Creationism vs Evolution live debate tonight

[Chinook]

If you envisage it's possible to define all causes of all events, you will reach the point where everything is predictable so future would become predictable and certain. The fact you can predict future will make you take actions to avoid the bad outcomes... These actions will create another predictable future etc etc...

Nah, knowlegde and ignorance are both conditions which can be accounted for. Meaning that you can't change the future, only change what you thought would be the future. You'd probably make the mistake of believing a certain thing would happen erroneously, as your own state of mind would be in flux processing information. Outside observers would probably be able to tell.

[Chinook]

I agree with Hawking's stance on philosophy vs science, and proximate mechanisms are just temporary place holders for the inevitable distal mechanism that everyone seems to ignore. To put it plainly, an uncaused cause is required to believe in creation. Eventually that's where you end up, and it's a paradox and a double standard.

You cannot test "creation" as it infers, by necessity "creator".

That "outside the system" is just another system. It's like saying a fish aquarium is a system and my living room is outside of it, and that because the fish exist in an aquarium, someone must have put them there. But you cannot stop there and call it done. Who put them there and who put that person there to do that?

Basically you're just moving the problem to another dimension to dismiss it with the wave on the ontological hand.


This part I agree with, with the caveat that there's no empirical evidence for creation in the cosmological argument arena. There's no precedence to use to even know what to consider as evidence if it did exist. We can posit a large number of things and call them possibilities but not know whether or not they are actually possible. For some reason many people seem to consider ignorance a sign of a possibility, as if not knowing increases odds or reality.

Not for you, but just as an example:

My keys are in my pants pocket. If I didn't know that, and I started looking for my keys, what's the possibility that my keys are anywhere other than in my pants pocket? Zero... but people don't seem to move that way. They instead remain ignorant and consider that "keeping my options open".

Going backwards in replies.

I agree that there is a truth out there that is not subjective and that people who think the mystery supports their view aren't being truthful. I however believe that any belief in the origin of existence is fine to have so long as it doesn't affect reason. Like believe in God if you want, but don't impede science by quoting the bible. I think it's possible to be a theist who believes in science and reason as muchas anyone else.

Universes are special in the sense they each contain their own time and space. So anything we believe that depends on those concepts doesn't have to apply outside universes. That includes the ideas of origin and ending.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand what Hawkins means. What's the distal mechanism, and how does believing in it avoid infinite regression?

[DMC]

In theory it could have always existed, as it's outside time and space. If there's no time, there's no beginning.

So how did a non spatial/temporal whatever cause an event without the requirement of time, and where did the matter and energy come from? Time is the temporal space between events, so from the initiation, there was time for both the causer and the caused. For the causer, there was time since it initiated, and for the caused, time since being initiated. So from that the non temporal whatever just became temporal, which means it was always temporal... which is a paradox.

[SupremeGuy]

So what created that other dimension?

lol Dude, I know it's hard for people to comprehend, but it's possible that certain things have no beginning or end. Even the concept of infinity is relatively new.

[DMC]

Going backwards in replies.

I agree that there is a truth out there that is not subjective and that people who think the mystery supports their view aren't being truthful. I however believe that any belief in the origin of existence is fine to have so long as it doesn't affect reason. Like believe in God if you want, but don't impede science by quoting the bible. I think it's possible to be a theist who believes in science and reason as muchas anyone else.

Universes are special in the sense they each contain their own time and space. So anything we believe that depends on those concepts doesn't have to apply outside universes. That includes the ideas of origin and ending.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand what Hawkins means. What's the distal mechanism, and how does believing in it avoid infinite regression?

The distal mechanism (or distal cause) is the primary cause. The proximate cause is what caused the observed event. The two can be the same, but in your response I gather that they aren't necessarily the same. It doesn't avoid infinite regression but then neither does your suggestion. Applying a magic event cannot relieve the need for a distal cause and right now, the other realm is simply magical fairy dust.

Universes don't exist. Everything we know if exists in this universe. Everything else is science fiction. Otherwise, cite an example of another universe where our time and space aren't relevant. If you cannot, then why pretend they exist? Occam's razor... parsimony..pretty much dissuades inferring things such as this before less complex scenarios can be eliminated.

It's basically impossible to believe in scientific process and God at the same time unless you are delusional. Those are two opposed world views where one stipulates a set of inescapable truths and the other an escape route.

[DMC]

lol Dude, I know it's hard for people to comprehend, but it's possible that certain things have no beginning or end. Even the concept of infinity is relatively new.

Give an example of an infinite thing that's not merely a concept.

[Chinook]

So how did a non spatial/temporal whatever cause an event without the requirement of time, and where did the matter and energy come from? Time is the temporal space between events, so from the initiation, there was time for both the causer and the caused. For the causer, there was time since it initiated, and for the caused, time since being initiated. So from that the non temporal whatever just became temporal, which means it was always temporal... which is a paradox.

I feel ya. How can events happen without time? I'm not going to pretend any answer I give will be sufficient, since I neither came up with this theory nor understand its proofs. I'd guess that being in that high of a dimension means time in the sense we think of it doesn't apply to it. Since the fifth dimension is supposedly all possible flows of time running concurrently on a grid, I imagine that by the time you get up to 11, things like loops or spaced events are irrelevent. But I dunno. I can't even wrap my head around the sixth to tenth dimensions.

[Reck]

Damn this thread took off.

Congrats Suspect

[SupremeGuy]

Give an example of an infinite thing that's not merely a concept.

Of course all you're going to get is concepts; doesn't mean it's impossible though.

Haven't read through the thread, but would you mind clarifying me on your beliefs?

[DMC]

I feel ya. How can events happen without time? I'm not going to pretend any answer I give will be sufficient, since I neither came up with this theory nor understand its proofs. I'd guess that being in that high of a dimension means time in the sense we think of it doesn't apply to it. Since the fifth dimension is supposedly all possible flows of time running concurrently on a grid, I imagine that by the time you get up to 11, things like loops or spaced events are irrelevent. But I dunno. I can't even wrap my head around the sixth to tenth dimensions.

So we end up with an argument from ignorance (no offense, you know what that means) which is no argument at all really.

[DMC]

Of course all you're going to get is concepts; doesn't mean it's impossible though.

Haven't read through the thread, but would you mind clarifying me on your beliefs?

Flying spaghetti monster, purple unicorns on a planet with a soda fountain stream in another time dimension... it's called science fiction.

Beliefs? I am atheist by necessity. I don't hold any god beliefs. I'm a secularist, but not through effort to become one. It's the lack of anything to cause any other condition. I'm not cardboard though, and I acknowledge emotional issues just like anyone else, and I would and will struggle with the concept of mortality in myself and in others around me just like everyone else... I just cannot bring myself to pretend an answer exists that's just unknowable without faith and I have no interest in forced belief through cognitive dissonance with god belief and pragmatism.

[Chinook]

The distal mechanism (or distal cause) is the primary cause. The proximate cause is what caused the observed event. The two can be the same, but in your response I gather that they aren't necessarily the same. It doesn't avoid infinite regression but then neither does your suggestion. Applying a magic event cannot relieve the need for a distal cause and right now, the other realm is simply magical fairy dust.

Universes don't exist. Everything we know if exists in this universe. Everything else is science fiction. Otherwise, cite an example of another universe where our time and space aren't relevant. If you cannot, then why pretend they exist? Occam's razor... parsimony..pretty much dissuades inferring things such as this before less complex scenarios can be eliminated.

It's basically impossible to believe in scientific process and God at the same time unless you are delusional. Those are two opposed world views where one stipulates a set of inescapable truths and the other an escape route.

To me, the disagreement would be over the universe is an open or closed system. If you believe it's closed, you can do all science no matter what you guess is outside the system. Also remember science is only one type of knowledge system. And it's the weakest at that.

True. Don't forget Occam's razor is a guideline and not a law. Just because it's the most simple explanation doesn't make it the right one. While the assumption that there are parallel universes just like ours is science fiction, the idea what whatever caused this universe to come into being caused other universes to come into being is worth investigation.

A magic event is no less believable than an non-magical event that goes against everything we've observed. At some point the CCP has to break down, and it seems it would break easiest outside the universe.

[DMC]

To me, the disagreement would be over the universe is an open or closed system. If you believe it's closed, you can do all science no matter what you guess is outside the system. Also remember science is only one type of knowledge system. And it's the weakest at that.

True. Don't forget Occam's razor is a guideline and not a law. Just because it's the most simple explanation doesn't make it the right one. While the assumption that there are parallel universes just like ours is science fiction, the idea what whatever caused this universe to come into being caused other universes to come into being is worth investigation.

A magic event is no less believable than an non-magical event that goes against everything we've observed. At some point the CCP has to break down, and it seems it would break easiest outside the universe.

It seems to me that "outside the universe" doesn't exist. So you're just saying it's easier to say magic did it than to accept we still don't know.

That's why I used the word "dissuades" instead of "prohibits". When the suggested answer is paranormal, it's not really an answer at all until we learn that the paranormal exists. It just means we haven't turned enough rocks over. As we learn about our universe, we will get closer to understanding it's origins, but there's no need to put a toad or small dwarf in our stomachs to explain a virus, unless you want to use the toad or small dwarf as a place holder for "virus".

If the universe is an open system, then you regress again. A necessary cause is still a necessary cause, despite the size of the system. I personally view space as open, because matter cannot move otherwise, however that space is defined by matter and energy so we have a problem with terminology and understanding based on it. Unfortunately we think in concepts and speak in words.

[Brazil]

Nah, knowlegde and ignorance are both conditions which can be accounted for. Meaning that you can't change the future, only change what you thought would be the future. You'd probably make the mistake of believing a certain thing would happen erroneously, as your own state of mind would be in flux processing information. Outside observers would probably be able to tell.

I believe both of us are converging at the same conclusion. Despite going deeper in the understanding of all causality if you can't change the future it's because it is not perfectly predictable.

[mouse]

ok then how old in your mind is earth ? if your altess is kind enough to answer the question. Apparently you are smarter than MIT dudes and I'm no MIT dude so I'm not sure a simple mind like me can understand a grand mind like you but it is worth the try.

after all you are telling it the best: "But from time to time I try not to forget my online fans and debate in forum's like ST (to show after my huge ego I can still get along with the commoners)"

Hey bro I have to finish these two audits so I can kick back this weekend but search evolution in the club and you will see the same replies I gave back then.

[Brazil]

Yes, these are the paradoxes I referred to. It's not that everything cannot be known, it's that we don't have the capacity to access it at once and make decisions based on it. Some thing a creator does, but then that just makes another paradox. At some point along that path many folks pitch an epistemological tent and there they reside.

And we come back at the notion of circle that has no beginning and no end

[Brazil]

Hey bro I have to finish these two audits so I can kick back this weekend but search evolution in the club and you will see the same replies I gave back then.

Will do

[mouse]

Will do

this site doesn't have the archive forum anymore but i found this on Google

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...223233&page=34

[Chinook]

I believe both of us are converging at the same conclusion. Despite going deeper in the understanding of all causality if you can't change the future it's because it is not perfectly predictable.

Sounds like Gödel's incompleteness theorem to me. I certainly can agree there. But I see that as a flaw of individual systems to.contain all knowledge, not of there being some completely unobtajnablew knowledge.

[pgardn]

lol "debunking my facts".

Gee, I wonder why the MIT folks don't dive right into that.

Mouse may be the least thoughtful poster in this thread, yet he imagines himself as some sort of rational arbiter of the truth. Mr. Mysticism, and proud of it. Amazing confidence backed by zero understanding of evolution... and most likely so much more.

[DMC]

And we come back at the notion of circle that has no beginning and no end

It depends on what angle you view it.

[Chinook]

It seems to me that "outside the universe" doesn't exist. So you're just saying it's easier to say magic did it than to accept we still don't know.

That's why I used the word "dissuades" instead of "prohibits". When the suggested answer is paranormal, it's not really an answer at all until we learn that the paranormal exists. It just means we haven't turned enough rocks over. As we learn about our universe, we will get closer to understanding it's origins, but there's no need to put a toad or small dwarf in our stomachs to explain a virus, unless you want to use the toad or small dwarf as a place holder for "virus".

If the universe is an open system, then you regress again. A necessary cause is still a necessary cause, despite the size of the system. I personally view space as open, because matter cannot move otherwise, however that space is defined by matter and energy so we have a problem with terminology and understanding based on it. Unfortunately we think in concepts and speak in words.

I believe the universe is closed, and therefore, we don't need to posit anything outside of it to understand it. So if I believe that a God programmed the universe to run and then completely left it alone, and you believe there is nothing outside this universe, we can still investigate the truths of the universe on equal footing. Since only deals with how's, so our different views on why wouldn't interfere.

Agree.

I think it's easier to believe something set the universe in motion than it is to think nothing did. We've discussed why a lot. There are possible explanations that can negotate both the singularity of the universe and the need to determine the origin, but I feel it's simpler to assume that whatever caused the universe was outside it. You're right that that's just another turtle, but I feel once we get outside the universe (intellectually speaking), conditions are sufficiently different for us to reevaluate the concepts of beginning and ending.

[Chinook]

Mouse may be the least thoughtful poster in this thread, yet he imagines himself as some sort of rational arbiter of the truth. Mr. Mysticism, and proud of it. Amazing confidence backed by zero understanding of evolution... and most likely so much more.

It's crazy that religous folk could let go of geocentricism but still act like the bible is counter evidence to evolution. They've already accepted the bible contained false scientific information due to it be written by folks thousands of years ago who didn't know any better once. Yet they act like nothing else in Genesis can be questioned.

[DMC]

I believe the universe is closed, and therefore, we don't need to posit anything outside of it to understand it. So if I believe that a God programmed the universe to run and then completely left it alone, and you believe there is nothing outside this universe, we can still investigate the truths of the universe on equal footing. Since only deals with how's, so our different views on why wouldn't interfere.

Agree.

I think it's easier to believe something set the universe in motion than it is to think nothing did. We've discussed why a lot. There are possible explanations that can negotate both the singularity of the universe and the need to determine the origin, but I feel it's simpler to assume that whatever caused the universe was outside it. You're right that that's just another turtle, but I feel once we get outside the universe (intellectually speaking), conditions are sufficiently different for us to reevaluate the concepts of beginning and ending.

I have a problem with your use of the word "believe" from an epistemological sense. I don't believe either of the two things you suggested, and if I'd said I do it's misstated and I'd like to retract it. I don't hold a belief of what I don't know to be true. I am open minded to a degree on suggestions, but not so open my brain falls out. The suggestion has to be in the realm of reason. I cannot make a magical bridge then decide what's on the other side of that bridge that doesn't obey known laws and reason. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying I cannot accept that it does or even that it might without compelling evidence (even if that evidence is a different path to get there that I never realized exists). The bridge itself presents a road block that I cannot get around as long as it's magical.

[Chinook]

I have a problem with your use of the word "believe" from an epistemological sense. I don't believe either of the two things you suggested, and if I'd said I do it's misstated and I'd like to retract it. I don't hold a belief of what I don't know to be true. I am open minded to a degree on suggestions, but not so open my brain falls out. The suggestion has to be in the realm of reason. I cannot make a magical bridge then decide what's on the other side of that bridge that doesn't obey known laws and reason. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying I cannot accept that it does or even that it might without compelling evidence (even if that evidence is a different path to get there that I never realized exists). The bridge itself presents a road block that I cannot get around as long as it's magical.

Sorry. Semantics. Although I will say that all science is belief and the only things that can be known are relations of ideas. I wasn't trying to hold you down to a strong, close-minded atheistic view, and I apologize for the confusion.

I was speaking generally that atheistic and theistic views can coexist if the universe is closed. Even if you think those holding a belief in god have an irrational stance, that doesn't prevent them from being rational scientists if they still believe in the CCP. Essentially no one really assumes the causal road goes on forever, so taking side bets for what's at the end of it shouldn't prevent trying to get there.