« Cultivate the Moral Imagination to Develop Character | Main | What Apologetics Books Would You Recommend? »

January 13, 2014

Comments

Goat Head

I can provide you a list of papers for you to work through if you like? I'm not sure what your background in biochemistry is because they will be technical. They wont answer your question in full - and I guess they never would. Essentially what you are asking to have the whole evolutionary process laid out and you wont accept that there's evidence for that process until its complete.

I cant do that because that evolutionary process simply isn't known.

So I can provide you a list of papers, but I'm not sure that its really a good use of my time. After all, you know the answer. For the record, I do not know the answer.

What evidence do you have that DNA was designed? No-one's come up with any yet in this thread - and I've asked several times.

scbrownlhrm - more word salad and strawmen. There's a good chap!

TGS when software self assembles from water let us know......

I can only believe observed evidence.

I know you want me to trust you. To believe.

But you haven't given me any evidence.

That's all any of us can do, believe evidence.

I've no need to presuppose beyond it ~~ though you seem to have such a need.

"I can only believe observed evidence."

What evidence? What have you got that goes beyond "biological organisms look designed, so they are"

"I know you want me to trust you. To believe."

No I dont.

"That's all any of us can do, believe evidence."

I agree, so what have you got to support your assertion???

This thread is about whether biological organisms were designed or not. Where's the evidence?

I've never seen complex linguistic blueprints and software and hardware self-assemble in nature.

When I do I may have reason to believe what is now only your unjustified belief.

When there is evidence.....

scblhrm

So you dont have any evidence for design?

You are obviously evading the question. And the question I'm asking is the one that forms the whole basis of this thread. So that's the one that should be answered first, unless you want to be downright rude.

Until there is evidence of such self-assembly from nature, I only find, in the real world, such constructs appearing at the hands of Mind. In the real world, as we actually find reality, that is the only evidence I observe. As I have no real itch to reach beyond evidence, I see no need to presuppose beyond it, or worse, against it.

All we can do is follow the evidence. In the real world we find such compilations appearing, only, they don't seem to self-assemble. In fact, in the real world, they never do. They only follow behind Mind. In the observed world, that is.

It's not that I want to believe these constructs are designed by Mind.

It just that I've not been given any other choice.

And since there is that one choice, that of Mind, which is observable, measurable, falsifiable, well, that is the only belief I can have.

The evidence there is quite real, of course. It's in the real world.

Goodbye long thread. I'll see you again at the end of the year.

I don't know much about astronomy, but I have money and have visited quite number and variety of planets in the galaxy. I am always in suspeneded animation on these journeys, so I have never seen any planet except from the ground.

Based on my experience, I make the following argument.

1. There are in nature multiple and varied instances of apparent flat planethood.
2. As a general rule, we assume that appearance=reality unless and until there are strong reasons not to.
3. No strong reasons have been presented in the case of apparent flat planethood not to assume appearance=reality.
4. So, a good assumption is that for at least some of these instances of apparent flat planethood, appearance=reality.
5. So, a good assumption is that there are flat planets.

Once new evidence arrives, we simply follow it and adjust our thesis.

No need to presuppose ahead of it, or, against it, in the unjustified assertion of psychosis, or, more tame, universal skepticism.

Reproduction of BMW’s and recurrent laryngeal nerves are both wonderful processes to observe, each there in that summation that is [Village]. That the Village and its Factory, and the Software therein, are found churning out many and varied Hardware constructs begotten - within their business of reproduction – in the next generation of products, whether BMW or recurrent laryngeal nerve, provides even more background information to add to our data summation. Even if we don't believe the theory of ID, their existence and their history should degrade one’s confidence in concluding that such systems are un-designed. Perhaps even a committed naturalist / evolutionist can admit this? Even if one thinks (unjustifiably) the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve is churned out by an inexplicably self-assembling factory, when we take everything into account, mustn’t we also admit that it 'appears' designed? Dawkings agrees that we must, for, it does. Dawkings, at least, is brave enough to dive in, eyes wide open, without evasive semantic equivocations.

RonH,

We do have good reason to reject the flat earth, for Job and Isaiah speak of the Earth's curve.

And, we have good reason to reject all perceived evidence of science inside of materialism, as Hawking leaves Time and Material in favor of the Timeless and Immaterial, as his physics of everything catches up to scripture.

Perception, Science, Scripture, Measured Reality, and, Observational Reality.

All are useful.

Can we go ahead of the evidence, of perception, in favor of scripture's Timeless and Immaterial? Well, we can, though, the Christian will have to wait for science to catch up before he can convince the non-Christian to join in. Hawking's physics of everything is leading us to something we've not really perceived yet.

And that is fine.

The Christian always knew things would turn out that way.

In humility we have to be careful about too much boldness here on the Christian's end, though he enjoys justification on many fronts, just as, we have to be careful about the empty boldness of fatal skepticism, as such an overreach can never enjoy justification.

Now, as for the other planets, well, we will have to wait for evidence.

The arrival of new evidence is all the buzz ~~

Everyone is in favor of incorporating new evidence, should it ever be presented.

Of course, given that we know that this planet is curved via scripture, we could use the only evidence we have on planet-hood, that of our own earth, as applicable to other planets and thereby come to a reasoned conclusion that they too are round. Of course, we would have to trust scripture a bit.... like the Timeless Immaterial vectors....

Hi scblhrm, I bagan to read the linked piece from you earlier, will pick it up again. I'm sure it will be a beneifical read, I already have some widened perspective...might be benificial for TGS or any others also.

The adaptation from RonH of WL's argument doesn't bother me too much, and I dont think this form of "taking the roof off" really hurts the argument appearance=reality. Sense perceptions alone are unreliable for everyone. I think WL adequately covered this in his previous defenses.

This goes with my main objection toward unrestrained methodological naturalism. I guess most people consider me old fashioned for arguing for the old fashioned notion that the queen of the sciences is Theology, and Philosophy is her handmaiden. After these, the physical sciences. The modern scientist has thrown off any restraint and claims knowledge of many things, even though many of the conclusions have radical extra-natural difficulties. They are certainly guilty of an irrational leap when practicing the limited tool, appearanc=reality.

Ron-

Until someone provides you reasons to move off of your premise 3, your assumption is good.

It is, of course, subject to revision.

But I don't see how else to proceed than to start by assuming appearance=reality.

Same goes for the design argument I presented. Try providing a good reason to move off the good initial assumption that, when it comes to design, things are as they seem to be.

Now, the fundamental problem with this contentious thread is that it is simply the repetition of this interchange with very little variance:

WL: So why should I move from my good assumption that at least some aspects of nature are designed?

A: It's not up to me to tell you that, I'm not the one claiming design.

WL: But I already have a good reason to assume things are designed. I'm asking why I should change my mind.

A: The only reason you think you have a good reason is because things appear designed. And that's not a good reason to believe anything, because Copernicus.

WL: If you take that blanket approach toward the initial assumption that appearance=reality, you're not going to be able to make any headway. You'll wind up with opaque skepticism. So I ask again, why should I give up my good assumption in the case of design that things are as they seem to be?

A: What? You expect me to argue against every inane theory that you choose to throw out there?!! Why do you believe in pixies?

Pixies.... the last resort of those unable to present weighty defeaters strong enough to convince me that my belief that I have a head is unjustified....


I want to clarify my last sentence, I just read down this page again and saw a glaring ommission. The last sentence should have read: "They are certainly guilty of an irrational leap when practicing the limited tool, appearance alone=reality"

Also, when I speak of the limitations of sense perception to reveal reality, the Christian does have certain advantages over non-Christians, many of which scb has mentioned since entering the conversation that round out a worldview.

Hi RonH, I hope you dont mind if I go back to something your wrote earlier, namely:

"Even if you don't believe the theory of evolution, its existence and it's history should degrade your confidence in concluding that a biological thing is designed."

Darwinian evolution has essentially a zero probability in many factors it would have to account for if it were to have any comprehensive explanitory power. You're a fan of probabilities, doesn't this kind of stunt the theory's credibility, even[or especially], if in the modern neo-Darwinian scheme?

Brad B,


Apologies, but I was not sure if your reference to my linked piece was linked via this thread’s previous screen, or, in another thread I had linked to an essay by Dr. Craig on Scientism. In it he shows that Scientism does not imply naturalism, nor does naturalism imply Scientism, that one could hold to an epistemology of scientism and yet be a non-naturalist, and, most importantly, he looks at the self-refuting nature of a pure scientism. It should be at the link here.

The tendency in methodology to put the presupposition ahead of the evidence is preventing the hard and humbling work of embracing brutally repeatable background evidence, just as, that sort of idleness in the avoiding of the work of dealing with said background information via methodology is preventing the hard and humbling work of science as it, science, reveals the absurdity of scientism's unjustified, and self-refuting, beliefs (that of a pure scientism as an end in itself). There is no experiment to run which can prove scientism, nor naturalism, nor theism. It’s as elementary as that. That is why there just is no need at all to put the cart before the horse, especially when every bit of available evidence and every last trace of background information we have on the complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] within observed reality reveal the unjustified nature of such a methodology’s conclusions and, along with that, also reveals that such a methodology’s unjustified opinion is being cast as authoritative despite such lack of justification.

I think what RonH and myself would look at is background information. On the mere question of God or miracle, Dr. Craig has an application of Bayes Theorem in which said background information from many different arenas must be plugged in, and, when such is done, we find the probability of God, even of miracle, clearly within the realm of possibility.


However, on the particular arena we are dealing with here, we have the assertion (on one hand) of No-God and that in itself is (it seems) then used as a kind of (on the other hand) evidence for No-Design just inexplicably proving that the mechanism in question must have brought these complex information systems about via self-assembly.


And yet all background information (in the real world) on the complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] that we have (in the real world as we actually find it) just do not give any evidence of self-assembly, whereas, that such assemblies are repeatedly tied to Mind is measurable in a wide array of evidence easily at hand.


Patterns are patterns, and, whether we find them in a BMW, inside of the Cell, or in Toshiba laptop factories is neither here nor there. Complex codified patterns, archetypes, and interrelationships that just are the complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] do not exist in vacuums, in imaginary, pretend compartments. They are real things in the real world.


All background information we have on these systems are, well, readily at hand. And we have none, zero, whether in the Cell or in the BMW demonstrating self-assembly.


Not once.

Typically what happens at this juncture is an appeal to "Traces", say, a strand of RNA floating about, functioning as the whole, necessary, pesky [Village] in eons past.

Well, we have very present background information there too......


No scbrownlhrm, what's going on in this thread is absolutely clear.

1. The assertion of design of biological organisms has been raised
2. The evidence supporting that amounts to "because things look that way when we compare them to man made objects"

The very basic point that you dont seem to grasp is that it is naive, childish and illogical to treat "biological organisms were designed" as fact if your evidence is so wafer thin.

Instead you attack charicatures of evolution which frankly arent even worthy of the epithet 'strawman'

Your lack of evidence of the thing you are attacking is frankly woeful.

But even then - THAT ISNT THE POINT.

THE POINT is that you have stuff all evidence for your assertion of design.

Interestingly, granting no-god just does not get rid of Mind within the real world as we actually find it. Design is thus ipso facto wide open.

Which Mind becomes the next most justified question.

We need never say Gid did it.

We need simply describe reality.

Your lack of evidence of the thing you are attacking is frankly woeful.

Substitute 'understanding' for 'evidence' in this sentence.

Show us self assembly void of mind.

You appealed to traces, TGS, as a line of defense, when asked for evidence by GH5.

I can show you complex information compilations via mind.

With real evidence.

RNA before [Village] = cart before horse.

Short of [Village] all traces vanish.

All perceived evidence has the horse before the cart.

*sigh*

Always with the false dichotomies.

What you are saying is that your argument wins by default if science doesn't demonstrate x y or z to your satisfaction.

It doesn't work that way.

And what is this absolute tripe about villages? You can barely string a sentence of English together, so I very much doubt your capacity to understand any science.

Heres an example:

"I can show you complex information compilations via mind"

Yawn. You cant even DEFINE 'complex' or 'information' to any rigorous degree that scientists would agree on. Everything you can show me 'designed' 'via mind' is demonstrably man made.

You then try to apply that to something natural whilst sneaking in the God hypothesis.

Does your syllogism go something like:

"All instances of code were designed by minds.
DNA is a code.
=>DNA was designed by a mind"?

If the answer is yes, I will find that very amusing, and can launch a thermonuclear take down of such an utterly retarded argument.

So spare me.

Ive lost count of the number of:

1. Weird posts
2. Times youve avoided supplying evidence for your own assertions

So wheres the evidence for design, Mr Village?

TGS,


Since you seem to want to assert that Life is not composed of sophisticated exchanges of information, and transmits, say, gibberish to the next line of production, and, say, gibberish within its own highly complex factories, rather than what is, actually, robust methodized, systemized information, I’ll leave that for you to defend.


Dawkings is bold enough to avoid this somewhat silly sematic dance of equivocation in the face of obvious appearances.


Perhaps you should go and write out, actually write out, all the necessary instructions contained within that little Village we call the Cell, or, Life. When you get to, say, about the millionth page of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the codified communique’ spelling out the necessary summation to build the computed whole that will decode to the methodized, systemized unit of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] which is the Cell, or, the Sperm Wall, and so on, then I think it just may come to you why Dawkings is unafraid to keep his eyes wide open and take on the challenge anyway.

BTW,

I agree with Dawkings. Life appears designed.

Go back and actually read my posts. All of them.

DNA strands don’t just go around in isolation happily reproducing. It takes that pesky [Village].

Thus we find that the inevitable appeal to “traces”, first of all, philosophically, begs the question, and secondly, scientifically, reveals a kind of laziness unwilling to do the hard work of science which demands that we embrace the whole of brutally repeatable background evidence. Pistons, electrical circuit boards, and fragments thereof found in various factory lines leave “traces” of those robust Villages and their inhabitants. That’s just obvious in the observed world.

Transcriptase void of [Village] and functioning [as the village] is a story never told by nature, just as, Toshiba laptops void of circuitry never have, not once, powered up.

Short of the [Village], all traces vanish. Put another way, short of [Village], all traces are non-entity in measurable, observable, verifiable, reproducible reality. “Traces” of DNA in isolation, or, traces of transcriptase in isolation, running around functioning as [Village] are nowhere to be found. To put forth [traces] as [Village] is just putting the cart before the horse, the presupposition before the evidence.

Putting the cart before the horse, the presupposition ahead of the evidence, is not science.


Can [Traces] function as [Village]? Let’s look at the observed, measurable evidence. In biological systems we just don’t find such a thing, anywhere, for whatever wishes to join the party must join the [Village]. Short of the [Village], nothing goes anywhere, that is, in observed reality. Traces just vanish, that is, unless there is a [Village]. What about the bench top then? Let’s look at the evidence. When we remove Mind’s hand from the bench top, exactly the opposite is observed, measured, and perceived happening on that bench top as all information flow halts, all stories cease, and all traces vanish.

Understanding RNA and other Traces is a good thing, even necessary. But, we just do not find any justified reason to offer such as evidence for self-assembly from those traces. In fact, we have a whole array of justified reasons to state the narrative in the opposite direction, for, short of [Village], the traces never can get the party going.

WL,

Premise 3 was

3. No strong reasons have been presented in the case of apparent flat planethood not to assume appearance=reality.

Why strong reasons?

Why not adequate reason?

I suggest reasonable doubt about an assumption should be adequate to force abandoning it.

If there is reasonable doubt, then don't act like there isn't.

RonH

If such systems can inexplicably self-assemble, we’ve just not been shown any such thing happening in the natural world, whether the system be that of the Cell or the BMW. Whichever. Real is real. If it is all an illusion, the naturalist needs to put forth some fairly weighty evidence should he want us to consider that assertion justified.

No such evidence is at hand.

Apart from being un-evidenced and entirely speculative, the unjustified belief in spontaneously assembled complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] just fails to do the hard work of embracing the bothersome observations of the summations of brutally repeatable background information in these sorts of compilations.

This is in a way a kind of laziness, this refusal to embrace brutally repeatable background information, and this of course then leads to, as far as we can see, nothing but, “Well, it just inexplicably happened, somehow….”. Well, appearances and measurements must overlap and thus such an appeal to the inexplicable by allowing naturalism to lead the evidence rather than simply following the evidence wherever it may lead are:


1) not very illuminating on actualities as they are found in the real world

2) not very useful in bringing us closer to overlapping contact points amid observed reality and measured reality

scbrownlhrm,

You did it yourself.

All living things self-assemble.

If you'd never seen this phenomenon, you'd think it less likely than evolution.

With no language?

In that case laptops do too....

But...its the "living" bit that is pesky....

Life from life.

Yep.

We agree.

New evidence is all the buzz....

I've seen mind create.

I've seen nature write. On my bench top. Pushed by Mind.

Short of Mind, I see nature do quite another - real - action.

I see.

Eyes wide open.

Reasonable doubt is not the same as adequate reason.

Reasonable doubt the P might not be true can exist in cases where everyone knows darn well that P is true.

In particular, I can have reasonable doubt about appearance=reality in almost every case. To say that we should abandon the view that appearance=reality whenever we have reasonable doubt is just to say that we should never believe the appearances. And that leads to opaque skepticism.

So reasonable doubt won't cut it.

Now maybe it's just me, but "strong reason" sounds like a lower standard than "adequate reason". I hear "adequate reason" and I think "sufficient reason". That is, if I have adequate reason for abandoning a viewpoint, I have enough to know that it is false. If I have strong reason for abandoning a viewpoint, then my reasons are just really powerful for thinking my view might be false, but they still might not be enough to know that.

But I honestly don't want to cavil over that right now. Thus far no one has put forward any reason to think appearance≠ reality in the case of apparent design (other than that we shouldn't ever believe that appearance=reality because Copernicus).

That's the current state of debate in this thread.

Ah, Suprendo, your words: (to Amy)

"I can lay out a process that creates biological organisms - its called evolution. And I have numerous strands of evidence that are cross discipline, independently found, interlocking and complementary. It explains not only the appearance of 'design' but why there are instances of poor 'design'....
So I can lay out that process"

But now you say you can't provide the process, reproducible by independent labs. (Science)

So. When pressed, you retreat to science of the gaps.

OK. We know where we are now. You have a faith position. Your previous words contradict your later "I don't know" statement.

When you can actually provide the process, then we can dispense with the default design position. Until then, all of your talk of "evidence" is nonsense.

Fail, Suprendo, fail.

Goat Head 5

What exactly is evolution supposed to be evidence for anyway?

That there are not instances of apparent design in nature?

That it's not a good general rule to assume appearance=reality until given strong reasons to the contrary?

That there are strong reasons to think that appearance≠reality in the case of apparent design?

It's actually hard to see how evolution is evidence for any of these.

TGS, you are still demanding that we supernaturalists commit to arguing from a purely naturalistic framework. It is arbritrary for you charge that marks/characteristics of man-made design cannot be used or are just so a priori disqualified as a metric to detect design in general.

It is completely compatible with the Christian worldview to expect similarities since God made man and all things.

__________________________________________

Hi RonH, I think the difference between "strong" and "adequate" evidence to make counter claim against appearance=reality is minimal when both are related to the strength or confidence of ones experience that: appearance=reality.

I think that in your example, you purposfully simulated a primitive sort of appearance=reality, a naive or unsophisiticated one that hasn't experienced more advanced sense perceptions that fine tune the interpretation of what is being sensed. In this way, your hope is to prove that as sense perception detection technology progresses, that there will be little to no discrepancy between appearance+advanced sense perception technology and reality [because of the intrepretive power of sense perception advancement ie technological advancement through physical science].

I dont think though that WL is or had been arguing the the literal proposition appearancealone=reality[as in similar to your 2 dimensional sense perception ability example], but he is/has been always arguing appearance+available/current technology=reality.

There will always be interpretive abilities, probably in increasing measure, brought to the process of knowing that appearance=reality. The Christian doesn't fear this at all. Not so long as the science is bridled by philosophical guardrails.

Well, I started my commment before WL's comments to RonH, but didn't actually finish to post until after, so if the content looks off timed, it is.

Ah Goat Head Goat Head Goat Head

"But now you say you can't provide the process, reproducible by independent labs."

It depends what you need. I can provide paper after paper, not only about the evolution of biological organisms, but about the evolution of DNA. But you've got to read them. But then you might say "AH HA you cant tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved - so you fail"

Meanwhile, Mr Village keeps on about villages without realising that scaffolding was involved - and that's an analogy before you start. Like in the ID communities favourite, the Flagellum.

SO it aint me retreating to the science of the gaps - its you pointing to a gap and saying 'AH HA I win we must assume things were designed"

And you say it here:

"When you can actually provide the process, then we can dispense with the default design position. Until then, all of your talk of "evidence" is nonsense."

Why does the default position have to be design? What's up with 'I dont know'?

Because until YOU provide evidence for your assertion, and THEN provide a mechanism, you have absolutely nothing to ground that claim on bar "it was designed because it looks that way"

And btw, what I would produce evidence for is the process by which DNA/biological organisms 'evolved'. You cant propose a mechanism AT ALL beyond 'and then magic happened'

Fail, Goat Head, fail.

Brad B

First I linked to the paper about Meth Nat. You should read it.

The world just is not going to magically transform into an array of fake, pretend, imaginary compartments. The world is made of real things. The software in my laptop (objective) is the fruit of Mind (subjective), and, that fruit is a real thing (objective) in the real world. It’s measurable. Touchable. Readable. It is full of a kind of family of words. Paper isn’t the only particulate atop which Mind may write. This is why TGS’s unjustified request to slice up the world into fake compartments is nonsense. Mind’s Fruit is a real, actual, measurable actuality in the real, actual, measurable world.


When TGS’s move to try to get everyone to inexplicably slice up reality into pretend, fake compartments was shown to be unjustified (real fruit, real things, real world), he seemed then make a move toward a kind of hint that perhaps Life is not – not really - composed of sophisticated exchanges of information but rather transmits, say, gibberish to the next line of production, and, say, gibberish within its own highly complex factories, rather than what is actually found there - robust methodized, systemized information communique’. We will leave that for him to defend, along with fake compartments among real things in the real world.


Dawkings is bold enough to avoid this somewhat silly sematic dance of equivocation in the face of obvious appearances of Design.


A good exercise would be to write out the communique’ within that little [Village] we like to call the “simple” Cell. When we get to, say, about the millionth page of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the codified communique’ spelling out the necessary summation to build the computed whole that will decode to the methodized, systemized unit of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] which is the Cell, or, the Sperm Wall, and so on, then I think it just may come to us – without question - why Dawkings is unafraid to concede the appearance of Design. His eyes are wide open and he is not afraid to see what he sees.


Patterns of complex codified informational communique’ abound, and, whether we find them inside of an Elephant, a BMW, a Cell, or in a Toshiba laptop factory is neither here nor there. The lack of ink and paper in hieroglyphics is not some sort of spooky proof that the Ink-Paper codifications are via Mind while the Stone-Dirt Hieroglyphic codifications are via inexplicable self-assembly. The particulate in which these patterns are found do not provide some spooky proof that the pattern is not there simply because the particulate happens to be Y rather than X. Complex codified patterns, archetypes, and interrelationships that just are the complex systems of codified communique’ spelling out necessary summations to build a computed whole that will decode to a methodized, systemized unit are found pan-world, and are never found self-assembling. Such just are these patterns of the codified communique’ within the etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] and these actualities do not exist in vacuums, in imaginary, pretend compartments. They are real things in the real world. And in this real world, hands down, Mind is tied to every observable, measurable, falsifiable example we have of such compilations, just as, self-assembly of such assemblages – in the real world – are never observed. Ever. In fact, when we remove Mind and allow nature to lead, terrible things begin to happen as all flow of information ceases, all stories end, and all “traces” vanish, and this is the case in the real world and atop the real bench top atop the real laptop.


It is a tricky, inane, move to try to isolate etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the codified communique’ spelling out the necessary summation to build the computed whole that will decode to the methodized, systemized unit of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] from the real world as it actually is observed in the real world, in Life, in Design (we may take our pick) into imaginary, fake, pretend compartments, and that is because the real world is real. We must remember, it is the naturalist, or at least TGS, who insists that this artificial separation inexplicably exists and thus it is upon him to provide us with evidence that such does exist. Thus far we simply have not been given any justified reason to believe it. Real things are real. That Mind’s fruit happens to be one of those real things in the real world is annoying to TGS, but, annoying evidence cannot be ignored just because it is annoying. Real things are real.

Spell Check: Cell, or, Sperm Whale, and so on.....

TGS,

I grant you No-God.

It changes nothing.

The only justified belief, based on all available evidence of real things in the real world is Design.

In fact, had I never heard of God, I would, at this point of evidence searching, be asking which mind? rather than believing in magical traces with magical powers.


TGS,

The desktop here looks flat.

Now, until you provide evidence that it is not as it appears to be (flat), then, I do not have any choice in what to believe. The only justified belief I can have, based on all available evidence, is that it is flat.

New evidence is all the buzz.....

Dawkings agrees that it all looks designed, and then tries to give us the evidence that it came about without design.

Thus far we've not seen any such evidence.

Not justified evidence which do not presuppose ahead of, or worse, against, measurable evidence.

Appologies, Dawkins..... spell check and time constraints, etc...

TGS,

To continue:

I grant you No-God.

It changes nothing.

The only justified belief, based on all available evidence of real things in the real world is Design.


As I said, had I never heard of God, I would, at this point of evidence searching, be asking which mind? rather than believing in magical traces with magical powers.


I find that the only justified belief is Design, though, if new evidence comes along to justify calling such an illusion, well, then we can adjust definitions at that point.


As you haven’t given me reason to believe in your fake, pretend compartments amid real things in the real world, and, as you haven’t given me reason to buy into your assertion that Life’s communique’ is gibberish rather than actual, real etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the codified communique’ spelling out the necessary summation to build the computed whole that will decode to the methodized, systemized unit of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)], I see no reason, that is justified, to embrace either of these two moves on your end.

I am left with a world, this real world, full of Mind’s real fruit and I find that Which Mind? seems to be the next most justified question should the quest to understand reality continue.


You just have not given a justified reason to call these an illusion, these complex communique’ full of, well, words. Short of the [Village], all traces vanish. There are no BMW’s being churned out by forests. Only [Villages] make BMW’s. There is no [Village] being churned out by forests. Only [Villages] make [Villages]. There are no complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] being churned out by forests. Only complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)] are churning out complex systems of etymological linguistics housed within the [Observed Entity] that is the summation of [(Syntactical Software) + (Robust Village) + (Employees) + (Hardware)].


I know you find that descriptive annoyingly long, tiringly complex, but reality is not simple. It’s highly complex. You'll have to get comfortable with that sort of complexity in these discussions. "The simple cell" is escapism.


In the real world all “traces” are non-entity but for said [Village], just as, but for said [Village] all present traces run toward, and dive into, non-entity.


You haven’t shown me otherwise.


Until there is evidence of such self-assembly from nature, I only find, in the real world, such constructs appearing at the hands of Mind. In the real world, as we actually find reality, that is the only evidence I observe.


As I have no real itch to reach beyond evidence, I see no need to presuppose beyond it, or worse, against it.

All we can do is follow the evidence. I never allow myself to say, “Well, I guess God did it”. I don’t have to. I need only describe the real world as it actually is. In the real world we do actually find such compilations appearing, only, they don't seem to self-assemble. In fact, in the real world, they never self-assemble. They only follow behind Mind. In the observed world, that is.


It's not that I want to believe these constructs are designed by Mind.


It’s just that I've not been given any evidence allowing me any choice in the matter. In fact, this stuff is so saturating of pan-reality that I cannot even justify a “reasonable doubt” about Mind’s involvement in these constructs.


Now, since there is that one choice, that of Mind, which is observable, measurable, falsifiable, well, that is the only justified belief I can have. The evidence there is quite real, of course. It's in the real world.


The only justified question to ask at this point is not about the magic of traces. Traces have no magic. Zero. The only justified question, beyond a reasonable doubt, is, Which Mind?

Therein we come to that fully singular, that fully triune [Self-Other-Us] Who is E Pluribus Unum, Who is Immutable Love.

The comments to this entry are closed.