Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mid-morning mug: Are Darwinists running out of insults and profanity?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recently, biochemist Michael Behe published an article in Quarterly Review of Biology, titled “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” arguing that “the most common adaptive changes seen … are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function.”

So, not only must the long, slow process of Darwinian evolution create every exotic form of life in the blink of a geological eye, but it must do so by losing or modifying what a life form already has.

This, apparently, got evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s recent attention:

Anyway, Behe reviews the last four decades of work on experimental evolution in bacteria and viruses (phage), and finds that nearly all the adaptive mutations in these studies fall into classes 1 and 3. We see very few “gain of FCT” mutations. Although this is not my field, the review seems pretty thorough to me, and the conclusions, as far as they apply to lab studies of adaptation in viruses and bacteria, seem sound.

It looks as though Coyne must now actually take Behe’s argument seriously.

Of course, he should have a long time ago, but for years Darwinists were happy to let trolls lob insults and profanity. Somewhat the way a deadbeat curses the bank officer who knows he hasn’t got the goods.

Comments
Onlookers: I revisited LT's blog, just now. Somehow, even the post that was "saved" that links the just above, managed to vanish overnight. [I do note that blog owners at Blogger can delete comments; which if it happened, would be particularly rich, given LT's complaints over "censorship" at UD; which are still there as of a few moments ago.] In addition,I saw a commenter there, who seems to be an old UD commenter. He tried to reinforce the Torquemada false accusation by LT, through claiming to onlookers that I had slanderously associated him with rapists. This is wrong, and inexcusable. In a UD thread some time ago, the commenter had twisted the following description of the SAME turnabout, false accusation rhetorical tactic he is now employing, to make me out as casting him in the same boat as rapists: _______________ >> TURNABOUT ("HE HIT BACK FIRST") TURN-SPEECH FALSE ACCUSATION: It is very easy to blame a victim of an ad hominem attack (or worse, an actual physical attack) if s/he attempts to defend himself. In effect "he hit (back) first!" Blaming the victim, who is usually more sinned against than sinning [cf the now thankfully rejected sleazy Courtroom tactic of blaming the victim of a rape for "provoking" the attack . . .], is a compounded -- and often, compounding -- form of the atmosphere-poisoning ad hominem attack. It works by trying to drag the victim down to the level of the aggressor. This, by implying or asserting either . . . (a) [im-]moral equivalency through pretended equality of blame for the "cycle of accusations/ attacks/ violence" or else, worse . . . (b) the full-blooded turnabout false accusation: trying to give the false impression that the victim trying to defend him-/her-self is the one who started (or, "provoked") the quarrel or fight and should therefore bear the lion's share of blame for it. Further, if the defender is getting the better of the argument, quarrel or fight, resort is too often then made to . . . (c) Ill-founded accusation of "disproportionate response," converting the attacker into the perceived "real" victim. And, once tempers and emotions are so set to flaring out of control, as Aristotle warned in The Rhetoric, Bk I Ch 2: " Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile." The track of truth, fairness even on side-issues, and respect for the reputation of others and for justice are then easily lost sight of in the verbal or physical war that follows. >> _______________ Notice, the whole context is that we may have to deal with those who try to drag us down into the same sticky mud of immoral equivalency; by trying to blame the victim as provoking the attack. For BB's information, the people who used to use the now discredited courtroom tactic were sleazy lawyers, not the actual rapists; who were their clients. (Mind you, there are those who would say that is not very different. And indeed the women's advocates who got the dirty tactic banned, pointed out that one of the purposes of the tactic was to intimidate rape victims by subjecting those who dared complain to a verbal violation in the public courtroom. For instance, a key component of the tactic was a recounting of the victim's sexual history, real or imagined.) Resemblance to what is now going on at LT's blog, is unfortunately not coincidental. Onlookers, I made a brief exception to my policy of not wandering into the feverish malarial, mud-swamps of the new atheists, and it only underscores the reasonableness of UD's moderation policy. GEM of TKI F/N: I keep forgetting to rebut LT's claim that the IS-OUGHT gap issue is an argumentative bait and switch. Not at all. The issue is that worldviews, if they are to be credible, must make good sense of all of the key issues of life, and our sense of moral obligation is one such. As has been repeatedly pointed out, ever since Plato's The Laws Bk X, evolutionary materialism has notoriously been amoral, unable to address the gap between the ISes it admits [matter, energy, space, time] and the OUGHT we find ourselves under. So, on a very important fact of life, Evo Mat thought is comingt up short. Defenders try to justify the subjectivity of morality as good enough, or try to drag theism into the same boat of not having a good basis for oughtness. Subjectivity of moral experience of course is not contradictory to its objective reality. If we are indeed under moral obligation to respect and be fair, then it is far more credible that there is a moral Lawgiver. (And any inference to such a Lawgiver is too close to a reminder of the God that materialists are so eager to forget or dismiss, that is why LT was accusing Dr Dembski of subtle evangelism in the name of worldviews analysis, and the poster of this comment of Torquemada-style "evangelism.") [Actually, Torquemada was a heretic/subversive hunter, more concerned to smoke out and "punish" what he saw as false believers than to commend the gospel as truth. That is why thumb-screws, whips, racks, and bundles of flammable branches or the like were his horrible tools, instead of peaceful pens, paper and ink. He was trying to KILL heretics, not convert them. Torquemada had little or no concept of evangelism; much less peaceful discussion of generic worldviews on comparative difficulties.] But in fact, moral obligation by universal consensus is binging. When we differ on a question of right and wrong, the appeal -- even by the materialists over at LT's blog -- is to a binding standard of fairness. That is, our actions consistently betray that we are under moral law, even as Peter's speech once betrayed that he was a Galilean for all to hear (BTW, an implicit comment on just how popular Jesus was in Galilee!). If you want more details, you might want to look at a comment in a recent exchange here at UD, where someone was objecting that morality is subjective and the claim that it is in fact objective by universal consent fails. In simple terms, we do not normally hear people quarrelling thusly:
"Whuh yuh talkin 'bout? Me is lion, an' you is lunch. So, stop bleating and slide down de throat nicely, weakling."
In other words the general consent is real. Either it is objective or it is a near-universal delusion that takes in even evo mat thinkers once they feel "unfaired." If the latter, the universality of such a delusion would at once imply that the human mind is utterly delusional, and untrustworthy in any of its judgments and convictions. So, either our moral sense speaks true or our minds are untrustworthy. Reductio ad absurdum. So, on comparative difficulties, evolutionary materialism comes up decidedly short.kairosfocus
December 19, 2010
December
12
Dec
19
19
2010
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
F.N: Posting being problematic at Mr Tanner's blog, pardon my OT posting of my more specific response to his accusations and deflections here at UD: ________________ >>Mr Tanner: Your fallaciously complex, accusatory question is an outrage. Worse, it is suggestive of a telling projection unto others. I will treat it as it deserves, by refusing to answer it on its terms. If you cannot but project unto those who challenge you or question your views and arguments that they hate and would kill you, that speaks volumes about you, none of it good. Please, go take a long, hard look in a mirror, and do better than that. You have disqualified yourself from civil dialogue by that misbehaviour. Onlookers: no decent person will associate peaceful evangelism or teaching and preaching (which I was NOT engaging in: worldview analysis on comparative difficulties is not evangelism) with the actions of the first grand inquisitor of Spain in its old tyrannical days. Mr Tanner: Your remarks above, unfortunately, and in spite of your denials, plainly are a slanderous instance of the guilt by invidious and unwarranted association fallacy: >> The Creationist Is/Ought is an argumentative bait-and-switch. You think you’re getting a straightforward argument but what you’re getting is evangelism. The evangelism can be of the soft-shoe variety, as with Dembski, or it can be more of the Torquemada sort, as with a character called “GEM of The Kairos Initiative,” . . . >> This is over the top and inexcusable. (Besides, you are indulging an unwarranted conflation of design thinking and biblical creationism that is unwarranted, has been corrected any number of times -- cf here,from the first several correctives, but remains a favourite atmosphere poisoning rhetorical ploy.) And even the old inquisitors, inexcusable as their behaviour was on abuse of people, were trying to defend a state under threat of subversion in the context of a long-running war that in the case of Spain had taken 800 years of bloody resistance to expel Moorish invaders. In that context, even Wikipedia is forced to acknowledge that there was more to the story than the black legends make out: >> Anyone who spoke against the Inquisition could fall under suspicion – as did saints Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross . . . >> In short, there was denunciation of the inquisition's misbehaviour at the time, and specifically coming from the most saintly of Christians in Spain at the time. Similarly, in my part of the world, Bartoleme de Las Casas was the very first priest ordained in the new world, and he made it his life's calling to denounce the crimes of his fellow Spaniards in the new world. Indeed, he fully expected the destructive judgement of God to fall on Spain for its wrongs, within 50 years. [ . . . ] Further to this, to give Jack his jacket in due fairness, the inquisition actually did try to have some semblance of procedure -- defective as it was -- and inquisitors were willing to acquit those who were not reasonably under suspicion. Wiki continues: >>Although the Inquisition is often viewed as being directed against Jews, in actual fact it had no jurisdiction or authority over unconverted Jews, or Muslims. Only baptised Christians faced investigation; and of those called to appear before the Holy Office, most were released after their first hearing without further incident. >> Even a relevant pope (and this was an era of very bad popes indeed -- NB: I am not a Roman Catholic, so I can say in fairness what Catholics may be reluctant to because of the stain of shame) was concerned about real and potential abuses, as a bull from Sixtus IV before Torquemada's regime states, in 1482; though of course it reflects its times: >> many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people—and still less appropriate—without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many. >> So, Torquemada, bad as he was, was trying to do better than what had happened earlier. Hence the semblance of procedure Wiki discusses. His behaviour and that of his colleagues and predecessors was wrong, was denounced by saintly voices and by even at least one pope. So, plainly, it is utterly unfair to characterise or tar Christians as a whole, or individuals in particular -- without further evidence than peaceful argument -- of inquisition tactics. That is shameful. It utterly discredits you, Mr Tanner, especially when you have now gone on to try to make light of it and/or to deflect my correction. I repeat, no decent person will associate peaceful evangelism, much less worldviews analysis with the actions of a Torquemada. An apology and retraction are required, not an excuse or a deflection. As the first steps in a long process of living down such misbehaviour. Next, your accusation of "censorship" at UD -- which still remains here this morning despite your knowing as of the time of this comment that your original comment was in fact passed on moderation at UD and is there as no 36 -- was plainly premature, and in fact your delayed, moderated comment was posted at UD (in response to your direct question at UD: without my intercession with the UD authorities). The vulgarities and atmosphere poisoning rhetorical tactics evident above show why it is reasonable to have you on moderation at UD. And since this is a busy season for us all, I respectfully submit that we should all try to understand that UD's volunteer moderators will be busy as well. As to the case on the merits you make here and there, onlookers may wish to see the onward remarks at UD, especially this one. My earlier remarks to you here on will also be relevant. Cho, man, do betta dan dat! Good day, sir. GEM of TKI >> ________________kairosfocus
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
PS to Mr Tanner: It seems I need to be explicit. For your apology to become a genuine apology, it needs to be joined to a retraction and correction of what you have said not just here but at your own blog. Including cleaning up the vulgarity, the atmosphere poisoning rhetoric and the invidious associations and dismissive remarks.kairosfocus
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT
TGP: Useful comment. One might also point LT to the farcical implications of a claimed actual infinite past chain of causes, a la the Hilbert Hotel. (Great WLC video!) There is a reason why transfinite sets are pointed to as conceptual extensions, and/or delivered all at once by definition in mathematics. Instantiation of an infinite sequence by successive finite steps is an absurdity. And that undergirds the point that the cosmos is temporally finite in the past, and its contingent elements had a beginning, a beginning that has been pointed to based on the Hubble expansion as some 13.7 BYA, which is consistent with the usual age estimates for the older clusters in light of turnoffs from the main sequence and the physics of large balls of hydrogen assembled under gravity and fusing their H-cores. (Onlookers, this is part of why I point to the H-R diagram and stellar physics as origins science done right, here. H-ball models do not bring to bear invidious a priori materialistic assumptions, and the models fit very well with stellar observations.) Reasoning onwards, we see that it is credible that our cosmos had a beginning. That which begins is caused, i.e. just like -- here I am using a familiar instance to bring out the force of the underlying logical point -- a fire, its existence is not self-explanatory and self-contained. There must be -- by logical and epistemic necessity -- something else that allows the necessary conditions to be met and accumulate a sufficient condition where a cosmos such as ours can come into being at its beginning. And, BTW, this extends to the case of a probabilistic distribution. For, there must be a sufficient condition for a probabilistically distributed outcome to have a chance to occur. A die -- a contingent object -- must first exist and it must be tossed or the like in an appropriate environment to tumble to its reading -- a highly contingent outcome -- by in effect "chance." Without underlying necessary causal conditions being met, we cannot see that die tumbling to read, say, deuce. Similarly, at quantum level, unless there is an unstable atom, with the decay constant a metric of that instability, there can be no quantum tunnelling or whatever to have say alpha or beta decay. And, a necessary causal factor is just that, a causal factor. So, we see where both chance and necessary chains of contingent beings and events are caused and that they cannot be chained into an actual infinity on pain of absurdity. Thus, by necessity the cosmos we observe had a beginning, and there is not an infinite succession of prior causal entities that led to its origin. To make this more concrete, we may refer to the generally accepted -- and plausible big bang model. [Just project the expansion back-ways and you come to a singularity at some point 10 - 20 BYA -- but then LT has had problems with inference, warrant for inference and warrant that amounts to establishing an implication .. . he does not want to hang his hat on inconvenient implications, but routinely we all live in a world where buildings are built, cars are designed,and aeroplanes fly based on huge chains of implications, that we routinely hang far more than our hats on]. Add in various more modern results and you get to a big bang some 13.7 BYA. But the problem goes beyond this. How do we know that we move from a caused [local, sub-]cosmos to an ONTOLOGICALLY necessary being as the root cause of the cosmos? The same logic extends. For example take the former suggested oscillating cosmos model, and look at the thermodynamics. Speculative crunches and bounces [as of last the cosmos is roughly flat so it is not expected to crunch and bounce, anyway] do not remove the stochastic tendency for concentrations of energy to disperse, leading to the proverbial heat death where we get a thin dark soup of matter without enough difference to drive changes that are significant. On more modern multiverse type models, we are looking at an underlying reality that bubbles up sub-cosmi at random. As Robin Collins points out, aptly, that requires a cosmos-baking bread factory that will have at minimum a distribution of possible parameters and components that will create at least one sub-cosmos habitable by life. For, we inhabit such a sub-cosmos. And, behold, we have an underlying cosmos that is not only logically necessitated, but is a candidate ontologically necessary being: the grounding cosmos at large is postulated to have been always there, i.e. it is self-explanatory and self-existing, i.e. uncaused; a candidate necessary being. Nor can we chain away a higher order set of super-cosmi, as we then run into the Hilbert Hotel. That is, even if a super-cosmos in this model is the immediate source of our observed cosmos, it is at most part of a chain that is finite. (BTW, we are now deep into metaphysics territory, as we are looking beyond observations.) At the root of even a multiverse -- on the strength of the logic of implication -- lies something that must be self-explanatory and self-sustaining. That is, it had no beginning, and it can have no end as it has no external necessary causal factors. Such is a necessary being. LT above emphasises that this is a "something" not a someone. This is of course exactly what I have pointed to, a stage in a cumulative process of reasoning, not an end in itself -- ropes draw strength from twisting and counter-twisting short weak fibres to make as long, strong whole. So, let us not get caught up in a fallacy of composition. The cosmological inference is well warranted on implications of cause-effect and the absurdity of an actual infinite regress, but it is not meant to do more than establish that there is a necessary being at the causal root of our observed cosmos, even through a multiverse model. We move up to the next level and observe that our cosmos sits at a finely, multi-dimensionally balanced operating point that facilitates the existence of C-chemistry cell-based intelligent life. Indeed, as Gonzalez points out, the sites for such life are also sites that give good seeing that invites investigation of the cosmos and its roots. ["Evangelism" aside point: just as Rom 1:18 - 20 suggests. We have a perfect right to point out where the Christian faith makes in principle risky empirically testable claims, and that it has passed the test.] Even through a multiverse model, we are looking at a cosmos bakery that is set up to deliver at least a distribution of sub-cosmi that will produce such. Such a super-cosmic bakery will be at least as fine-tuned as our observed cosmos, and this strongly points to design of the cosmos as the best explanation. Notice, we are here dealing with worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties. (A materialistic alternative view will have to explain how we credibly know that we have a necessary being underlying cosmos that is impersonal-material, is actually infinite and so has infinite reserves of concentrated energy that cannot be exhausted by thermodynamic decay, and by happy coincidence sits at its own finely tuned operating point that bakes up life-habitable sub-cosmi. Talk about special pleading . . . ) Design implies purpose, knowledge, skill ability and power to build a cosmos well-fitted for life as we experience it. Which sounds like a job description for God, at least the God of the philosophers. Moreover, when we turn to the substance of cell based life, we find that in the heart of the cell lies a digital, code and language based, algorithmic information system that uses a 4-state code to control the creation of proteins, the workhorse molecules of the living cell. And the implications of this must be addressed on theior own merits, not edistracted from by making an appeal to natural history and biology that will in turn fail to address the source of the increments in the digital information embedded in cells of the various body plan groups of higher organisms. From fungi and fish to trees and men. Just 1,000 bits of functional digital information is vastly beyond the plausible reach of undirected chance and necessity on the gamut of our obser4ved cosmos. 1,000 bits is 10^301 possible configs, and our cosmos across its thermodynamic lifespan of 50 mn times the duration since the generally accepted date of the big bang, would take up some 10^150 states, i.e. 1 in 10^150 of the configs. Rounding down to no search of the space. Actual cell based life starts in the ballpark of 100's of kbits, vastly exponentiating the problem. The only empirically known source of such things is design, and we have excellent reason to infer that chance on the gamut of the observed cosmos -- and chance distributions are the other empirically credible source of high contingency outcomes [necessity here would imply that life was literally written into the mechanical laws of our cosmos, which would then stand revealed as a programmed entity] -- is simply astronomically too narrow a scope to even smell of being a plausible candidate. [In fact, a quasi-infinite cluster of such sub-cosmi that are life habitable would still not be plausible, so far out in the skirts of thermodynamic energy distributions are the configs we are talking about]. When we look at body-plan level biodiversity across dozens of upper level types of life, we see that we move to dozens or hundreds of millions of bits of bioinformation, and we have to create embryologically functional organisms or the life does not exist to be reproductively viable. The problem explodes beyond merely exponentiating, and in a context where the space for the claimed darwinian style macroevo to happen has contracted to a planet that weighs in at 5.98 *10^24 kg, as I used to make my students work out using Newton's law of gravity and the weight of a known mass. UUndirected chance + mechanical necessity is not a credible explaantion for observed biodiversity, wheter in the living world or in fossil forms. Indeed, the Cambrian life revolution shows a pattern of top-down diversification, i.e body plans first. Special pleading on how the transitions -- invisible! -- must have been soft bodied and were not preserved falls apart as soft bodied fossils are preserved in relevant strata. Indeed, the want of transitional forms is the embarrassed, whispered in teh corner trade secret of paleontology. Design -- absent a priori question begging imposition of materialism a la Lewontin et al -- is the most reasonable causal explanation of our cosmos and of cell based life, including its biodiversity across the range of observed body plans. Going further still, we find ourselves to be morally governed creatures. How we quarrel shows this: by general consensus, we find ourselves under an ought of fairness and respect. (How often do you hear quarrels that run like: "me is lion, and you is lunch, so shut up, stop the bleating and slide down the throat nicely, weakling." [And yet, as Plato pointed out ever so long ago in his 360 BC The Laws bk X, if evolutionary materialism is so, we live in an amoral world where might is the highest 'right.' So, evolutionary materialism leads to a nihilistic, radically relativist, amoral chaos that even the materialists cannot consistently live with.) Only a worldview that has a grounding reality that is inherently moral can have an IS that is sufficient to sustain such an ought. And, if one argues or implies that hat ought is delusional [usually disguised by saying it is "subjective" or "relative" to times, communities and cultures] -- as evolutionary materialism does, then it implies so massive a delusion in the human mind that the project of rationality comes crashing to the ground. Including, the vaunted brilliance of the so-called "brights." [That is, atheists of the Dawkinsian, jumped up village atheist new atheist, so-called sort. (And here, Mr Tanner, given your abusive rhetoric, turnabout is fair play.) ] In short, a generic theism with the necessary being as a good, moral Creator-God, is a reasonable worldview. And, it certainly is not an irrational, irresponsible and anti-scientific view. The atheistical caricatures of such a view are therefore just that, irresponsible strawmen, soaked in unworthy ad hominems and ignited through disrespectful rude and arrogant incendiary rhetoric -- as we have seen Mr tanner indulge here and at his own blog -- to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. When we go on to the question of the dominant form of theism in our civilisation, the Judaeo-Christian worldview in its Christian aspect, this first point is vital. Christians have a perfectly justified intellectual right to be theists, and to claim that on their theism, they have a solid ground for moral governance of our civilisation. Second to this, when we see that millions have testified to knowing the living God in miraculously life- transforming ways through repentance and reconciliation in the face of the risen Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ [starting with the 500 core witnesses underlying the C1 apostolic testimony recounted in say 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, of AD 55 and based on events of the 30's AD], we can see the impact across history and all around us. If these millions are to be dismissed wholesale as delusional, we have no good reason to be confident in any abstract or conceptual deliverances of the human mind, including the perception that say our mothers love us and are real persons with minds of their own that make them capable of love. Love, in any sense worth having, being an inherently moral and volitional act. Thanks again TGP. Semper Fi, at Christmas! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 18, 2010
December
12
Dec
18
18
2010
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT
Mr Tanner: A few things need to be said, and said plainly. Onlookers, pardon some frank, unfortunately necessary words in defense of civility in the face of atmosphere poisoning and attempted self-exculpation tactics. First, I said you had 48 hours to deal with your abusive statements towards myself, and to prove the claim of censorship. I therefore waited out the period as I said I would, monitoring this thread occasionally. Within the period, in defense of the latter assertion ["censorship"], you posted a screen-shot that claimed to prove censorship [which still stands at your blog post as of the time of writing this comment, along with a vulgar insult]. To which, since it was a screen shot of a post in moderation advisory, I suggested that your problem -- and on your personally abusive behaviour at your own blog there is unfortunately good reason for it -- is that you are on moderation (at a time when UD's volunteer moderators are likely to be busy with world and or life/family responsibilities). Now, within that time, the moderators at UD have released the key comment you made, and which appears at 36 above. They did so without my approaching anyone at UD's management about your case. (Onlookers, observe how the immediate inference made by Mr Tanner, plainly, is to suspect that I broke my word. The pattern of hostility, poisoned mentality and suspicion is plain.) Now, I must also deal with your attempted defense of your associating me with Torquemada. For, your attempted exculpatory remark above -- sadly -- is outright willfully false, deceptive and self-serving. Here (as excerpted from your blog post and as commented on in a responsive comment at my own personal blog) is how you definitely and beyond any reasonable dispute, associated the undersigned with Torquemada, through an invidious comparison -- and this, onlookers, in a context where LT was a participant in a thread where SAR had slandered the undersigned and others as supporting mass murder of homosexuals; i.e. the below is heavily loaded with an underlying even more poisonous context than appears on the surface:
The Creationist Is/Ought is an argumentative bait-and-switch. You think you're getting a straightforward argument but what you're getting is evangelism. The evangelism can be of the soft-shoe variety, as with Dembski, or it can be more of the Torquemada sort, as with a character called "GEM of The Kairos Initiative," . . .
Now, first there is a slanderous conflation of design thought and creationism, which I simply note as a typical evolutionary materialist, Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals talking-point attempt at guilt by association with those who have already been smeared. (Onlookers, a simple glance at the first several correctives in the UD weak argument corrections linked at every UD post page [top, RH column] will suffice to lay this canard to rest. That -- years after it has been adequately dealt with many times, in many venues -- it remains a favourite anti-design rhetorical talking point speaks volumes for the want of concern to be fair and accurate on the part of those who make it.) Second, in the above excerpt, there is a blatant failure to distinguish between worldview level analysis and discussion [e.g. Mr Dembski is a PhD level philosopher; in addition to his other PhD in mathematics on which he has developed his design inference explanatory filter and active information arguments], and Christian evangelism. (BTW, Christian Evangelism would have to do with gospel preaching. Worldview discussion -- here, on contingent and necessary being issues -- that points to the generic credibility of theism is light years short of gospel preaching. But the resistance at the point based on motive-mongering ad hominems, is inadvertently revealing on the atheistical motivations of many who argue for evolutionary materialism. A simple glance at Mr Tanner's linked post will reveal that his blog is of atheistical, skeptical character. Should I now, on a sauce for the goose point, assert that LT's arguments are of the Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao type? [As, each of these men founded explicitly atheistical regimes and led mass slaughters of the innocents,in aggregate cumulating to in excess of 100 millions over the past 100 years.] No, I will not; I intend to follow up by addressing Mr Tanner's arguments on the merits, below. But, I hope he gets the point about the utter incivility of atmosphere-poisoning rhetoric that relies on the trifecta of distraction, distortion, and demonisation.) Third, in respect of the undersigned, despite the bare-faced denial just above, there is a demonstrable guilt by association slander that compares me to Torquemada; a slander that still stands in your own blog post as of my just checking. And since the 48 hours window has now passed without a civil -- or even a reasonable -- response on your part on this matter, I will forward this response to your outrage to the Blog Ownership here. That way, they will have a record for future reference. Beyond this point, I will address the issue, rather than the [sadly, demonstrably and insistently uncivil] man. Cho, man, do betta dan dat! Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
p.s. Perhaps the logos of John 1:1 is beginning to make more sense. The logos is eternal, living, and immaterial. Just like the First Cause. It all fits. All it takes is some honest puzzling. And you seem like an honest puzzler. :-)tgpeeler
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
LarTanner @ 40 "In #4, how exactly do we know that the cause of this world has always been present and will never cease?" Hey Larry, I tried to post on your blog (second link) and couldn't get the post comment link to work. FYI... Concerning your question above. One way to get from there to here is this. If things are changing in the present then they were changing in the past. If they were changing in the past, then something caused them to change. (Leave aside the problem of anything existing at all, for now.) Thus, there had to be a first cause. There HAD to be. If there were no first cause then nothing would be changing today. But things are changing today. Therefore, we know there is a first cause. Nothing remarkable here so far. So what about this first cause? Can we know anything about it? I suggest we can. Every cause in the causal chain that leads to now, had a prior cause except for the first cause. Why did the first cause not have a cause? Because then it couldn't be first. We have already seen that there must have been a first cause and now we know something else about it. It had no cause of itself. It couldn't have. It's impossible. Because then it wouldn't be First. Since it is uncaused, yet it exists, it must have necessarily always existed. Why? This is just analyzing what words mean. If something exists but yet is causeless, that means that it always existed. Another way of saying that is that the first cause is eternal. The first cause also acted. We know this because the universe, being finite, (rationally necessary and empirically confirmed) did not always exist. Therefore, the first cause caused it. The first cause intended to cause it. How do we know? I think of it in terms of modus tollens. If the first cause did not intend to create the universe, it would never have been created. But it was created (here we are), therefore, it was intended to be created. The very existence of the universe informs us of an eternal, purposeful being. I say Being because only Beings (living things) act. So now we have another characteristic of this Being. It is alive. We also know that it is immaterial, or some may say, a Spirit. How do we know this? It seems to me that if something is material, then we can count it or measure it. But this Being is infinite so it cannot be material, i.e. countable or measurable. Therefore it is immaterial. It has to be. It's rather late but I thought I'd let you know how I, at least, know that the Cause of this world has always been present and will never cease. GEM will pardon my intrusion, I'm sure.tgpeeler
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT
KF (38) - If we focus on the heart of the argument, the main area of contention, we should look at your statements around the area of paragraph 5. Let me break up what you say here: (1) We have an existing world. (2) This world is a contingent world. (3) #1 and #2 together imply that there is something that caused this world to exist. (4) Whatever caused this world to exist “is something that was always there and is not going to cease.” (5) Our world/cosmos could not have been caused by something that was not “always there” and that will eventually cease. In #4, how exactly do we know that the cause of this world has always been present and will never cease? In #5, how exactly do we know this? How do we get from the “something” of #3-5 to the “being” you identify just a few sentences later? My opinion is that these three questions are warranted, as opposed to being selectively hyperskeptical. Further, I think it's essential that we make perfectly clear to ourselves and to onlookers where we have facts, inferences, and speculation. Finally, I agree that your later examples demonstrate instantiation. But perhaps you can agree that the language being used, such as "algorithmic information processing system," is connotative. There is a metaphorical component that is both mentally helpful and potentially hindering. That hindrance comes if we privilege the "systematic" aspect of the cell over other, no less important aspects such as the biological and historical. You say I "owe" you an apology for the association with Torquemada. Let me first clarify that I did not call you "Torquemada" nor did I associate you personally with him. What I did was liken your style of argumentation and persuasion to that of an infamous Inquisitor. To be sure, this was a deliberately over-the-top comparison designed to dramatize my perception of your approach. It was supposed to be humorous but also to seem close enough to truth to get you to tone it down a bit. Now, upon reflection, I apologize for making a hurtful statement and will try to restrain myself better in the future. Please forgive now my curiosity: Did you ask anyone at UD about the posts of mine in moderation?LarTanner
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
F/N: I think the old fire triangle may help (absorbing he need for a chain reaction into the implication of being a fuel): fuel + oxidiser + heat --> fire Each of the factors on the LHS is necessary, and the cluster is jointly sufficient for a fire to be. thus, we see necessary and sufficient causal factors. Once a fire obtains, we may properly infer that the necessary and sufficient set exists and has done so since it started. To cut off the fire, we remove at least one factor or find a way to block its action, e.g Halon chops up the chaining reaction. A fire is caused, and is not self-causing. It is contingent and its explanation lies beyond itself. It is part of a cosmos that is similarly contingent and that just like a fire had a beginning, usually dated 13.7 BYA. At that time, al necessary factors were met, and a sufficient cluster existed for our cosmos to come to be, and subsequently a sufficient set of factors has continued to obtain for its continued existence. As a contingent entity, the cosmos' explanation lies beyond itself in an external cause. At the root of that cause lies something that always was, did not have a beginning, and will not cease as it does not depend on something else for its origin or existence. (As was already noted, formerly, this was thought to be our cosmos, and today some have tried to suggest that there is a wider cosmos that is that necessary being. There are other candidates to be that necessary being, and the fine-tuning of our cosmos that sets it at an operating point suitable for C-chemistry cell based intelligent life,and the subsequent existence and organizational features of such life point to a designer of both cosmos and life as the best explanation. [Cf summary here.] From our experience of ourselves as morally bound , morally governed creatures, the best candidate to be that necessary being is not only an intelligent but a moral, extremely powerful designer.)kairosfocus
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
LT: First, from the date of no 36, it seems there was a delay in the moderation process, as opposed tot he censorship you assumed, asserted and resorted to uncivil language about. Next, there are strong and weak inferences [a subjective process], but implications [a logical relationship between propositions] are either true or false, they are not to be conflated. (And I am not talking in the main about material implication in the empty truth table sense. In vast swathes of mathematics, the key steps of reasoning are implications, chained from axioms to conclusions.] And, by virtue of the nature of a contingent being [it has a beginning, or may or does go out of existence], it is dependent on an external cause. This is certain, as there are conditions under which such an entity either does not exist or may cease from existing. That is there may be necessary causal conditions that are unmet, so that it cannot be or is not. It is a general consensus that our observed cosmos had a beginning, and so it is contingent, thus, there is necessarily a cause. Going beyond that, we therefore have an existing world, which is contingent. Such a world is thus caused, and this in turn implies that at length there is something that was always there and is not going to cease. Otherwise, our cosmos would not have come into being, nor would it continue. What that is may be open to debate, but that such a necessary being is, is not. You may dismiss if you will, but that boils down to selective hyperskepticism, and needs to ask how something can cause itself -- a blunder Hawking is apparently making, or else comes out of a real nothing [space, in some form, and fields in some form are not nothing, indeed space has measurable properties, e.g. consider the speed of light in vacuo and its link to the permeability and permittivity of free space. [In the old days, before it was realised the observed cosmos had a beginning the assumption often was that the observed cosmos was that necessary being. That is why big bang cosmology was so stoutly resisted for decades.] When it comes to the cell, and the discrete state, code based information system in it that physically instantiates a digital [binary digital is not the only possible kind of digital, decimal digital is common, as are duodecimal and sexagesimal], algorithmic information processing system, that is not a mere metaphor. That is instantiation. And, the von Neumann logico-mathematical requisites for a self-replicating automaton that also does something independent of the replication are not a metaphor, they are a mathematical-logical analysis. One that preceded the discovery of the DNA double-helix and its decoding. I do not accept the charge of bullying, which I do acknowledge is a step down from your utterly over the top association with Torquemada -- which you owe me an apology for. That is a willful falsehood in the teeth of evidence that would immediately show it to be unworthy. In other words, you have failed some serious duties of care. In fact it is plain that you are conflating inference and implication, and that you are mistaking instantiation of a mathematical-logical model for a metaphor. If you are making such elementary errors, sorry to have to repeat -- and I will try to be gentler in saying it than before, but on the charitable interpretation, you are shy some RPMs. Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
F/N: Pardon an onward remark, excerpted from my own blog in response to an exchange with LT (who is complaining of "censorship" on having it seems two comments in prolonged moderation for this thread but who has slanderously associated me with Torquemada at his own blog): _____________ >> In part, Mr Tanner seems to be responding to a remark of mine in a second exchange at UD here [30 above], where I commented on how he dismissed implication arguments as what he would not hang his hat on, and a further remark here [34 above] where I replied to how he used "metaphors" dismissively about the algorithmic implementation of the 4-state genetic code to make proteins etc in the living cell. From his screen shot of a moderated comment [in a post at his own blog during which he commits the above slander], he is apparently vexed that I asked if he is unaware of how often he hangs far more than a hat on implications. [He had dismissed implication arguments in comment 29: "I wouldn’t hang my hat on an implication."] Later, in response to his dismissive use of the term "metaphors" I asked if he is unaware that the Genetic code is a 4-state digital code and the associated protein-assembling algorithm is implemented in nanomachines such as Ribosomes mRNA and tRNA (not a metaphor). I pointed out that if such ignorance is so, then "you are not ready for this discussion." I think the remarks are fair comment given the context, and they were not at all intended as disrespectful. However, they plainly were sharp enough to give offense and for that I apologise. >> _____________ Pardon, just to set a record straight. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Kairos (34) -- Let's get our goals out in the open. I commented on this thread to gain some insight into a term used by Upright BiPed. His use of the term was clarified (he was referring to a comment I had made earlier), and I hope mine was clarified too. I take it that the thesis you seek to defend, the one you want me to accept, is this:
Such a contingent cosmos implies a necessary being as its ultimate ground. That necessary being would be the ultimate reality.
Now, let it not be forgotten that I have pointed to a number of places where we agree. I think this is significant. We stand together on common ground in plenty of cases. Moving on, then, You say:
You are the one who tried to dismiss the logic of implication, which is also closely connected to cause-effect thinking. Indeed, it is foundational to inferential reasoning.
Allow me to clarify. I don't dismiss the logic of implication, but I also think some perspective is in order. I understand material conditionals and such, but the main thing about implication is that it requires a reasonable connection between the condition and the consequent. To say, as you did, that "a contingent cosmos implies a necessary being as its ultimate ground" is to make a rather weak implication. You disagree, and that's fine by me. But your statement obligates you to come up with some heavy-duty support, as in (1) the nature of the contingency of the cosmos, (2) the ruling out of all other potential consequents except "a necessary being," and (3) an explanation and justification of the necessary being. Certainly, you make a fine case for #1. But now, thinking of #2 and #3, let's look at what you say after your fine case:
A contingent cosmos necessarily requires an external cause. Such a cosmos and cause also entail onward an ontologically necessary being as its ultimate causal ground. That is a credibly contingent cosmos — and you have no evidence that the cosmos we live in is a necessary being, just the opposite — requires something that is without beginning or end, and not dependent on anything else.
I don't see your case for entailment of "an ontologically necessary being." What's your source for this? Similarly, I don't see your case for what seems to me an arbitrary requirement for "something that is without beginning or end." As to metaphors: Let's not pretend that you are not using metaphors to frame the subject. And let's not pretend that the metaphors have zero effect in how we approach and understand the issues under discussion. Pointing out metaphorical usage is not necessarily to dismiss what has been said. But your metaphors are absolutely part of your agenda. So, I'm not dismissing anything based on metaphors. Don't you dismiss the influence of metaphors in how you produce knowledge. Finally, it appears we return to implication. You say:
the protein manufacturing process using mRNA, AA-loaded tRNA and ribosomes is a step by step, code driven finite process that takes in inputs and generates defined outputs. That is, it is a physically implemented algorithm.
Let's say I agree with everything here and just as you've said it. What's your point? Are you suggesting that this implies something specific? I said earlier that we needed to keep some perspective on implications. Implications can be strong or weak. They can be clear or muddy. They can be misleading, depending on how one gauges the relevance of the conditions to the consequences. So I'm all for implication, but when I say I wouldn't hang my hat on an implication, I mean that I realize that if I'm going to assert an implication, then I better to a good job of connection the dots between antecedent and consequent. Simply asserting an implication is not itself compelling. Let me close by asking you to stop the bullying, as when you use the "if you don't know X, then you're not ready/too ignorant" tactics. Not only is the tactic arrogant and rude, but you are not nearly as advanced or impressive as you seem to think you are. We have some common ground and some difference, but I won't let you patronize me. If you can't control yourself, please don't address me anymore.LarTanner
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
PS: First principles of right reason, 101.kairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
LT: Pardon me. You are the one who tried to dismiss the logic of implication, which is also closely connected to cause-effect thinking. Indeed, it is foundational to inferential reasoning. Let me cite you:
LT, 29: I say: Implies? I disagree. In any case, I wouldn’t hang my hat on an implication.
That sounds like an attempt to dismiss implication to me. Thus, my pointing out how pervasive implication based reasoning is in a lot of contexts where you hang your hat and more without a moment's hesitation. As to the inference from a credibly contingent cosmos to a necessary cause thereof, let us start with the commonly accepted big bang view of the world. When it was originally suggested in the 1920's, on the Hubble red shift observation and the implications -- yes -- of reversing it, the objection was in large part driven by the import of a cosmos with a beginning. That is, it would be contingent. I do not need to review in details the observations of the 1960's on of cosmic background 4 K radiation, that led to the conclusion that the model had crucial empirical support unmet by its main competitor, the Steady State model. A model that would entail that the cosmos was the necessary being that explains the contingent entities in it. A contingent being, of course is one that has a beginning, or that depends on other things to continue to exist, and/or that can (thus) come to an end. We are contingent, our planet is contingent, stars and galaxies are contingent, atoms are contingent,our observed cosmos credibly is contingent. Your dismissive remarks -- after discounting rhetorical flourishes, that is what you have done, stated selectively hyperskeptical dismissals -- above tell me that your problem is that you know the import of such contingency, that we need to look to the underlying cause. A contingent cosmos necessarily requires an external cause. Such a cosmos and cause also entail onward an ontologically necessary being as its ultimate causal ground. That is a credibly contingent cosmos -- and you have no evidence that the cosmos we live in is a necessary being, just the opposite -- requires something that is without beginning or end, and not dependent on anything else. Your alternative is the challenge of showing in the teeth of the past 90 years of cosmology [we need not cite religious texts or traditions or philosophical argument, science will do nicely], that the observed cosmos is a necessary being. Or else, you will have to deny the first principles of right reason, proving yourself irrational per multiple reductions to absurdity. (Already, on your attempt to dismiss implication, you are walking down this track.) When it comes to the commonly claimed spontaneous -- chance + necessity only acting on matter and energy -- origin of both life and body plan level biodiversity, the key problem is that life in the cell is based on complex, coded, algorithmic information systems. Systems that run well past any threshold where blind chance + necessity are even remotely reasonable as explanations. As the linked already discuss. Nor, am I merely giving metaphors. If you do not know that the genetic code is a 4-state discrete code, you are utterly too ignorant to be a part of this discussion. If you do know that, you know or should know that such an entity is an instantiation of a digital code based system. Further, as just one example, the protein manufacturing process using mRNA, AA-loaded tRNA and ribosomes is a step by step, code driven finite process that takes in inputs and generates defined outputs. That is, it is a physically implemented algorithm. If you don't know that, you are not ready for this discussion. Kindly, go do a 101, starting from the linked above. If you do, and try the "metaphors" dismissal, you have no excuse for the above "metaphor" remark. Rhetoric ruses into reality: CRUNCH! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Larry, Again, I got the term "ultimate reality" from your own post. And three times now I have stated that I think the adjective is superfluous. Further, I have also said that "reality (in terms of a description of it) is that which faithfully corresponds to what is." and therefore (just as a matter of simple logic) for there to be no reality then there must not be anything that is. To this you tell me that I am "spewing apparently meaningless statements". Well Okay. I cannot make myself any more clear. However, if you are now objecting to the use of the word "ultimate" as in a final grand culminating reality - then I will remind you that I thought the adjective was superfluous from the start, and I said so. In either case, having the adjective or not changes nothing. Whatever the ultimate reality is will be there, and it certainly won't be a fantasy.Upright BiPed
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Kairos
In short, you routinely rely on the logic that you want to reject when it is inconvenient to your preferred worldview. That is classic selective hyperskepticism.
No. You're making wild extrapolations without warrant. I'm with you about the apparent fine-tuning of our universe. It's amazing.
As for forming life, you seem to labour under the impression that we can easily spontaneously get to an autonomous, self-replicating, digitally controlled metabolising entity that can use general resources in its environment to sustain a credible first life form.
I labor under no such impression at all. I don't know why you say this.
Just the information resources alone, not to mention the origin of language, codes, algorithms and effecting machines by chance and mechanical necessity immediately goes well beyond the credible capacity of the observed universe across its thermodynamic lifespan, 50 mn times the usual estimate since the generally accepted big bang. That is why there is no genrally accepted OOL modle,a nd it is why the problems to get to first life keep mounting up.
Again, I share your amazement. Your mechanical metaphors are nice, too. And I'm with you on the challenges of developing a generally acceptable OOL model. We agree on so much. Where do you see me being selectively hyperskeptical?LarTanner
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Oops: If P holds Q will also hold.kairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
LT: Do you understand what a contingent being is? Why such a being therefore necessitates a cause for its origin and/or sustenance? Why, if we live in a cosmos that credibly had a beginning, it therefore credibly had a cause? Why the chain of such causes terminates in that which is necessary not just logically but ontologically? Going further, do you understand what implication means, i.e. P => Q? [P is sufficient for Q so that if P holds P will also hold, and Q is necessary for P so that unless Q holds, P cannot hold?] That every time you depend on an aircraft or airplane or computer or similar designed system with underlying laws and mathematical specifications, you are relying on the power of implication to hold in the real world? In short, you routinely rely on the logic that you want to reject when it is inconvenient to your preferred worldview. That is classic selective hyperskepticism. When it comes to the finetuning of the cosmos (cf. section b), we are talking about dozens of parameters, many of which if they are off by a tad, we end up with a radically life-inhospitable cosmos. No matter. All H or H and He. If the numbers of protns and electrons are not in a pretty exact balance, galaxies don't form. C, and O don't form in a reasonable balanceif a set of nuclear parameters is just slightly out of whack. And, NO OTHER ELEMENT IS A REASONABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR C TO FORM COMPLEX CHEMISTRY NEEDED FOR CELL BASED LIFE ON. And more. As for forming life, you seem to labour under the impression that we can easily spontaneously get to an autonomous, self-replicating, digitally controlled metabolising entity that can use general resources in its environment to sustain a credible first life form. Not so. Just the information resources alone, not to mention the origin of language, codes, algorithms and effecting machines by chance and mechanical necessity immediately goes well beyond the credible capacity of the observed universe across its thermodynamic lifespan, 50 mn times the usual estimate since the generally accepted big bang. That is why there is no genrally accepted OOL modle,a nd it is why the problems to get to first life keep mounting up. Similarly, to get to the body plans for life we are looking at info generation issues that are orders of magnitude more complex, just on the specifying genetic information. Sorry, you are being selectively hypercredulous when it suits you, also. [Onlookers, in fact the reason that evolutionary materialism dominated models rule the roost is because of a worldview impositon ont he insittutions of science and education, as has been publicly acknowledged. In short,t he question is being begged and if you don't toe the line, you get expelled, as we can see here today.] LT, kindly think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Kairos, (26) - I have not made this claim. (27) - You say: "Such a contingent cosmos implies a necessary being as its ultimate ground." I say: Implies? I disagree. In any case, I wouldn't hang my hat on an implication. You then say: "That necessary being would be the ultimate reality." I say: It "would be," huh? I suppose it might. Maybe. Perhaps. And how is it that this "necessary being" would be "the ultimate reality"? How can we know this? How can we know that 1) any reality is the ultimate one? 2) what ultimate means in the context of reality? 3) there is one and only one ultimate reality? As far as I can tell, you are simply making assertions about the universe based on implications and conditionals. I'm not being hyperskeptical. I'm reading what you write and finding that it practically resembles making stuff up.LarTanner
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
kairosfocus (#27):
we live as contingent creatures amidst a world of other contingent creatures, in an observed cosmos that is evidently finely balanced at an operating point that allows for C-chemistry cell based, intelligent life.
That might be evident to you, but it is not evident to me. I see an alternative possibility, that life evolved in a way that is finely tuned to fit with the way the world is. And because there is a possible alternative, the mentioned evidence does not settle the question. There's a difference between X persuades me of Y and X shows Y. It is okay to also use your own unstated assumptions in deciding what persuades you, but those assumptions have no bearing on what is shown. Unfortunately, many arguments rely on unstated assumptions, perhaps assumptions that the arguer does not realize that he/she is making. And disagreements are often due to disagreements over these unstated assumptions. I try, as far as possible, to avoid unstated assumptions, though I presume that I am imperfect at that.Neil Rickert
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
PS: LT [and NR], we live as contingent creatures amidst a world of other contingent creatures, in an observed cosmos that is evidently finely balanced at an operating point that allows for C-chemistry cell based, intelligent life. Such a contingent cosmos implies a necessary being as its ultimate ground. That necessary being would be the ultimate reality. And, if we blend in the fact that we live in a MORALLY GOVERNED, credibly designed world, then that ultimate reality looks a lot like the good Creator-God of theism. PPS: That you may choose to object to evidence, on selectively hyperskeptical grounds [and may go on to refuse to address the alternative premises for a worldview on comparative difficulties] does not at all mean that there is "no evidence" for the conclusions you would reject.kairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
LT: Let's correct, then:
“I think the concept of ultimate reality is fantasy.”
Oops . . . are you prepared to defend that claim? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
BiPed (23), Let's review history a bit. (1) First, john a designer posts a quotation from Richard Carrier. (https://uncommondescent.com/religion/is-pz-myers-the-future-of-secular-humanism/#comment-368030) (2) Then, I say that I disagree with Carrier's use of the term "ultimate meaning" (I had accidentally used the term "ultimate reality"). I disagree with Carrier because the term "ultimate" is unnecessary. It implies that there is some sort of final and superior determinant of meaning. I don't think there is a good warrant for this determinant. Thus, I’m fine with “meaning” or “reality”; it’s “ultimate meaning” or “ultimate reality” that I find problematic. (https://uncommondescent.com/religion/is-pz-myers-the-future-of-secular-humanism/#comment-368039) (3) You introduced the idea of death, as this was somehow supposed to counter my argument. Ever since, I have been asking you to explain whatever it is you mean. (4) Apparently, you assert some sort of ultimate meaning/reality. I guess. As I read you, you also seem to argue that this ultimate meaning/reality is not the same as the actual meaning/reality that we experience in everyday life. (5) I may be mis-interpreting you, and I don't wish to, but I am not sure.LarTanner
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed (#16):
AHHHH…now I remember, it is not Neil, it is Larry who holds these wonderouns positions.
I did wonder what you were talking about. Thanks for clearing that up.Neil Rickert
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Larry, You must be confusing me with someone else. Trust me, it happens. :)Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Larry,
No, you have not. You have avoided answering. I have asked you to justify the existence of these separate, other realms that you seem to posit.
Name one. Show me a single time that I have made such a claim to you. You can't, because I never have made that claim to you.
The question is where are you getting this “ultimate reality”?
From the post that you typed: "I think the concept of ultimate reality is fantasy."Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
BiPed (19)
I’ve already answered the question you are asking.
No, you have not. You have avoided answering. I have asked you to justify the existence of these separate, other realms that you seem to posit. But you don't answer and instead spew apparently meaningless statements like "For there to be no ultimate realities (and the adjective is hardly necessary) then there must not be anything that is." You and I both agree that we live in reality. That's not a question. I recognize that reality exists. No problem. The question is where are you getting this "ultimate reality"? You are arguing that there's this "other reality" (death is an example). Where is this reality? When is it? How do we observe it, if we can? These are basic questions, my friend, yet every time you are pressed on them you run away because you "don't see the value." In any case, I think I know your answer. You KNOW in your HEART these other realms and realities exist because you BELIEVE. Do I have that right, caps and all?LarTanner
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Larry, I've already answered the question you are asking. From the previous conversation: "A reality (in terms of a description of it) is that which faithfully corresponds to what is. For there to be no ultimate realities (and the adjective is hardly necessary) then there must not be anything that is." and also... "It is quite obvious that ultimate realities exist, the question is what are they." I left that conversation because I didn't see the value of trying to have conversation with someone who doesn't recognize that reality exist, even if we don't know what it is. - - - - Where you now get off with "wistful assertions of magic realm" I have no idea.Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
BiPed, You comment in #11 is exactly the kind of poh-poohing I mean. You think it's ridiculous to think of "ultimate realities" as "mere fantasy." So, that's what I mean. My question to you, and I don't want to be rude and hijack the discussion here (so please post per the links I offered), is what is the basis for your assertion of the existence of these ultimate realities. I understand that living things die. But when living things die, the remain here in this reality of ours. They decompose. So far as I know and have observed, living things don't go to a different place when they die (which seems to be your claim). So I'm puzzled by your confident assertion of one or more ultimate realities. I'm also frustrated by not being able to understand exactly what the expression "ultimate reality" means. Hence, I'm asking if you are willing to explain it to me.LarTanner
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Again, my apologies Neil.Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply