You’ve heard atheistic naturalists and Christian Darwinists talk about the “God of the Gaps,” right?
= Every time it seems like something in the universe looks designed — whether it is the laws of mathematics or the complexity of nervous systems — “science” will come along and show that, sure enough, it all just randomly happened that way.
“The universe can and will create itself from nothing,” as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow argued in The Grand Design. (Note that it is called The Grand Design even though it argues the opposite. )
So, in the atheistic naturalist’s and the Christian Darwinists’ view, anyone who doubts that Everything Comes About by Accident from Nothing” is undermining people’s faith.
Presumably, people will find out the truth and then they will no longer believe in the God Who Makes No Difference and they will stop going to … Churches No One Goes To Any More Anyway.
Here, apologist Frank Turek of CrossExamined talks about the point of view they all seem to prefer, “Scientism of the Gaps”:
To summarize Scientism of the Gaps: No mountain too high, no river so wide that sheer chaos cannot contrive to create an inextricably interlinked system that seamlessly navigates it.
Even though chaos never works that way in your own life, you must believe — if you are really science-friendly — that it works that way at the foundation of all of life, the entire universe and all that.
Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd
Accusing naturalists of “scientism of the gaps” doesn’t make “God of the gaps” any better.
^^^^^^^ Says the mindless meat robot which has been named Seversky! 🙂
Earth to seversky: Using our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships is not a gap argument.
Re #2
Always good to re-experience the adolescent thought process of CS Lewis as he attempts to caricature a “godless” universe…..
ChuckieD, do you think that C.S.Lewis, if he were alive on earth today, (instead of being in heaven), should actually be offended by the sounds that a mindless meat puppet, such as yourself, makes?
@ seversky you are right, no it doesn’t make it better, but it’s shows that naturalist are just as guilty of the same crap
@ chuckdarwin your opinion is equally childish and much dumber nice empty add
Bornagain77/2
Both you and Lewis ignore the fact that Lewis’s argument can be turned against his God.
If not being designed somehow makes our thinking untrustworthy then the same must be true of God since – according to believers – He was not designed and has no purpose.
So even if there were your God, His thinking could not be trusted so neither can ours.
Except, so what? We naturalists/atheists know we are fallible, imperfect and our thinking is not always reliable. But neither is it always unreliable. Either way, it’s al we’ve got so we’ll just have to make the best of it.
^^^^^
Written proof that atheists, when they forsake God, have literally ‘lost their minds’.
Seversky, when you deny the reality of the Mind of God, and by default deny the reality of your own immaterial mind, you end up denying that the universe can have any purpose and also end denying that your own thoughts can have any intentional, goal directed, teleological, purpose.
The universe, and everything in it, including all your thoughts, are just one big ole mess of unintended accidents according to your atheistic worldview.
As C.S. Lewis explained in his ‘argument from reason’, “(Atheists) ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
In short, the atheist, in denying the reality of the Mind of God, and, by default, denying the reality of his own immaterial mind, ends up denying rationality altogether.
As Martin Cothran explains, “By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”
Of related note, in the following article neurosurgeon Michael Egnor explains the intimate link between teleology in nature and the intentionality of our thoughts, and how atheists must deny both in order for them to maintain a consistent worldview. He states, “eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.”
Darwinism = the biggest engineering challenges solved by a series of miraculous events …
re #6
CS Lewis says “unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” Like I said, this is being seduced into a madhouse of adolescent pseudo-intellectualism. “Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought….” Really? Unmitigated poppycock….
How was your comment any different from the millions of comments spewed out of the mouth of Jerry Coyne That the mind is nothing more than an illusion?
With that type of thought you literally saw the branch you’re sitting on right off the tree
If there is no mind then you have no place to believe in God, and you have no place to not believe in God, that’s the point
It’s not some adolescent stupidity like you like to try to re-interpret it
What he means by that is that’s your philosophy, that you push, and your rules, but I don’t have to worry about that hypocrisy because I don’t believe that’s the case
It’s like when you idiots tell me there’s no free will and then chastise me for not being able to change my mind and believe you
That came from your court but I don’t have to worry about it because I believe in free will so I believe you’re capable of changing your mind
It’s not us chasing our tails, it’s you
The fact that the mind is an illusion and free will is an illusion came from your court of thinking and that’s what BA77 is pointing out
And that type of thought comes with those types of consequences
Your opinion and everything you do is just a result of chemical soup that if a different set of chemicals hit your brain at a different point of your life your perspective might not even exist
So no one can really tell what is real because everything is fake Except for my opinion
If anything is adolescence it is that type of thinking
Bornagain77/8
Sorry, I am attesting here and now that, as far as I can tell, my mind is the same now as an atheist as it was when I was a Christian.
Non sequitur, as I pointed out above, I have been able to find the existence of your God unproven without suffering any ill-effects mentally.
And without your God, if the Universe does have some overriding purpose, we’re going to have to look elsewhere.
Also, you still haven’t answered the question I’ve posed several times before, if we are made in God’s image and He can form purposes then why can’t we? Why should His purposes be the only ones that count?
Partly, but the Universe is also governed by regularities we call “laws”. Where they come from nobody knows but they mean it’s not just “one big ole mess of unintended accidents” although, looking at some people, I can see why you might get that idea.
Is that the best Lewis can do? Reason is a process by which we try to model, describe and explain the Universe in which we find ourselves. It doesn’t matter whether that Universe was created or came about through natural processes. We still have to deal with what’s in front of us. Reason helps us do that because we have found it works.
So you have always been an atheist.
PS:who is a real Christian ,stays Christian forever.
seversky:
The laws are evidence for Intelligent Design. Materialism says they just happened to happen. “One big ole whole mess of unintended accidents” means that nothing was planned. So, with Intelligent Design, all there is to try to account for our existence is “one big ole mess of unintended accidents”. Laws do NOT plan. Laws, well the forces they represent, cannot account for codes.
But the proper wording would be “differential accumulations in one ole mess of unintended accidents”. Very untestable. And as such very much pseudo-science.
Seversky claims that
Well actually no it isn’t. Studies show that the design inference is a ‘knee jerk’ reaction that is built into everyone and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing the intuitive design inference that they themselves harbor.
So no, your mind is not the same as it was when you were a Christian. Your mind has to work double time to try to ‘explain away’ the Design they you yourself intuitively knows exists.
Ir regards to this statement I made,
“Seversky, when you deny the reality of the Mind of God, and by default deny the reality of your own immaterial mind, you end up denying that the universe can have any purpose and also end denying that your own thoughts can have any intentional, goal directed, teleological, purpose.”
Seversky responds,
“Non sequitur, as I pointed out above, I have been able to find the existence of your God unproven without suffering any ill-effects mentally.”
As should be needless to say, the person suffering ‘ill-effects mentally’ is often the very last person to know that they are suffering mentally.
Contrary to what you believe Seversky, studies show that, mentally speaking, atheists suffer much more than Christians do.
Seversky then states,
“And without your God, if the Universe does have some overriding purpose, we’re going to have to look elsewhere.
Also, you still haven’t answered the question I’ve posed several times before, if we are made in God’s image and He can form purposes then why can’t we? Why should His purposes be the only ones that count?”
Huh? For crying out loud Seversky, you are the one holding onto a worldview that directly claims that the universe, and humans, are the product of unforeseen accidents and therefore, by definition, the universe and all life it can have no real purpose and/or meaning to their existence.
Random, i.e. purposeless, accidents is literally the foundational defining precept of your entire worldview Seversky!
Moreover, for you to claim that the meaning that you create for yourself is just as good as the meaning that God imparts to your life is simply delusional thinking your part.
As the following article surmises the ‘invented’ meaning that atheists impart to their own lives, “it’s meaninglessness creating the illusion of meaning.,,,”
In regards to this statement I made,
“The universe, and everything in it, including all your thoughts, are just one big ole mess of unintended accidents according to your atheistic worldview.”
Seversky responds,
“Partly, but the Universe is also governed by regularities we call “laws”. Where they come from nobody knows but they mean it’s not just “one big ole mess of unintended accidents” although, looking at some people, I can see why you might get that idea.”
Hmm, interesting hypothesis. So are you saying that the laws are not unintended accidents? Perhaps you should get word of your hypothesis to the multiverse proponents who claim that the laws are the unforeseen products of random quantum fluctuations, instead of being the intentional product of the Mind of God.
Moreover, for you to claim that rationality can be based on a law of nature simply does not follow.
Rationality entails a mind, via its free will, choosing between logically viable options.
Moreover, (besides the fact that, since naturalism denies that we have free will, and that therefore we are not in control of our thoughts), logic itself cannot be based in any naturalistic framework,
Thus, naturalism is simply a non-starter in so far as to providing a coherent foundation for rationality.
Moreover it is interesting that Seversky would try to appeal to laws of nature to try to ground rationality., Laws, by their very nature, do not choose between logically viable options but simply dictate that some entity will always behave is such and such fashion.
On top of all that, it is ironic that a Darwinist would try to appeal to a law of nature in order to try to explain rationality. There simply are no known laws of nature that Darwinists can appeal to in order to support their theory.
Whatever law of nature Seversky is appealing to to try to ground rationality apparently exists solely in Severky’s imagination and not in the real world.
Moreover, Darwinists themselves admit that, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, then any beliefs that we might have about reality would be untrustworthy and unreliable as to their inherent truthfulness
Simply put, the Darwinian atheist, if his worldview were actually true, has no basis to ground rationality itself.
As Nancy Pearcey explains, “Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.”
Thus although Seversky may try to claim that he, in his Darwinian worldview, can be just as rational as the Christian can be in his worldvie, the facts of the matter betrays Seversky. His worldview simply can not ground rationality.
Verse and quotes:
People who dismiss ID as “goddiddit” should be aware that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary explanations amount to nothing more than “darwindiddit”.
Sev- Your thinking can be reliable and unreliable , you can be moral and immoral at times , this is not the point that us believers make is that, not that you can or cannot, but that your position means you have no foundation to base your can and cannot on.
If you disagree state you position for rational thinking and reasoning based in your material only world.
You cannot get “ought” from “is”. There is no way for physical reality to be the foundation for moral claims. That is as true for God or alien intelligent designers as it is for us. Whatever they might claim, no one has a certain foundation for their “cans” and “cannots”.
@1 Seversky
“Accusing naturalists of “scientism of the gaps” doesn’t make “God of the gaps” any better.”
True, but it shows that we both have faith. It shows that Materialists BELIEVE there really is no problem anywhere that is too difficult for chance to solve.
Sure, it’s a free country. Believe whatever you want to believe, but don’t try to pass off you belief as more rational or somehow superior to the ID cause simply because one is natural and the other supernatural.
Personally, it seems to me that an explanation with a sufficient cause is much more logical and probable than one that depends on chance. Always resorting to Chance as your Savior doesn’t seem very scientific.
Sev- Humour me Sev , putting aside whether said god exists or not , is it not logical to claim that if a creator, designer, moral ,all knowing, law giving God exists then what it would be fair to say, is that if this God tell us what is moral and what is not , that love is good and hate is bad , that being a liar is bad and being honest is good that we can trust his judgement in these matters , and hence have a basis and foundation for our behaviour.
I do not understand why ID is often considered a God of the Gaps argument. If ID made any claims regarding God then it would be legitimate to speak of a gap argument.
So is it an ID of the gaps argument? No. ID arguments generally turn on the question of demonstrating that unintelligent forces cannot produce the appearance of design. Showing the insufficiency of unintelligent forces is logically equivalent to showing the necessity of intelligent forces.
This is not a case of saying “If A, then B” when C, D and E are on the table. This is a case of saying “If not not-A, then A.” There is nothing else on the table.
Marfin/20
We can certainly listen to what He has to say and we might agree with much of it but how is it anything other than His opinion? If we cannot legitimately reason to moral principles from the nature of the physical Universe then neither can He. And if He can’t then on what is He basing His moral judgments?
The other problem is that while this image of God as an immensely wise and benign old gentleman may be very comforting, it is clearly at odds with the picture of God that emerges from the Old Testament. So which is it?
Sev – You don`t want to believe thats fine ,but your not grasping the point , if ( an enormous if you may say)there is an all knowing all powerful , all moral, creator God who is the instructor of all moral wisdom
and all reason and knowledge then we have a foundation for our morals, knowledge and reasoning’s . If the material world is all there is, please briefly explain what foundation we have for morals, knowledge, reasoning.
The argument for the existence of such a being is another argument, but the logic of my position is sound , how about the logic of your position
Hnorman42 –
THank you – that is actually a nice summary of the God/Designer/Scientism of the Gaps argument. You assert theory B because there are gaps in theory A.
The problems are (a) the gaps in theory A might be closed (e.g. if your model you used to show a gap is wrong, and a better one comes along), (b) theory B might also be wrong, (c) theory B might also have similar (or even worse) gaps.
BO’H & Sev: we know that design exists and often leaves fingerprints behind. An inference from empirically reliable sign to adequate causal process is not an appeal to ignorance. As to God and roots of morality it is by now pretty clear that rationality, as an expression of free responsible conduct, is morally governed by Ciceronian first duties that also frame civil law. Even objectors to such cannot but appeal to their pervasive legitimate authority to gain rhetorical traction for their claims. This means, self evident government by duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant] etc. We have a very legitimate inquiry as to what explains a world with such creatures, without reduction to absurdity. KF
PS: The first duties issue, in summary:
kf @ 25 –
So look for the fingerprints. Don’t look for the lack of footprints.
The use of the word “assert” and “gaps” are ambiguous without modifiers. The statement might be better said
There is always the possibility that the gaps in theory A may become less insurmountable. But if anything the science of recent years has shown the gap to be getting bigger. Meanwhile B is getting easier to see how it is possible.
Even Richard Dawkins agrees. As long as it’s not God. So it’s really a “Designer” of the gaps theory.
I love the way HNorman42 expressed it.
Aside: when I was researching a proposal for a dissertation in graduate school (finished ABD so no degree,) I was trying to conduct a scale of positive and negative characteristics for evaluating people. The most positive characteristic was “sincere” which showed people instinctively wanted honesty in people they were dealing with.
Was this evidence for a natural law? I believe so. It’s built in.
We used to joke that most desirable trait for a politician was the ability to fake sincerity. Ironically that seems to be a truism.
So how do you envision an actual solution to the problems of the decay of civilization, Kairosfocus?
Compare the solutions offered:
Kairosfocus: Teach first principles of right reasoning
– would take years for an individual to learn it, with specialized and therefore expensive training
– would create an elite class of experts on the complicated subject, who could conspire to monopolize power, leading to corruption
Syamsu: Teach the difference between opinion and fact, with the creationist conceptual scheme
– would take a few weeks to learn a simple subject, that people already know intuitively from common discourse
– would straight up immediately kill off materialism as wrong, and all the politics based on it, socialism
MNY, whoever said the solution is simply to teach principles of right reason? I do think it is a key step to learn how to disentangle the mess and learn to think straight but that is far, far from the reformation we need. Mind you, last time around, a certain prof in a run of the mill uni posted 95 rather academic theological points for debate on a church door that went viral as printing presses had been invented about 50 years before, so maybe there is somewhat to that idea. KF
Nope.
The only solution is to became a saint and that is posible only in christianity. The truth is not democratic is very exclusive.
That is one of the reasons I prefer Islam over Christianity, that the muslim aspiration is just to be ordinary people, as God created them, and not this kind of saints.
There is a lot of respect in the way the prophet Muhammad brings the message to people. Serving the people in bringing the message, as well as serving God. And Islam emphasizes straightforwardness, it is really very much about belief in God, submitting to God in worhsip.
As also the creationist conceptual scheme is just straightforward. Not fancy principles of right reasoning, but just the plain definitions of opinion and fact. And every ordinary opinion such as what do you like for breakfast, is a valid opinion, and also immoral opinions are logically valid. And not just fancy opinions based on principles of right reasoning, are valid.
My solution could actually work. I mean, work bigtime, cause real societal change. And if it didn’t produce massive changes, then ok, people would still have a better understanding of opinion and fact, which is also great. Also, evolutionists would go totally of their rocker if creationism is taught in school, so, that would be fun.
Reason? You ‘ve just confirmed my point. If you compare Jesus with Mohammed is there a single point where Mohammed is superior? Nope. But you prefer islam .Why? Because pure reason is not taken into account by yourself but you think is gonna be taken into account by others? with your Teach the difference between opinion and fact ? :))
Earth to Bob O’H- We have found the fingerprints. And all you and your ilk can do is say there aren’t any footprints.
Bob O’H:
There isn’t any theory A. That is the problem. Some unknown processes did something sometime in the past, doesn’t bode well for a mechanistic scenario.
You have just shown how to falsify the theory B.
Bob O’H @24 regarding 21
My main point was that ID is not a case of option A against option B. It’s a case of option A against option not-A. They can’t both be wrong. To undermine one is to strengthen the other. And the problems with unintelligent forces producing the appearance of design are galling.
The identity of the designer is a different story. To assert A, when B, C and D are possibilities, would be a gap argument.
That would answer the middle option you presented (b) and that’s the one that’s really relevant to gap arguments. The other two, I think, are just saying that no explanation is final. That applies to all scientific arguments.
Of related note, in the following article Brian Miller presents an excellent historical overview of the debate between atheists and Theists, as well as the current state of the debate, as far as the scientific evidence itself in concerned.
Sandy, why don’t you understand about the fundamental importance of opinion and fact? It is like 1+1=2, it is abc. The concepts of opinion and fact, are the basic tools for reasoning. Why don’t you understand that? It is obvious.
I appreciate the diversity of ordinary personal characters, and the saintly character is just one character. I loathe the kind of character that is always about doing the best. It strikes me as superficial.
The correct fundamental understanding of making a choice, is for the subjective spirit to spontaneously make one of alternative futures the present. It’s not about which option is the best. The goodness or evil are in the spirit doing the choosing, not in the chosen option.
Then still it is good advise to think about what is best before you make a choice, but people become atheists and materialists, when they define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, without reference to the spirit making the choice.
M @39, seems like you have a worldview based on your subjective preference, as opposed to what is objectively true. At the end, what’s true is going to be what’s true, and our preferences matter not a whit. Why wouldn’t you want to go with what’s true, and conform yourself to that which you believe is true, based on a preponderance of the evidence, rather than fitting objective reality to meet your subjective preferences.
That seems far more prudent, and less like folly.
But the problem is that many prefer folly as we see on this site and in the world around us.
Great explanation!
hnorman42 @ 37 –
Why not?
But ID doesn’t test all theories involving unintelligent forces. It only tests one. If successful, it
Right, “an unidentified designer” is you A, so I think that is precisely a gap argument.
The ‘God of the gaps’ argument from Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists fails on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin.
So let’s start with the origin of the argument itself. The origin of the argument goes back to atheist Friedrich Nietzsche and to theistic evolutionist Henry Drummond.
Nietzsche’s claim, “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God”, was a very interesting claim for Nietzsche to make.
The reason why it is interesting is that if God is not real, but is merely a delusion as atheists hold, then everything else becomes a delusion for the atheist.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
So, since everything that normal everyday people regard as being real becomes an illusion under Darwinian materialism, the Christian Theist has every right to ask “what exactly is regarded as being undeniably real for the Darwinian materialist and/or naturalist?”
Well, for one thing, as one of their main and primary presuppositions, the Darwinian materialist and/or naturalist, as the name ‘materialist’ implies, holds that material particles are ‘real’ and that everything else “is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.”
And although, as a primary presupposition, the Darwinian atheist holds that material particles are the ultimate reality upon which everything else must be based, and although the Darwinian atheist holds that Christian Theists are being ‘unscientific’ in their rejection of his supposedly ‘scientific’ presupposition of reductive materialism, the fact of the matter is that science itself has now falsified the Darwinian materialist’s belief that material particles are ‘real’.
As the following delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms demonstrated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,
“The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,”
As well, Leggett’s inequality has now also falsified ‘realism’, (which is the belief that a physical reality exists independently of our conscious observation of it)
Thus, although the Darwinian materialist may hold that the Christian Theist is not being ‘scientific’ in his rejection of the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic worldview, the fact of the matter is that empirical science itself has now crushed the Darwinian materialist’s belief that material particles are the ultimate reality upon which all other ‘scientific’ explanations must ultimately be based.
So thus in conclusion, although atheists, with their ‘God of the gaps’ argument. hold that, “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God”, the fact of the matter is that, without God, the atheistic materialist is forced to hold that everything that normal everyday people regard as being undeniably real, (I.e. personhood, free will, beauty, morality, etc.. etc…), is a delusion.
Moreover, and more importantly as far as science itself is concerned, science itself has now falsified the Darwinian materialist’s primary belief that material particles are ‘real’.
In short, it is not belief in God that is a delusion, but it is the Darwinist’s belief that material particles are ‘real’ that is a delusion.
Now to rephrase Nietzsche’s ‘God of the gaps’ quote to more properly reflect what empirical science itself has now revealed to us, “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called material particles”.
of related note:
Bob O’H @42
I may have confused propositional calculus with something to do with sets – or not. I’ll think about it in the morning.
I think my main point was that all agents of change either possess intelligence or they do not. So to diminish one is to support the other.
Contrast this with the problems of learning the identity of a designer. Showing that Susan did not bake a cake does not support the idea that Richard did, because Ann, Mark and Kathy may have done so as well.
Regarding the “unidentified designer”, that is not a postulated option but a refusal to postulate an option because of insufficient knowledge. Leaving a gap unfilled is not a gap argument. A gap argument is an inappropriate effort to fill a gap when knowledge is inadequate.
Your objection about there being multiple blind forces to deal with is proving to have a lot of nuance. I’ll comment on it tomorrow.
What is ID doing to remedy this so that it has sufficient knowledge?
Bob O’H @42
This is a fairly popular argument but I’ve never been able to connect with it. Knowledge is not an entitlement. We gain as much knowledge as we can and I personally am grateful for it.
A similar situation exists with regard to the multiverse. I think there are good arguments against it but I’ve never heard anybody say that it couldn’t be true because scientists can’t identify the universes in it.
Still working on a response to 42. It’s very interesting. I’ve got a lot on my plate though.
Correction. My last response was to 46, not 42.
BO’H: we KNOW the empirically effective source of FSCO/I. It is not — repeat, NOT — a gaps argument to infer from reliable sign to signified cause. The living cell has codes, algorithms, so language, molecular nanotech execution machinery etc, in exceedingly complex form implementing a von Neumann, kinematic self-replicator. The known adequate cause for language applied to codes and algorithms is not in doubt, it is intelligently directed configuration. Whodunit is an onward question but on the first question, that tweredun, the matter is clear. Especially as no one has shown an empirically efficacious cause of codes and algorithms etc apart from language using intelligence. Those who try to substitute inadequate cause for known adequate cause are the real ones trying to advance an unwarranted claim. often, by trying to push ideological censorship on inductive inference, as say Lewontin documented. KF