has been on record for 2350+ years, from Plato's reflections i/l/o the collapse of Athens. If you want to see an example of the sort of misleadership that that toxic brew spews up, try Alcibiades as case study no. 1. Resemblance to recent history is no coincidence, try out his parable of the mutinous ship of state. Look above, to see if you can find a serious-minded grappling with such momentous issues and their implications. Try out the penumbra of attack sites. You will soon see why I have long been concerned about a civilisation-level march of ruinous folly that manipulates the public and democratic institutions only to lead us over the cliff. Luke's real-world ship of state microcosm in Ac 27 should -- should! -- give us pause. As one simple example I note that the right to life is the first, foremost, gateway right and so a civilisation that systematically dehumanises its posterity in the womb and warps medicine, nursing, pharmacy, law, law enforcement, government, education, media and more to promote and protect the holocaust of 800+ millions in 40+ years (and mounting up at a million per week now), is corrupting its soul through blood guilt, is utterly warping conscience to do so, and is wrecking the ability to even simply think straight and live by the truth and the right. It is setting itself up to be a plague upon the earth that morally taints the land, which will vomit us out. If we do not repent of our bloody, soul-wrecking folly as a civilisation, we will ruin ourselves. And, whatever emerges from the bloody chaos and dark age to follow, will not see freedom as an important value, as liberty turned to libertinism and wicked, blood-guilty licence. Yes, I am out and out saying we have become the enemies of sustainable liberty under just law that duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. If you want a personal motive, there it is. I come from a nation that wrecked its prospects for generations through irresponsible, wicked misleadership, agit prop, media shadow shows and blood shed. That includes a murdered auntie. I know the hard way, that the lessons of sound history wee bought with blood and tears. Those who refuse to heed them doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over again in their futile folly. (I have said as much, many times, but no. Those hell-bent on folly have to project garish caricatures unto those who dare stand athwart the path heading over the cliff and cry out, no.) Anyway, the reader will simply not find a sober-minded response to such concerns. After this, I set about a sounder foundation, several days ago now, which was of course studiously ignored. This was elaborated through pondering what sort of world has to be here for there to be creatures like us, then followed up. All, studiously ignored in a rush to set up and knock over conveniently loaded straw men. Let me clip key points from the last, FFT6C:
It is worth noting the unresponsiveness to 219 and 178 above, especially at the points where objectors were directly invited to put up alternatives. We can take it to the bank that UD is obsessively monitored by denizens of a penumbra of hostile sites. Denizens, more than willing to pounce when they see opportunity. In short, the above blanks left unanswered speak to yet another hovering ghost or three in the room. Here, first, the point that there is no necessary appeal to design inferences and debates to build a case for ethical theism adequate to ground commitment to such. Second, that the atheistical objectors and their fellow travellers have no cogent answer to the need for a necessary being root to reality, nor to the point that the God of ethical theism is a serious candidate to be such (by utter contrast with the cartoonish flying spaghetti monster etc), nor to the onward point that such a serious candidate will be either ontologically impossible [as a square circle is impossible] or else will be actual. Third, they have no cogent answer to the significance of the point that just to have a real discussion, we must implicitly accept that we are responsible, reasonable, significantly free and intelligent beings under moral government. Not least, conscience is the compass within pointing to the truth, the right and our duties of care towards such. Undermining this dimension of conscious mindedness by implying it is delusional lets grand delusion loose in our minds, ending in shipwreck. So, we can see that the evo mat scientism picture of the world falls apart, and that there is no need to go out of our way to accommodate it. It is self-referentially incoherent and so self-falsifying. Nor, should we yield to the trend to corrupt the concept, truth. (That, too, is part of the benumbing and warping of conscience, as say Orwell brought out so forcefully in his 1984.) The astute onlooker will also note that we have had a worldviews discussion, not one pivoting on parsing Bible texts . . .
It will then be no surprise to see that the grounding of ethical theism as a responsible worldview (by utter contrast with the radically self-falsifying and amoral evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers) does not turn on design inferences on empirical signs such as FSCO/I. Evo mat scientism and fellow travellers are utterly incompatible with the responsible, rational freedom required to have a serious, fact and logic guided discussion seeking understanding of the truth. It rules itself out so soon as we must have a serious discussion. We then address on comparative difficulties, how can we have a world with beings such as we are. That takes us through the IS-OUGHT gap to issues of being and non-being and rootedness of a world with moral government. Which, repeat, is a condition of serious discussion. That points to the only serious candidate for such a root, after centuries of debate. Candidate X was duly laid out, and the open invitation was given to put forth a comparable candidate Y that does not instantly collapse. Silence. Silence, for good reason: something like the flying spaghetti monster is simply not serious, never mind its appallingly common rhetorical use by those who should know a lot better. Then, a second invitation to comparative difficulties discussion was given: part of X's bill of requisites is necessary being. A serious candidate NB either is impossible (as a square circle is impossible) or it is actual. The challenge was given, break X's candidacy. Silence, again. So -- as X = the inherently good creator God of ethical theism, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature -- it is clear that there is a very good warrant to adhere to ethical theism as a worldview. Without even engaging design theory debates. A point that needed to be put up on the table and warranted. Which, it has. That's why at 220 and henceforth, I could freely write:
you will see the stage of argument in FFT6B just above. I wonder what our well-informed skeptical interlocutors will put up as alternatives? Especially, noting that THERE IS NO DESIGN INFERENCE in the argument to date, i.e. the design inference as such is demonstrably not an inherent, inextricable part of an argument to God as root of reality. Where, note, the case I am arguing here is not based in Scripture though it is compatible with it — truths will be compatible the one with the other. And of course, contrary to the talking points I heard today, the God of ethical theism is not automatically the devil, the author of evils and confusions.
Why then has there been such a hot debate over design, and why has it been laced with accusations about creationism in a cheap tuxedo and the like? Simple: evolutionary materialistic scientism, from the outset in modern times [this is demonstrable historic fact], has tried to come up with a designer substitute that would plausibly put the creator-God out of a job. The idea is that if the world of life and onward the physical cosmos can be explained on naturalistic grounds, the perception of design can be dismissed while wearing the holy lab coat, and belief in God can eventually be made to seem to be the resort of the ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. That rhetorical stratagem has worked and has become institutionalised. But at a terrible price. First, it is ill-founded and credibly false, erecting falsity as the yardstick for judging truth. Where, science first and foremost must seek to discover the empirically grounded truth about our world. Ill-founded, as there are credible, empirically warranted signs of design, which are copiously found in the world of life and in the structure of the cosmos. Design theory is the empirically and analytically grounded scientific investigation of such signs, which in fact are not too hard to find. Start with the algorithmically functional text in DNA and the execution machinery of the cell that puts it to work. (This points to OOL and OO body plans. Design is evident in the tree of life from the roots up.) Likewise, the corruption of science from definitions and outlines of its methods on up makes blatant falsity into the yardstick to judge truth by. Truth cannot pass the test of agreement with relevant falsity, and so the ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism inherently corrupts a pivotal institution of our civilisation. So, those who hope to build a sound future will be found on the side of needed reformation of tainted science. In that context, freed science can then return to its true path. Such is being ruthlessly resisted because it threatens entrenched worldviews and power interests in many institutions. But, the only way to defend institutionalised and fairly obvious falsity is by means that cannot stand the cold light of truth, facts and logic. That is why we find the distortions, strawman tactics, stalking, stereotyping and scapegoating. All of which are utterly corrosive to liberty, not just academic freedom. And so, the time has come to find where one stands, why, even as our civilisation descends into chaos, confusion, folly, bizarre agendas and outright blood guilt all around us. We stand at kairos. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
RVB8, it seems you have not actually taken time to read the OP (or even its title) or to view the video I added to Charles' argument. Nor, have you reckoned with the step by step process I have been taking to bring out an underlying case. As a result you just set up and knocked over yet another loaded strawman. I suggest to you that it is poor form and not particularly civil to traipse into a discussion without bothering to follow enough to understand what it is about to try to jump on piggyback and divert it as you will. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT
jdk, Armand Jacks, I actually sidetracked the discussion when I explained I happily disabuse Chinese Christian converts of their faith, if I can get in early enough to relieve the damage. Kairos, happily diverted the thread to answer me. Perhaps you are only derailing the thread when he is annoyed? You know, it's entirely emotional, with out a shred of rational reasoning behind the complaint of thresd diversion. It all makes sense now, his religion, his attachement to ID, his selective focus, his dismissivness of good argument (if the fetus is human why is abortion not treated as murder?), and his hyper sensitivity to historical Jesus; a person we really don't know anything about, including if he existed at all. However, you two punch away, the penny may drop, but I strongly doubt it.rvb8
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
And so now you post about the warping of the moral compass!!! Is responding to that a "sidetrack" or "the focus of the thread"? How the is someone to know what your rules are when the thread is littered with multiple points that you have made. loljdk
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Then I assume you won't sidetrack the discussion again, as you did in 232. And what exactly is the "force of the present thread"? That Christianity is demonstrably proven to be the one true religion? Or what?jdk
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
F/N: Plato, on the warping of the moral compass and where it leads a community i/l/o the collapse of Athens:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
JDK, the prime focus of a thread is set in its OP; it is reasonable to expect that an intelligent, non-trollish participant will respect that framework, and will recognise that illustrations or secondary points ought not to be taken advantage of to side track or deadlock a discussion. When there are yet open threads that thoroughly addressed what is used as a distractor, that is redoubled. Quite frankly, the sidetracking has been used in several threads and in fact the linked threads are cases in point where there was a significant secondary focus that cogently dealt with the matter. At this point it is obvious that the intent is to side track and try to go into a pointless endless loop of stubborn drumbeat repetition of already adequately answered points in order to frustrate the force of the focus of the present thread. And even this is on a secondary point. I notice, how above, every sort of side track has come up. That speaks telling volumes, especially when there is studious unresponsiveness on matters of the greatest moment. I suggest, we are seeing in microcosm, some of what has gone so seriously wrong with our civilisation. I further suggest, it is time for some sober re-thinking, especially on this, Good Friday. KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
1 7 8 9 10 11 18

Leave a Reply