Armand Jacks Destroys ID in One Sentence

_{Barry Arrington

April 16, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity.

Get ready.

Hold on to your hat.

Here it is:

Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.

Are blind unguided material forces capable of typing the post you just posted AJ? If you say “no” your argument is refuted. If you say “yes” you look like a fool or a liar or both. Talk about the Scylla and Charybdis.

AJ, you really should stop and think for 10 seconds before you write something like that down. I know, I know. Thinking is hard, and 10 seconds is a long time. But still.

As for the title of this post, on reflection maybe I overstated AJ’s accomplishment a little.

Comments

KF:
So, contrary to your attempted dismissive quip above, FSCO/I is at the heart of the focal issues for this thread,
No. You are diverting from the focal issue of this thread. Let me repeat again the first line of the OP.
Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity.
As previously mentioned, this is a heaping pile of bovine excrement. At no point in the comment I made, the comment that forms the basis of this thread, did I suggest that I had a show stopping argument to rebut ID. In addition, I pointed this out to you twice after you repeated the same claim, asking for an apology or a retraction. Neither of which you have offered. As such, you have demonstrated yourself to be speaking in disregard to the truth. Since you obviously demand a higher level of honesty from others than you demand of yourself, discussing anything with you is pointless.Armand Jacks_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

AD, very sadly, yes. Lewontin is a senior academic in the leading scientific country. This is his cat out of the bag moment when he likely was still processing the passing of Sagan. I have seen much to support it, and nothing to show me a significant dissent, save those fringe schools spoken against and marginalised everywhere. This is the state of the turn-of-C21 mind, and it is still so. A devastating, though obviously by and large inadvertent, indictment. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

WJM & JR, 'fraid so. Sad, really. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

JoshRob asks:
Wow, is it so difficult to understand that taping a baseball game in progress does not later invalidate the players’ choices ex post facto?
It's impossible to understand if your existential narrative is dedicated to not understanding it and to believing that theism is foolish because of certain supposed paradoxes. Those "god paradoxes" are like talking point memes people can use to support their preferred atheist narrative (like the "hands up don't shoot" meme supports a certain social view) and block out reasoned discussion.William J Murray_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

AJ, I tire of the repeated attempt to duck addressing an inductive inference to best current empirically grounded explanation -- as in, provide an observed counter-example to overthrow it -- by asserting question-begging. That rhetorical tactic seems to ignore things like, say, how the three key laws of thermodynamics: energy conservation, entropy and inaccessibility of T = 0 in any finite refrigeration process -- stand on exactly the same logical foundation. You are either attacking what you don't like by exerting a selectively hyperskeptical double standard of warrant, or else you need to accept that you have spoken in ignorance and need to do some basic homework, apologise for wasting our time and effort then actually say something cogent. In the meanwhile, UB has aptly commented:
Life requires the ability to specify something among alternatives and instantiate that specification in a transcribable memory. The very first things that must be specified at the origin of life are the set of non-integrable constraints that are required to interpret the description. Without this, there is no life. There is no cell. There is no cell cycle. And for those married to evolution, there is no informational medium of heritable variation, and nothing to be selected. Open-ended evolutionary potential does not exist until the system can describe itself in a spatially-oriented memory (i.e. a code) and successfully interpret the description. We look at this and say that it seems that intelligent action is somehow necessary for life, because it is the only thing we know of that is rich enough to specify the system in this manner. But then we actually study the system from a physicalist perspective, and we find that (among all other material systems in the cosmos) the only other place we can identify such a physical system as genetic translation is in the use of language and mathematics — two unambiguous correlates of intelligence. I would appreciate it if you’d stop using me to attack Kairos. This is the point he is making to you. EDIT: By the way, the core claim of biological ID is that a universal correlate of intelligence can be detected in the origin of life on earth, That claim has been validated by physics. The empirical observations that validate the claim are not even controversial. It is hardly a case of assuming a conclusion.
The evidence on trillions of cases is that FSCO/I is only actually observed to arise from intelligently directed configuration. The blind chance and mechanical necessity searching a config space of at least 3.27*10^150 to 1.07*10^301 y/n possibilities on the scope of sol sys or observed cosmos at known fast atomic interaction rates for 10^17 or so s, leads to only being able to see a negligible fraction. And searching for a golden search requires, for a space of n possibilities, a secondary search in one of 2^n possibilities; as a search is a subset so the set of subsets scales the S4GS space, i.e. the power set. Thus, we have an observed adequate cause, its reliability established on trillions of observed cases. We have an alternative never seen to be causally adequate. We have an analysis that shows why blind processes are not likely to be adequate. This gives us every epistemic right to hold FSCO/I a reliable sign of design as relevant cause. We have a world of cell based life that is chock full of FSCO/I, and this is backed by the evident failure of abiogenesis, OoL research after nearly a century of trying. Ditto for computational sims that routinely reduce to illustrating that the cause of desired results, reliably, is intelligently injected active information. To top off, we find ever growing evidence that the physics of the observed cosmos is also full of functionally specific complex organisation that sets it to a fine-tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life. The inference to design is serious and well warranted on the uncensored methods of science. Sneaking in a priori evolutionary materialist scientism and/or fellow travellers by the back door and exerting ideological domination may be many things, but true, sound science it is not. So,
A: you are challenged to show us by empirical cases how FSCO/I can and does come about by blind processes: _______ You are challenged, B: to show how this accounts (on empirical evidence rooted in observation) for a fine tuned cosmos: ______ You are challenged, C: to show on the same basis, how such blind causes account for OOL: __________ You are challenged, similarly, D: to account for OO body plans, dozens of times over: _________ , including our own: ________
I hereby extend, again, the UD Pro-Darwinism Essay challenge, to address A through D in a summary of some 6,000 words -- upper length for a reasonable feature article. You can link elsewhere to heart's content but must provide a responsible summary case that does not play rhetorical stunts such as you have too often indulged. I predict: just like the case that covered B to D, there will be no take-up from you or any other significant objector from the circle of objector sites. Never mind, boastful titles like the IDiots of ID. The shoe is on the other foot now. Put up, or stand exposed. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

KF, yes, hardly correct to credit Lewontin with honesty. I think what he articulated is so pervasive and endemic, that it wouldn't be overstatement to characterize this as the underlying scaffolding of the majority of scientific thought. If ever there was evidence of truth suppression, this is it. And the worst part is that they really and truly believe it. Blind faith, so to speak.AnimatedDust_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

AD, Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

AJ, I think you also needed to have been taught the significance of E = m*c^2 in grade school, as the simplistic summary of matter given has been off the table for a century and more. Stars work off the impermanence of matter via binding energy per nucleon shifts with fusion reactions. Beyond, the evidence points to our cosmos originating in a singularity some 13.8 BYA, with all sorts of sticky onward questions about origin. Those were compounded by the discoveries over the past 60+ years that the laws and circumstances of our observed cosmos are exceedingly fine tuned relative to requisites of C-chemistry, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet, spiral galaxy habitable zone, cell based life. Which in turn is rooted in the use of encoded information bearing text strings in D/RNA. Where said text is an algorithmic and linguistic phenomenon. So, contrary to your attempted dismissive quip above, FSCO/I is at the heart of the focal issues for this thread, for it points strongly to intelligent causes of both information in cell based life and the observed fine tuned cosmos that supports it. Where, we already have excellent reason in hand to confidently conclude that computational substrates (such as analog or digital or neural network machines) are FSCO/I-rich, organised, blindly mechanical systems (open to stochastic factors too)that inherently cannot in themselves ground rational insight, meaning and warrant etc, not to mention moral government. Your claim that we only observe [effects of -- we never observe a cause directly] material causes is an ill-founded hasty and faulty generalisation driven by evident a priori evolutionary materialist scientism as ideology or at least a fellow traveller scheme of thought. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2017
April
04
Apr
20
20
2017
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

AD:
Disappointed that you skipped over my main question in 110.
Sorry, I thought that when you started the second last sentence at 110 with IOW, you were introducing your main point. And I answered that question quite adequately.Armand Jacks_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Disappointed that you skipped over my main question in 110. "Is it possible that the rules you depend on to reach your conclusion in this post are purposely constructed so as to allow any theory, even untestable, to be fair game, but not “God” (as you understand the term and apply it to your worldview) so as not to “allow a divine foot in the door?" Not even the slightest bit possible? I am hoping against hope for some Lewontinesque honesty.AnimatedDust_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

AD:
Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. I learned this in grade school. The periodic table doesn’t help you.
Really? Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? Or would you like to explain where the gold in your ring came from. Or the carbon in your body. All of these elements were created through stellar fusion processes. Material processes.Armand Jacks_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. I learned this in grade school. The periodic table doesn't help you.AnimatedDust_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

FW:
Matter does not have a material cause. Except for most of the elements in the periodic table.
Armand Jacks_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Matter does not have a material cause. 2 Possibilities A. Matter always existed, therefore no cause B. Something created matter which we have not seen. Other things that exist that you cannot see 1. Freewill. You must admit that it exists. You enter into a debate. You expect people to freely change their beliefs. If you assume it, I don't have to defend it. 2. The laws of physics. No material cause, but you must admit they exist or there is not point talking about material causes. 3. The rules of logic. No point in debate without them. You must admit they exist or there is no debate. You can't see them, Yet they exist.Few Words_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

goodusername: I just ran across your reply. Two Superbowls ago, the Seattle Seahawks were on the goalline with seconds left in the game. A pass was thrown to the tight end, who cut right over the center. He caught the ball, but was immediately hit by a Patriot defensive back, coughing up the ball, and letting the Patriots win. When he was interviewed about the 'hit,' which was incredible because he really shouldn't have been in a position to hit the pass catcher, he said that he had "dreamed" of it the night before. He had 'seen' it. Now, I would have to say that this 'knowledge' of his did influence his free will in that he reacted to the play in an almost superhuman way. But, how did that knowledge affect anyone else? How did it interfere with their free will? And I bet he experienced that 'dream' as being the "game-winning" hit. Hence, he 'knew' the outcome. But it only affected his free will, and no one else's. God doesn't usually play defensive back. If He knows who will win, in that instance, no one's 'free will' is interfered with.PaV_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Armand Jack: In Back to the Future, Part II, Biff takes Marty's copy of the 2017 Sports almanac back to 1957, whereupon, Biff of 1957 makes a huge fortune betting on games. What further proof is needed? :) Let me relate a personal experience. When I was 24, I dreamed a variation of a dream for over a month straight. It was a series of related dreams I would never forget; and, it was about a very large house on an isolated hilltop, one which I'd never seen before in my life. And, in the dream, an 'angel' told me I lived there, but didn't own it, even pointing out where in the large building I lived. Nine years later, I ended up living in this large building set upon a hilltop---just as I had seen in my series of dreams. I had seen the building coming at it from the front and from the back. It was exactly as I had seen. Now, there were a whole host of individual decisions that I made that brought me to live in that building. So, who other than God could have 'foreseen' where I would live 9 years hence? And, I assure you, the individual decisions I made in the intervening years had nothing whatsoever to do with those dreams. So, you can either call me a 'kook'--the cheap way of dealing with this--or reach the conclusion that the future can be known by God without 'free will' being compromised. I could tell you other stories that reach similar conclusions.PaV_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Wow, is it so difficult to understand that taping a baseball game in progress does not later invalidate the players' choices ex post facto? Or that rolling a weighted die and getting a 6 is vastly different than rolling a truly random die and simply possessing the knowledge that you will get a 6? Do we not know what the outcomes of past events are, regardless of their mechanisms at the time? Knowledge is all that is being discussed here, after all. These are not dreadfully difficult concepts once they're presented - perhaps difficult to come upon on one's own, but easy once clarified. Here's another point: whatever activities I set out to do today will become immutable history when today has become yesterday. Does this somehow mean I was bound hopelessly to do these things? No, it means I was bound only to do as I chose. One cannot eliminate free will simply because our choices are permanent. Every person naturally sees the past as filled with choices yet immovable. Simply remove such person from the timeline, as if all future history had already past, and that person would just as naturally see innumerable choices, all of them immutable. No choice can be revoked, so one should be careful what choices he makes - not simply shrug his shoulders and pretend that they were not his own choices in the first place. If God knows you're going to say something dreadfully stupid, He simply has the displeasure of knowing it ahead of time, not a hand in determining it. Whether He could, would, or has exerted any power to change that is another, unrelated subject altogether. The fact is, foreknowledge is a mere matter of knowledge, having no impact on the course of things foreknown.JoshRob_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

GUN:
I think it’s trivially simple to show that the above is not the case. It’s a self-contradictory statement to say that God knows that “X” will occur tomorrow, and thus it’s determined that X will occur tomorrow, but that that doesn’t mean that X will occur tomorrow.
Of course X will occur tomorrow. But that isn't the same as saying that it must occur tomorrow as though there is no free will. From a article on this subject at Standford (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/):
Let “now-necessary” designate temporal necessity, the type of necessity that the past is supposed to have just because it is past. We will discuss this type of necessity in sections 2.3 and 2.6, but we can begin with the intuitive idea that there is a kind of necessity that a proposition has now when the content of the proposition is about something that occurred in the past. To say that it is now-necessary that milk has been spilled is to say nobody can do anything now about the fact that the milk has been spilled.
It may be true that foreknowledge means it is now-necessary that X will occur tomorrow, but the question is whether it is then-necessary. What do I mean by then-necessary? Well, that nobody can do anything now about the fact that the milk has been spilled does not deny that they could do something then about actually spilling the milk. They don't have free will about spilling the milk now but that doesn't mean they didn't have free will about spilling the milk then. We can clearly see regarding past events that now-necessary does not entail then-necessary. But we seem to assume regarding future events that X being known and thus being now-necessary entails it being then-necessary as well. Why assume this? So, if by X being determined by foreknowledge you mean that it is now-necessary for X to occur, then I agree. (Exactly the same as I would if X was determined by being in the known past.) But if by X being determined by foreknowledge you mean that X must be then-necessary, then I don't think that has been sufficiently demonstrated.Phinehas_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

"Let’s keep this as simple as possible. Let’s assume that it is known that you will kill KF on Friday in a homosexual lovers dispute. If you kill him, what free will did you have? If you dont kill him, then the knowledge of the future is flawed." your confusion is genuine but the problem is you are including the entity knowing as being in the timeline and looking ahead. That is NOT what Christianity or Judaism teaches. If God has to look ahead to find something out then he is at that point not all knowing and therefore lacking a divine quality religions have always maintained he has. As a crude perhaps flawed analogy consider that you are on ship in space and hit the speed of light and assume as Hollywood does that the time slow down is oblivious to you AND you can still see/hear whats happening on earth. KF is killed and you are watching/hearing it in the "now" but to KF' murderer he has already spent twenty years of a life sentence OR depending on when you hit the speed of light you may even know of the violence in the now but it appear to KF as being before it happened. Its all now to you and does nothing whatsoever to affect free will.mikeenders_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Premise defeated in one sentence We have never seen in the entire universe a material cause for any law of the Universe. EVERYTHING is based on uncauselessness or the rabbit hole goes on forever and is itself self defeating being therefore causeless. as to the argument about free will - also ended in one sentence (as someone else has already alluded to). God's foreknowledge is only in respect to humans in time and has nothing to do with HIS sense of time because he knows nothing of past or future living in a constant now. I AM that I AM second sentence for clarity. God's knowledge does not interfere with my choice. he knew about it the same time he knew about everything - right now as far as he is concerned. Its hard to get materialists minds around theology. They are so awful at understanding anything out of their comfort zone.mikeenders_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

KF:
Now, back on focal topic, we have clear evidence that FSCO/I is routinely and reliably produced by intelligently directed configuration, aka design.
That is not the focal topic of this OP. Let me remind you of the first line says:
Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity.
This is a big heaping pile of strawman heavily soaked in oil of red herring, ready to be set ablaze. In short, it is a complete fabrication. When you repeated this later in the thread, I pointed this out to you and politely requested an apology or a retraction. Something that you have not done. You frequently chastise others for not speaking with a care to truth. It appears that this standard does not apply to you. Your lack of response to my request for an apology or a retraction speaks volumes about your character. And not in your favour. If you simply missed my request in this thread, I do apologize. If you saw it and ignored it, then you are willfully speaking in directed to the truth.Armand Jacks_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

F/N: Again, Greenleaf on evidence and warrant:
Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. [--> that is, his focus is on the logic of good support for in principle uncertain conclusions, i.e. in the modern sense, inductive logic and reasoning in real world, momentous contexts with potentially serious consequences.] Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. [--> the issue of warrant to moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt; and the contrasted absurdity of selective hyperskepticism.] The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. [--> moral certainty standard, and this is for the proverbial man in the Clapham bus stop, not some clever determined advocate or skeptic motivated not to see or assent to what is warranted.] The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. [--> pistis enters; we might as well learn the underlying classical Greek word that addresses the three levers of persuasion, pathos- ethos- logos and its extension to address worldview level warranted faith-commitment and confident trust on good grounding, through the impact of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in C1 as was energised by the 500 key witnesses.] By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind [--> in British usage, the man in the Clapham bus stop], beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal [--> and responsible] test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [= definition of moral certainty as a balanced unprejudiced judgement beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Obviously, i/l/o wider concerns, while scientific facts as actually observed may meet this standard, scientific explanatory frameworks such as hypotheses, models, laws and theories cannot as they are necessarily provisional and in many cases have had to be materially modified, substantially re-interpreted to the point of implied modification, or outright replaced; so a modicum of prudent caution is warranted in such contexts -- explanatory frameworks are empirically reliable so far on various tests, not utterly certain. ] [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]
KFkairosfocus_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

AJ @7
If this type of argument is valid to make an ID inference, why isn’t it valid when making a materialism inference? Especially when there are trillions and trillions of examples.
Because you are comparing apples and orange! AJ, you have to understand that life from life is very well understood. We know much about how life is produced by things that are alive, but comparing life from life with life from non-life and saying it's the same is, well, let's just say a matter of comparing apples and oranges. That is an assertion with nothing to back it up. The life from life thing is something that we can experiment with, research, study, observe, and reproduce over and over and test our hypotheses, etc. The other - life from non-life - is totally unknown. We have no scientific theory that can explain it. In fact, we don't even know if such a thing is possible. It's never been observed and cannot be observed or tested. So there are huge differences. One has to explain the origin of languages, codes, information, machines, complex inter-dependent systems, etc., while the other simply follows the instructions found in the software encoded in their DNA. In abiogenesis, we can study stuff that we think might be related to it, but not abiogenesis itself. We can't reproduce it. It's extremely complex and seems irreducibly complex. If it happened, we have no idea how because we know of no natural process/processes that are capable of such a thing. But sure, if you want to gloss over these huge differences and claim they are of no significance, that's up to you. That logic does not compute for us. From our point of view, the abiogenesis belief is so incredible and anti-logical that surely it would seem it would need at least some kind of scientific evidence to support it, but we have none. You can, of course, simply dismiss the lack of evidence by saying that it must exist and we'll find it somehow some day we hope. It's a free world and no one can prove you wrong. If abiogenesis were indeed possible, you would think that we would see other examples of that around us. But we don't. We only observe the opposite - that life always originates from life and that languages and codes and information always originate in a mind. We know of no exceptions. But still, that doesn't mean we are right. It's strong enough evidence for me to believe I'm right, but proof is impossible. So, that means that you are free to believe whatever you want to about origins. If you have faith enough to believe that natural processes could and did produce the original life, go for it. No one can prove you right or wrong. If, using the brain that evolution gave you, abiogenesis makes the most sense, then what can we say. It's futile to argue with the chemical processes that are going on in your brain anyway. However, I think you can easily understand the ID argument as well. I think you can see why many people see codes, languages, and information as evidence for intelligent design. Although you may not agree, at least you cannot deny that ID is a possible and seemingly logical interpretation of the facts. It's not proof, but you can hardly fault anyone for interpreting the data in this way. Since you can't prove it wrong and since it matches our experience in life, it certainly seems like a very possible option - that is, unless you are a Materialist. Since neither side can prove their belief, in the end, we all have to look at the data and choose for ourselves what makes the most sense and what we will believe about origins. Go ahead and make your arguments and try and support your choice/conclusion. We will do the same and remain convinced that we have the stronger argument - as you also believe. Good luck with your beliefs!tjguy_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

Reading through all of the above posts, I get the old familiar feeling that hardly anyone really understands the Augustinian/Calvinist/Lutheran/Pauline/biblical understanding of free will. As a proponent of said understanding, the key issue is not over whether man has a free will, but over whether man can be considered culpable for his actions if God has elected some for mercy and others for wrath. The argument is a theodical one, not a question of decision-making. I'll try to use a brief analogy. For every decision we make, we are, to some degree, restricted from a full autonomy. We operate in linear time and space. We haven't comprehensive knowledge or infinite time in order to make decisions, so, as we often experience, decisions regularly are second-guessed as we look back with more time and more knowledge. That doesn't negate free will, but it definitely suggests a restricted definition of "free." We are, of necessity, forced to choose what we believe to be the best choice IN THE MOMENT...in bondage to, again, our limited time and knowledge. If, as Christians believe, our will is determined by the effect of the Fall, then, without new information, we will always choose among a limited set of options. We still have free will. We just lack comprehensive or sufficient knowledge to make, ultimately, the right decision with regard to trust in Christ. If we found ourselves chained to a wall in some dank and dark dungeon, we would still have choices. We wouldn't, by default, revert to automatons just because we couldn't break free. Again, the theological question is not over free will but over culpability. And again, human free will is always restricted by time and available knowledge at any and all nodes of decision. If we were suddenly loosed from our bonds, we wouldn't suddenly move from a state of mindless automation to a state of omniscience and omnipotence. It would just mean that our set of options has expanded. The Augustinian/Calvinist/Lutheran/Pauline/biblical view of irresistible grace refers to the idea that, once man is loosed from the bondage of a fallen will, he cannot be rechained to a lesser set of known truths, or, better, would no longer have any desire to be restricted thusly. Each subsequent choice, still limited by time and a lack of omniscience and omnipotence, is now reframed. The set of options for each new choice has been expanded by a higher order or magnitude..just as Plato's man in the cave, once he has been brought outside, has an expanded understanding. I have never struggled with God's foreknowledge precisely because I wasn't privy to that knowledge. That doesn't in any way negate my freedom to make choices, nor does it mean I merited being loosed from my bonds by any choices I made. Both before and after being freed from a fallen state, I make choices...choosing the best option restricted by time and available knowledge...which I all too often second-guess, especially when it comes to split-second choices like cursing out the guy doing 50 in the fast lane. All of our choices, I believe both sides ought to be able to concede, are at the very least determined by varying degrees by: an assessment of outcomes of prior choices, limited time, limited knowledge set, physical conditions and laws, idiosyncratic traumae and skill sets, emotional status, sickness, fatigue, habit, training, chemical conditions, both native and artificial...etc... The notion of free will seems to be weighed down most by irrational definitions of "free" and "will." And, by irrational, I mean that most argue with a notion that simply doesn't correspond with how we experience free will...which is also why no Turing test or robotics/AI genius will ever actually crack the nut of self-awareness or mind. They presuppose naturalist reductionism and will to settle for the illusion of mind, as if tricking minds proves minds are just algorithms. And, I'm too tired to choose to crawl down the rabbit hole of the self-defeating defenders of atheism right now...mugwump3_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

SB & O: Hence the video tape analogy I made at crude level. KFkairosfocus_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

Origines, hence my double emphasis on the inductive pattern and the analysis of search challenge. Let's see if some light bulbs will go on. KFkairosfocus_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Armand Jacks: ... Since my inference is identical to yours, just seen from the opposite side, either they are both logically sound or they are not. It has already been pointed out by UB that mine assumes it’s own conclusion. Which it does. As does yours.
When the design inference speaks of 'one known cause' it does so wrt causal adequacy. So, it speaks of the one known cause that can account for a particular effect. In your "inference" there is no such relationship to the effect. Your "inference" is the unproven claim that we know just one cause (period) — irrespective of causal adequacy.
Both philosophers of science and leading historical scientists have emphasized causal adequacy as the key criterion by which competing hypotheses are judged. But philosophers of science have insisted that assessments of explanatory power lead to conclusive inferences only when there is just one known cause for the effect or evidence. [Stephen Meyer]
Origenes_{April 19, 2017
April
04
Apr
19
19
2017
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

Boethius' solution: God knows our future choices because He can see the past, present and future from a timeless vantage point: [excerpt:] The Boethian account has been defended by John Wesley and C. S. Lewis, and it is also popular among Christian laypeople. Strangely, most Christian theologians have rejected the Boethian account for a variety of reasons, none of which I find convincing. According to the Boethian account, God timelessly knows everything we will do, but He is still dependent on us for this information: from His timeless standpoint, He has to "see" - or more accurately, be informed of - what we in fact decide to do. Certain theologians object to the notion of God's depending on creatures for anything. In reply, it could be argued that this "limitation" is self-imposed: in creating free agents, God timelessly chooses to rely on them for His knowledge of what they do. Another point that needs to be made in this context is that God's depending on others for information is actually a perfection on that God's part, rather than an imperfection. For this dependency is what enables intercessory prayer to occur. Prayer is a conversation between two parties: God and the creature praying to Him. If God is pulling the strings, either by making us act (and pray) as we do, then we are not really conversing with Him, and His responsiveness to His creatures' needs cannot be made manifest. Vincent J. Torley
Origenes_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Armand Jacks
What I am arguing is that you can’t have an all knowing god and free will.
Strictly speaking, God does not “foreknow,” God simply knows because He is outside of time. In other words, it is more accurate to say that God knows what *is* not what is *going to be.* Everything is in the present to Him. That is why His knowledge (which we informally -- and inaccurately -- characterize as foreknowledge) does not determine the future that we experience in time. We are free will causal agents because God made us that way. Indeed, God knew you were going to write that sentence, but He didn’t cause you to write it. There is no causal connection between God’s knowing and our doing. Put simply, God’s knowledge of how we use our free will does not prevent its exercise in any way.StephenB_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

F/N2: Now, back on focal topic, we have clear evidence that FSCO/I is routinely and reliably produced by intelligently directed configuration, aka design. We have every good reason to understand that computational substrates are actually incapable of rational contemplation, insight and resulting rational inference, never mind repeated bare assertions to the contrary. By abduction on empirically tested reliable signs (trillions of cases in point) we can safely infer that FSCO/I is a signature of design. this would not even be controversial, apart from one issue: the living cell is based on copious coded text in its DNA, a linguistic phenomenon. this strongly supports the inference that the living cell is designed, and that is backed up by the further fact that a self replication facility per von Neumann, requires further FSCO/I. As we look above, we see no cogent counter-example to this, just sophistry that tries to divert us from this straightforward inference. So, we can see the issue is not science, but worldview-driven ideology and socio-cultural agendas tied to evolutionary materialistic scientism and associated fellow traveller ideologies. Going further, we can see that the search challenge posed by FSCO/I leads to a very good reason for our observations. namely, blind search on sol system or cosmic scale is not a credible means of finding FSCO/I rich islands of function in a large config space beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. Again no counter-examples are forthcoming. going yet further, our observed cosmos shows itself to be fine tuned in ways that support C-Chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life. All of this points to coherent purpose behind the cosmos, which is exactly what evo mat advocates do not want us to even think about. the problem is not scientific at root, it is ideological, given that there has been a clear domination of science and culture alike by that inherently self-refuting and amoral ideology. It has to be answered on several levels, but the first and pivotal one is that of how science works through inductive reasoning and what the observations that ground the design inference point to. And, we must not allow ourselves to be distracted from this. KFkairosfocus_{April 18, 2017
April
04
Apr
18
18
2017
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply