« God Took His Own Medicine | Main | How Ancient Eyewitness Testimony Became the New Testament Gospel Record »

December 13, 2013

Comments

If the scientific consensus is correct and humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor about 6 million years ago, then it is not surprising that genetic differences exist between humans and chimps. The same could be said about the domestic cat and the cheetah or the domestic dog and the red fox. Even most creationists would agree that the domestic dog and the red fox share a common ancestor. Yet humans share a greater percentage of their DNA in common with chimpanzees than the domestic dog shares in common with the red fox.
(To view this link, cut and paste the next 2 lines together into one URL:
http://wooferhouse.net/Links/MolecularEvolutionOfTheDogFamily
/MolecularEvolutionOfTheDogFamily.htm )

If humans do not share a common ancestor with chimps, then one must provide a more plausible explanation for endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). See here for a simple explanation of what endogenous retroviruses are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s

Endogenous retroviruses provide a very strong argument for common ancestry among various species. Humans share more ERVs with primates than with other mammals. Humans share more ERVs with the great apes than they do with other primates. Humans share more ERVs with chimpanzees than they do with gorillas or orangutans. And humans share more ERVs with other humans than they do with chimpanzees. This allows us to construct a line of genetic descent into the past. ERVs is only one strand of evidence for common descent of humans and chimpanzees. Other strands include transposons and pseudogenes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

Thus, discoveries of genetic differences between chimps and humans do not undermine evolution. There is a simple way to undermine common descent for humans and chimps - find one ERV shared by humans and monkeys, but not shared by humans and chimpanzees. This discovery would undermine the idea that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. To date no such ERVs have been found.

This is silly, really. Of course species on this planet have a common starting point.

God.

I mean....no one is even questioning the idea of common origin.

All the evidence fits quite well.

Whether we speak of the generation of life from life, of the obvious common set of fingerprints within all species, of the obviously start-point of a universe, of the clearly temporal effect we call time, or of, well, whatever, naturalism is just wholly unable to account for anything. At each turn it ends with appeals to blind, inexplicable axiom, and this it does despite evidence which speaks against it in all of the above arenas.


"No, no, child, no need to worry about the evidence. Just trust us. Naturalism is the correct construct."


The inability of this universe to self-account, to account for anything, is why Hawking and the Theist agree that we need to exit Time and Material all together and enter into the Timeless, Immaterial, Ever-Actual, Unchanging Necessary and Sufficient Cause of All-Effects.


Both know that the necessary and sufficient cause of all effects, such as space and time, stands ever-actual. Hawking trades away the obvious construct of Cosmic Intent which all evidence therein regresses to, and, because he is committed to naturalism, and not willing to follow the evidence wherever it shall lead, foists, again in blind axiom, his imaginary spheres, his make-believe, immeasurable, un-testable, and un-falsifiable Timeless, Immaterial Everlasting, Unchanging, Ever-Actual Necessary and Sufficient Cause of All-Effects. He is slowly catching up to Genesis 1:1, only, he kicks against the Cosmic Intention found therein, despite the evidence.


Whereas, the Christian, in all of the above, and, also, in every bit of brutally repeatable moral experience tasted within this clearly contingent observational matrix, need only follow the evidence on all of the afore mentioned fronts into one, all encompassing TOE.


It is an interesting observation that “E Pluribus Unum” as the supreme Ethic is outright forfeited by Atheist’s own ontological grounds on prescriptive necessity, as we saw in the incoherence of Sam Harris’ moral landscape. We find that Love’s E Pluribus Unum just is innately triune, for such just is Self-Other-Us in Unity’s singularity, and such is out of reach on necessity in atheism’s prescriptive of Indifference as its supreme A and its supreme Z.

Therein, Love as the supreme Ethic becomes incoherent with all of atheism’s other words for the supreme Ethic ceases to be E Pluribus Unum, on ontological necessity – yet - they will see, and claim to see, all around them, from Genomic Parasites all the way up to pan-world Symbiotic Ecosystems, the fingerprints of Unity’s Delight filling up every crevice from A to Z as all of fractured physicality testifies of E Pluribus Unum. “Altruism in the Village!” shouts the atheistic geneticist as his descriptive, all the while forfeiting his ontological prescriptive, and, therein he never actually sees the A to Z which scripture presents, and has in point of fact claimed never to have seen evidence for such, all the while holding the evidence in his hand as he shouts “Altruism in the Village!”. He holds the evidence in his hands. It’s right there, in his microscope, as all of fractured physicality testifies to him.

Yes, indeed, we see, and we claim to see, all around us, from Genomic Parasites all the way up to pan-world Symbiotic Ecosystems, and, of course, all the way into our brutally repeatable moral experiences here inside of this clearly contingent observational matrix, all the handiwork of Uncreated E Pluribus Unum.



In this season Mr. Mandela is remembered for his self-sacrifice, as Good is Good in all possible worlds. “Through his act of intense open-heartedness, he was to become the embodiment of what in South Africa we call Ubuntu. ‘I am -- because of you.’”

Ubuntu is a beautiful — and old — concept. According to Wikipedia, at its most basic, Ubuntu can be translated as “human kindness,” but its meaning is much bigger in scope than that — it embodies the ideas of connection, community, and mutual caring for all. Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee once defined using slightly different words than Varty: “I am what I am because of who we all are.””

If we ask what sort of physicality Uncreated E Pluribus Unum would fashion, we would expect to find Unity’s singularity of the innately triune Self-Other-Us laced all throughout every fiber and every nuance of His created physicality.


And, of course, as expected, we find evidence of such topography everywhere, as Love Himself creates His Own parasites, from A to Z.


That is what Love does.


Of course, here inside of what Scripture defines as the Outside, as Hell on Earth, as Non-Unity, as e pluribus unum in fragmentation, we expect to find all such fibers and nuances just as we do: in fractured physicality.

“He Creates the universe, already foreseeing---(or should we say seeing; there are no tenses in God) --- the buzzing cloud of flies about the cross….. God is a host who deliberately creates His own parasites; causes us to be that we may exploit and take advantage of Him. Herein is love. This is the diagram of Love Himself, the inventor of all loves.” C.S. Lewis

This is proof that evidence and data do nothing to prove or disprove our presuppositions. Plausibility must account for all data, every bit of it, and provide something better than the incoherent start-stops of blind axiom.

Ubuntu is data, evidence, of, well, of something. Given the tiring list of blind axioms which naturalism must embrace on all fronts, the notion of plausibility still remains entirely in favor of Genesis 1:1, from genomic parasites all the way up to pan-world symbiotic ecosystems, and, all the way, yet still, to the beginning of life, and, yet further, to the beginning of universes.

God is a Host Who deliberately creates His Own parasites. How could Uncreated Love create any other sort of life? Trees are parasites. We are. And so on, ad infinitum, all the way up to the End of Ad Infinitum, there at the feet of God, the Immutable and necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum, Love's Self-Other-Us in Unity's singularity.

In response to Caleb (many others have raised ERVs on this blog too). There are 2 issues. 1) ERVs don't fit the design hypothesis, because they are leftover viral fragments, and do not serve a purpose. 2) ERVs provide a good means of testing and falsifying evolution.

A few thoughts...

-------------------
Issue 1:

Those blocks of genetic code that are hypothesized to be ERVs (because they share commonalities with viral sequences) do indeed serve a functional purpose:

The sheep genome contains 27 endogenous retroviruses (enJSRVs) related to the pathogenic Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus (JSRV), the causative agent of a transmissible lung cancer in sheep. enJSRVs are able to protect their host against JSRV infection by blocking different steps of the viral replication cycle. In addition, enJSRVs are absolutely required for sheep placental development.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19845636

Granted, the authors of that article still believe evolution to be the source, but the point is that the sequences we call 'ERVs' still fit as a design feature.


-------------------
Issue 2:

There is a simple way to undermine common descent for humans and chimps - find one ERV shared by humans and monkeys, but not shared by humans and chimpanzees. -

That sounds reasonable. If ERVs are indeed tracers of ancient infections, then all descendents of the infected ancestor should have that ERV sequence. So we should also be able to falsify human/chimp common descent by finding an ERV shared by chimps and gorillas, but not humans. Such a finding would mean that chimps and gorillas do not share a common ancestor with humans, after all, right?

Here we go:
Barbulescu, et al. "A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans." Current Biology (2001).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982201002275

Their conclusion: common descent is not falsified. Rather, most of the human genome is more closely related to chimps, and that some portions are more closely related to gorillas. I have a hard time following their reasoning (I'm an engineer, not a biologist), but they think it's because this particular ERV was actively infecting around the time when human, chimp, and gorilla lineages diverged.

Maybe their hypothesis makes sense, but my point is-- the possible falsification raised by Caleb is not really means of falsifying common descent, because as soon as falsifying evidence is found, brilliant minds immediately seek creative means for fitting the evidence into their understanding of the world.

It's not dishonest, and it doesn't disprove evolution. It just means that scientists, like the rest of us, are doing their best to make sense of this complicated world.

It does mean, however, that 'falsification' is not as straightforward as the talk.origins FAQ would have you believe.

Fetus.

Parasite.

To be extracted.

Like a virus.

It's not there by intent.

It only takes.

Your entire presupposition of naturalism is wholly incoherent with reality, and is even contrary to the evidence.

Typo.

"Your" should be "The....."

Yes, chimps and humans have a number of genetic differences. For example, the chimp has 24 pairs of chromosomes. The human, on the other hand, has 23 pairs of chromosomes because tow of the chromosomes that the chimp has fused into one somewhere along the human branch of the Tree of Life.

Pointing to the genomes of these two species as evidence against common descent is like using Custer's Last Stand as an example of superb cavalry tactics.

scblhrm

"Your entire presupposition of naturalism is wholly incoherent with reality, and is even contrary to the evidence"

Show how, with working.

I bet you cant even come up with a decent working definition of reality.

Seriously, drop the word salad. I mean take this "This is proof that evidence and data do nothing to prove or disprove our presuppositions." - srsly wut?

On definition the fetus is DNA of a purely parasitical nature.

That is your problem to explain away.

Not God's, nor ours who know the reality of what such things are.

TGS,

If you think the presupposition of, anything, has been proven or disproven, do tell how.

Naturalism?

Theism?

I'm granting that you know what "presupposition" implies.....

Mitochondria.

Fetus.

E Pluribus Unum.

Presupposition anyone? ~~~

Necessary & Sufficient Cause of the effect Space-Time is ever actual - the effect isn't.

Cosmic Intention. Physical systems.

Presuppositions anyone? ~~~

"On definition the fetus is DNA of a purely parasitical nature"

I dont mean to be mean, but that's a steaming pile of rubbish. Cite where anyone intelligent has said this.

I still don't understand what your basic issue is, so if you could explain that in simple and easy language that would be useful. Please include your definition of "reality"

If you believe that the Fetus is not feeding off of Mom, using Mom, and possibly harming Mom, well, then you believe the Fetus is not parasitical in nature.

I disagree.

And so too with Mitocondria.


Any luck proving or disproving a presupposition?

Oh ok, you think foetuses are parasites?

Mitochondria aren't parasites either, unless your definition of parasite varies from that used in biology.

I really have no idea where you are going with this.

Everything is parasitical in nature.

All life.

From A to Z.


Any proof there for the ontology of, presuppositions of, E Pluribus Unum, eluded to earlier?

For the presupposition of Naturalism?

Both?

I'm trying to see if you see [Parasite] = [Naturalism] as exclusionary truth?

It's "alluded" to and I think you are 6 cans short of a six pack. Make a point, in English, please

I have not the first clue what you are on about. And my informed hunch is that neither do you.

It alludes to naturalism's coherence?

Really?


I can see, given your presupposition, why you would have have such a belief.

TGS,

It's a weakness. Let's try this instead:


It alludes to naturalism's coherence?

Really?


I can see, given your presupposition, why you would have such a belief.

And so too with Mitocondria

Mitochondria are not parasites. In fact, they are the antithesis of parasites. Instead of leeching energy for the host cell, they generate it.

Everything is parasitical in nature. All life. From A to Z.

No, it is not. What is your working definition of a parasite because it differs from everyone else's?

For example, how are cyanobacteria parasitical in nature?

They don't take from the host?

Everything takes.

On necessity.

We may speak of Immutable Love filling the sort of gap you are speaking of AJG; that of only giving, as, relative to a created something, there is no other relationship He could have with it, other than debasement, humuliation, on His end.

But, in the created, we just don't find it. Will may do such a thing in a moment of time, dying for a friend, and so forth.

But, in naturalism, I see no reason to believe in intention.

None at all.

There just isn't any observed behavior of material stuff doing such a thing.

Everything takes.

Well, of course, the verb "take" is used in an unusual, illogical, fashion here given that we are granting the presupposition of naturalism.

E Pluribus Unum?

Presuppositions anyone?

I still don't have any idea how to prove or disprove a presupposition.

AJG,

Cyanobacteria do not take?

You mean like an uncaused cause?

A to Z.

AJG,

It is interesting. Your arbitrary definition of give/take seems to assume a magical disconnect from the universe at large. As if cascading photons here are, inexplicably, different from, and, disconnected from, cascading photons out there.

While you may wish to slice up actuality into fake pockets, reality just isn't set up that way.

I see no anything in this universe that is not pushed around in "giving" or in "taking". We use those verbs a bit illogically given that we are granting the presupposition of naturalism.

How am I any different than a virus?

Genome is the bottom of reality?

Hardly, AJG. That is, assuming we grant your presupposition.

I know you don't like A to Z determinism, but you are stuck with it.


I see no difference, in real terms, from a tree or me or you or a virus or a monkey or an astroid or a galaxy, given that we are granting the presupposition of naturalism.

How is it exactly that you or I are different than a virus?

Another arbitrary definition?

No thanks.

Universes reproduce too, or, are born, too. They don't just come out of nothing, you know.


Presuppositions......

Define "the presupposition of naturalism".

Define "reality".

Then maybe we can find out what your beef is.

Oh, and go and look up symbiosis while you are at it.

Any luck proving or disproving a presupposition?

Honestly, scblhrm. I have no idea what you're talking about 95% of the time. I think you intentionally wrap yourself in the cloak of obscurity sometimes in order to make your argument seem stronger than it is.

Cyanobacteria do not take?

They generate ATP through photosynthesis using water and sunlight. I'd hardly call that "taking". Rather, they transform molecules to other molecules through chemical reactions. Matter is neither created nor destroyed (conservation of mass), it is merely reordered. I'd hardly call that parasitism unless you're worried about the poor photons.

Anyway, this will be my last response. We're way off topic now.

"Honestly, scblhrm. I have no idea what you're talking about 95% of the time. I think you intentionally wrap yourself in the cloak of obscurity sometimes in order to make your argument seem stronger than it is."

This.

"Any luck proving or disproving a presupposition?"

I'm not sure I understand the question. All systems of acquiring knowledge rest on axioms, philosophically speaking. Maths does, science does, religion does, logic does, philosophy does.

Yes, TGS, that is whay I commented that we cannot prove and disprove the presupposition of naturalism / theism. I'm not sure how one would go about doing so in either of those arenas.

Yet, you took issue with that comment.

Therefore, I assumed you disagreed.

I am assuming you feel the presupposition of Naturalism can be proven.

I disagree.

Especially when it comes to such things in juxtaposition with the expected behavior of all things within the context of E Pluribus Unum, and, that context in fragmentation, as perceived reality equates perfectly with what we expect to find based on Scripture in all such contexts, from A to Z.


"As perceived reality equates perfectly with what we expect to find based on Scripture in all such contexts, from A to Z."

Rubbish. So your argument is "science relies on axioms that you can't prove, I love my brand of religion, so scripture wins"

The fact that you have typed that on some connected device has broken my irony meter. The fact that the same accusation you level at science applies to religion has the same effect.

What you ignore, to your peril, is the fact that science makes no ontological claim. When people say that x, y or z in science is true, they mean colloquially, I.e said description is in agreement with phenomena. Religion seeks Truth; but seeing as you can't prove/disprove it's axioms, where does that leave you?

It leaves us on equal footing, of course.

Said description in scripture is in agreement with perceived reality.

And that's enough.

Right?

"Said description in scripture is in agreement with perceived reality."

Rubbish. Scripture is inaccurate in all sorts of ways. And please don't drip on about context.

Did you read my post? Did you understand it?

Science isn't there to show that the bible or any other religious text is true (colloquial sense). Science doesn't care. Science doesn't support your brand of mythology because it deals with phenomena. So no, it doesn't leave science and you on an equal footing. It leaves science providing useable useful knowledge (like the device you are typing on) and you clutching at straws, hoping that goats copulating in front of sticks will produce striped offspring.

TGS,

You seem to be resistant to the idea that plausibility lies within agreement with perceived reality. If coherence with perceived reality is enough, then so it is, and whatever coherent descriptive-prescriptive provides the most comprehensive explanation of our brutally repeatable experiences within this contingent observational matrix which we call the universe is, ipso facto, the truth of the matter. New information may come in, but, we will have to wait to change definitions, for, if we do not wait, and over-reach, then we leave evidence behind and stand in simple presupposition. From the beginning of this universe, to intention within physical systems, to life from non-life, well, to a whole laundry list of fascinating arenas, we find that all fits quite well, given the perceived evidence, within Theism’s Cause and Intention constructs, and therein we leave materialism behind us. Hawking is leaving Time and Material as he catches up to Genesis 1:1 over there in the Timeless Immaterial. Of course, the Theist here has not had to change any definitions here, whereas, the naturalist has. The list is too long in arenas like these where we can go to find our coherent pan-world singular TOE which enjoys the most all-encompassing explanatory power.



It is a common straw-man to set up "religion vs. science". Yawn. Mind's perceptions are mind's perceptions. You seem to think science is somehow, by the theist, charged with proving theism correct. But why would you think that? No one that I know thinks that is the job of science. In fact, we find just the opposite. We find in E Pluribus Unum no good reason to fear mastering physicality, for, we find within the contextually triune landscape of E Pluribus Unum the proper and good use of Mind being expressly this: to subdue and master the physical world, to tend to it, to nurture it. But you have not given me any reason to believe we should be doing so, knowledge housing no innate worth that you have shown me. It seems necessarily good for me to be dissecting physicality and building laptops, though I am afraid I cannot say the same for the comment which Necessary Indifference will, necessarily, make on such an appeal of yours. And you did appeal to such.


Because you actually do agree with theism on this point about knowledge, all the while disagreeing with your own self-invented straw-man.



It seems you just want to argue with your own inventions. But why would you want to invent a fake reality?

The real reality is far more interesting, especially since perceived reality aligns with the expected behavior of things within the context given by E Pluribus Unum as well as the context of such in fragmentation.

The theist enjoys just going along with the evidence. For instance, I perceive intention within myself and others. I find in no physical systems the necessary emancipation to account for such. Now, perceived reality is intention, and, this seems to agree with the evidence we also find for Cosmic Intention at the beginning of the effect that is space-time. The ever-actual, necessary and sufficient cause of space-time does not always cause the effect space-time. Well, we have measurable, observable data in such relations among Cause-Effect within our own kitchen, for, I may lift a fork now, but not then, and so on.


It’s measurable. Repeatable. Falsifiable.


And, best of all, it is what mind perceives.


And that is enough.


Genomic parasites allude to the truth of E Pluribus Unum's ontology, as described earlier, as such is what we expect such a One as He to fashion, on necessity, from A to Z.

"I find in no physical systems the necessary emancipation to account for such. Now, perceived reality is intention, and, this seems to agree with the evidence we also find for Cosmic Intention at the beginning of the effect that is space-time. The ever-actual, necessary and sufficient cause of space-time does not always cause the effect space-time."

All another word salad. Inedible. I've just quoted the best-worst bit.. You have no idea what you are talking about. I have even less clue what you are talking about.

Really?

That's too bad ~~~ could'a been fun.

The theist enjoys just going along with the evidence. For instance, I perceive intention within myself and others. I find in no physical systems the necessary emancipation to account for such. Now, perceived reality is intention, and, this seems to agree with the evidence we also find for Cosmic Intention at the beginning of the effect that is space-time. The ever-actual, necessary and sufficient cause of space-time does not always cause the effect space-time. Well, we have measurable, observable data in such relations among Cause-Effect within our own kitchen, for, I may lift a fork now, but not then, and so on.


It’s measurable. Repeatable. Falsifiable.


And, best of all, it is what mind perceives.


And that is enough.

“Science makes no ontological claim”

Yet the entire appeal in topics such as this thread’s topic behind both Genome (in and of itself) and Parasitical behavior (in and of itself) appeal to science as alluding to naturalism.

Some, given their presupposition, assume that A living off of, in, B, alludes to Naturalism.

But they give us no reason to believe this, nor do they give us any logical negation of Man’s own ipso facto parasitical behavior living off of, by, in, God. God cannot gain, He can only, relative to Man, pour out. These folks never tell us why they ignore this property of the ontology of E Pluribus Unum, of Uncreated Love, there inside of the innately triune and timeless Self-Other-Us, and what this property leads us to expect within created physicality should this God, should E Pluribus Unum, fashion such nuances through and through such physicality.


Theism’s (specifically, Love’s, that is to say, E Pluribus Unum’s, that is to say, Christianity’s) expected observations are found actually observed, from A to Z in all of physicality, and, even more promising for Christianity in particular, the expected observations which that physicality in fragmentation lead us to expect to find in observations are, from A to Z, found actually observed.


The coherence of the identity claim of [Parasitical] = [E Pluribus Unum] finds its home in what logic reveals to us of Love's interior motions amid Self-Other-Us, as, within God we find that Self is timelessly poured out, emptied, and, therein, Other is timelessly poured into, filled up, as these Two Distincts necessarily beget Love’s Third Distinct, the singularity that is Unity's Us.


E Pluribus Unum.

This is even more concrete as we discover that God is, Immutable Love is, a Host Who deliberately creates His Own parasites, that they may feed off of, live on, in, Him. This is the diagram of Love, as CS Lewis reminds us, as described earlier in this thread.

Love pours out, from the highest to the lowest, from mere physicality and beyond, and in all His created delights we would be alarmed should we not discover Love's diagrams through and through. But we do find such in observed reality, and thus, we find no need for alarm. In fact, it is just the opposite: we find justification for belief.

We observe these identity claims of the ontology of E Pluribus Unum, of Christianity’s unique Unity of Self-Other-Us, of the God Who just is Love, and their justifications, everywhere in physicality, both in what we expect to see given such in un-fractured formations and in all such things in fragmentation. Something as simple and yet as elegant as Genome itself is that amalgamation of E Pluribus Unum's innately triune Self-Other-Us in simple diagram. Such is my Wife, and, it is I, and, the Child is therein Us, and so on. Perfect coherence with expectation and observation. Just as Man himself exists, parasitically, on, in, God, Man's Host, so too Man is in physicality to be yet another host, and so on ever downward, and so on ever upward. Expectation and observation in perfect coherence.

Through and through the A to Z witnesses of, echoes, depicts, Love's Ontological necessities and also such necessities in fragmentation, as the former is found expected given this ontology’s prescriptive, while the later is found expected given this ontology’s descriptive.


A singular Prescriptive-Descriptive providing this ontology’s all-encompassing TOE leaving out nothing at all, whether we speak of the moral realm, the physical realm, the emotional realm, the arena of Mind, and so on, from A to Z.


The identity claim which some make of [Parasitical Behavior = Naturalism] is void of science, for, science makes no ontological claims, and such is based only on presupposition.


The Theist and the Naturalist are therein on equal scientific footing, for, either way, “science makes no ontological claim”.


The question becomes, at this juncture, no longer a question of data, of science, but rather a question of plausibility, of coherence through and through, of capturing all of our brutally repeatable contextual experiences here within this contingent observational matrix which we call the universe.


Given what science reveals about physicality, and, given the expectations born out of Love’s Ontology in both its Prescriptive Whole and in its Descriptive of such in Fragmentation, we are, at the point of such things as Genome, Parasite, Suffering, Life from Life, Death, Symbiosis, Interconnectedness, the Drive to Master and Subdue Physicality, to Nurture it, and so on, at a point of utter satisfaction as all such perceived realities are as we expect to find them in our mind’s perceived reality. Through and through.


But we can go further. Given what science reveals to us of physical systems, we expect to find a disconnect between perceived intention within ourselves and in others and the measurable data on physicality.


And this is exactly what we do find. Not only in-here within Mind, but, also, out-there, in the observed universe. In perceived reality we, well, perceive, in our own self and in others the property of intention. And science gives to us here only data, and no identity claim. And so plausibility is left to expectations matching observed phenomenon.

There is no physical system were we find this property of intention. All is, from A to Z, cascading photons, reverberations of energy flux. Everything is, on definition, void of intention for, we observe that every Y is enslaved to its precursor X. Will is non-entity. Nothing is Free. Everything is enslaved to its precursor, every Y is but pushed around by the X, and so on.

We find in no physical systems, none, the necessary emancipation from such enslavement to account for the property of intention. We observe intention within Person, and, we observe physical systems void of such. Now, perceived reality is thus full of this property of intention, and, this perceived reality seems to agree with the evidence which we also find for Cosmic Intention, for God, at the beginning of the effect that is space-time. Hawking ignores this coherence and instead prefers to out-reach observed evidence and foist his “imaginary sphere” as the Immutable Uncaused Cause, though he agrees with Genesis 1:1 in that we must leave Time and Material behind and enter into the Timeless Immaterial.

The short-sighted “Energy just keeps changing form” leads to the absurdity of an infinite regress, and, Hawking escapes this by embracing the obvious necessity of a Timeless Immaterial Immutable. Definitions had to change for the Naturalist, though, not for the Theist. At least in the Physics of Everything. The theist though, unlike Hawking, need not invent imaginary any-things, for he need only follow the trail of observed properties. We find at the beginning of all of physicality, at the beginning of this universe, that the ever-actual, necessary and sufficient cause of space-time does not always cause the effect space-time. Such is a disconnect from the observed behavior of all material stuff, thus we, whether Atheist or Theist, leave that material stuff behind and embrace the Timeless Immaterial. Enter Plausibility: We have measurable, observable data in such relations among Cause-Effect within our own kitchen, for, I, a Person, a Necessary and Sufficient, and ever-present, Cause of Anti-Gravity, may lift a fork now, but not then, and so on. The effect need not be ever-present, though the necessary and sufficient cause is ever-present, for, the property of intention is there at the birth of physicality just as it is here within physicality.

It’s measurable. Repeatable. Falsifiable.


And, best of all, it is what mind perceives.


And that is enough.


Yet again, a sprawling stream of over verbose sentences, which form a vague resemblance to English.

You seem to have a problem with methodological naturalism forming a foundation for science. Why?

Please try not to drip on about E Pluribus Unum, because I have no idea what you are on about.
Take this snippet for instance:
"Theism’s (specifically, Love’s, that is to say, E Pluribus Unum’s, that is to say, Christianity’s) expected observations are found actually observed, from A to Z in all of physicality, and, even more promising for Christianity in particular, the expected observations which that physicality in fragmentation lead us to expect to find in observations are, from A to Z, found actually observed."

Aimless waffle. I mean what are the 'expected observations of Theism/Love/E Pluribus Unum/Christianity'??? Hilarious.

This is a wind up isnt it? I call Poe.

First you insist Science cannot make a claim on Naturalism, then, you now say that Science presupposes, in its methods, Naturalism.

It seems you just do presuppose naturalism and wish to invent a system in which Science can be your bull dog, though you know Science cannot be, for, Science makes no claims on ontology.

Why do you wish to invent such things? You give us no proof that Science can prove your presuposition, and, then, you presuppose Science to be proof of your presupposition, all the while telling us science makes no claims on ontology.

Odd.


There are all sorts of places we can go with this.

A good start is from WLC:

"Science is permeated with assumptions that cannot be scientifically proven, so that an epistemology of scientism would destroy science itself."


Naturalism, Scientism, whatever, it's easy enough to fill up with reasonable doubt, holes, intellectual gaps, cloudy assumptions, and so forth.

All the Theist need do is measure and describe perceived reality. Such needs no presupposition of anything, theism or otherwise. And why presume any of the above? We all know science makes no ontological claim.

Except that science has an excellent track record. Methodological naturalism and science works; Carid admits that (in the article I found when I googled the quote - you should really cite your sources)

So you are simply navel gazing.

"All the Theist need do is measure and describe perceived reality. Such needs no presupposition of anything, theism or otherwise."

Ha ha ha - yes it does.

Is the sun going to rise tomorrow?

Yes, and mountains skip and sing too.

It's funny. You seem unwilling to confront an ontology on its own terms.

You would rather, here, for the second time, invent a straw-man and attack it, instead.

But why invent such a fake reality?

Isn't reality, on its own, good enough?

Craig admits, concludes, what?

Excellent track record, with a few exceptions.

Such as the existence of, well, anything. And, Mind, Consciousness, Logic, Intention of thought, Intention of will, and, as Craig points to, except for the epistemology of________?

What straw man have I erected?

Define reality.

Please try and write in plain English

TGS,

I’ll give you the last word here, as it seems you merely wish to avoid discussing perceived reality and measured reality, which is as close as we can get to a definition of reality, and would rather insinuate that Theists believe that the sun rises because the bible tells us so, and so forth.

We can have a more engaging and productive back-and-forth exchange than that. It’s an unfortunate approach, which, given your adept writing skills, is clearly beneath your knowledge and skill in this area.

You’d rather speak of, argue against, a non-existent ontology which believes in dancing mountains, singing trees, and rising suns.

That you cannot see that such is a straw man is, well, it is clear you know it is, as mountains don’t sing, and so forth, though, it seems you’re not interested in the merits and pitfalls of how Theism’s ontology touches on perceived reality in the same way that we find it helpful to discuss the merits and pitfalls of how Naturalism’s ontology does the same.

It is unfortunate that you don’t wish to take on an ontological arena within, on, its own terms -- presuppositions, expected observations, actual observations, mind’s perceptions, and all.

You’d rather speak of, argue against, a non-existent ontology which believes in dancing mountains, singing trees, and rising suns.

Even the ends of science, and what it can and cannot do, you seem unwilling to discuss in any coherent fashion, for we all agree that science makes no clam on ontology and presupposes nothing. Data points do not presuppose. Persons do that. Data points merely sit there, while our minds use them to point to possible plausibility found present or lacking in our mind’s models.

It is similar, I suppose, to the "religion vs. science" thing you raised earlier as you seem to think science is somehow, by the theist, charged with proving theism correct. As mentioned before, there seems to be no reason why would you think that. No one that I know thinks that is the job of science. In fact, we find just the opposite. We find within the contextually triune landscape of E Pluribus Unum, of the God Who is Love, the proper and good use of our mind is expressly this: to subdue and master physicality, to the nth degree.


It seems to me (given your writing skill, which is quite high, despite your occasionally demeaning tone and so forth in conversation) that you do have a working knowledge of Christianity’s basic ontology. It is that God is, and, that God is Love. And, of course, God is Triune. God = Love = Triune = E Pluribus Unum = [Self-Other-Us] = Unity, and so on, which is obvious enough to me and others, let alone someone more proficient, such as yourself. It’s not hard or comlex, especially given your obvious above-average knowledge base in philosophy and such. But, of course, the fact that neither term in that string contradicts any other term in that string is not something we can discuss as, per you, it is not English, nor comprehensible, nor theistic, nor, well, and so on. It’s too bad you find that simple string too complex to understand, as many teens do, but, well, of course, I know you understand it easy enough.

You’d rather speak of, argue against, a non-existent ontology which believes in dancing mountains, singing trees, and rising suns.

The identity claim which some make of [Parasitical Behavior = Naturalism], and, the identity claim which some make of [Parasitical Behavior = E Pluribus Unum], are, both, void of science, for, science makes no ontological claims, and thus each is based only on presupposition. The Theist and the Naturalist are therein on equal scientific footing, for, either way, “science makes no ontological claim”. We agree on that. The question becomes, at that juncture, no longer a question of data, of science, but rather a question of plausibility, of coherence through and through, of capturing all of our brutally repeatable contextual experiences which our minds perceive here within this contingent observational matrix which we call the universe.

But coherence, or the lack thereof, in any ontology seems to be of no interest to you, despite the fact that the OP, this OP in this thread, is about exactly that: observed evidence and coherence (or lack thereof) with this or that presupposition.

That is supposed to be what this OP/Thread is about.

You’d rather speak of, argue against, a non-existent ontology which believes in dancing mountains, singing trees, and rising suns.

On this thread’s topic, given your presupposition, it is clear why you would have your belief, that a life feeding off of, being sustained by, another life is supposed to somehow allude to naturalism. You have to believe that as a necessary consequence of your presupposition. Another ontology is rejected by you not because it does not necessitate such a finding within physicality (which it does) but because your presupposition is driving your interpretation.

It is an interesting conclusion for you to make, that of a bit of life being sustained by another bit of life as “alluding to naturalism”, even though we both know that science can make no claim on any ontology, but, you have never given us any reason to believe you, to justify your belief, for the plausibility of that model, while coherent in some arenas, is unable to make any sense out of far too many of our brutally repeatable contextual experiences which our minds perceive here within this contingent observational matrix which we call the universe. And this is especially problematic for naturalism given that there are more encompassing TOE’s out there in which both perceived reality and measured reality cohere and overlap in a far greater number of contact points.

Again, I’ll give you the last word, as I’m going to go outside and watch the mountains dance, the trees sing, and the sun rise.

Apologies:


“….you should really cite your sources…”


You are correct, of course, TGS. Sorry for not including that.


It should be at the link here.


The comments to this entry are closed.