Evolution cannot show us that everything is the result of a natural process.
Nor that we can conclude, by observing evolution, that these same principles were involved in the emergence of the universe.
Evolution cannot show that consciousness was generated by the brain as a result of some process of increasing complexity
Evolution cannot show how our mental functions evolved or are separate from physicsl brain functions.
Evolution can't show how we have certain psychological behaviors.
Evolution can't show how we have the capacity for self-reflection. ,
It is obvious that 'evolution' cannot show us that 'everything is the result of a natural process'. e.g. it does not explain volcanoes. So what precisely do you mean by 'evolution' and 'natural process'.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I'm pretty sure I've covered the flaws in the fine-tuning argument in this thread already though. And yes, you're correct, "fine-tuning" is not a scientific theory, because it's not a testable explanation for some set of observable facts. Again, surely not complicated to understand?
EDIT: I know I've asked this more than once in this thread already, but I don't think I got an answer from you at least; if you think the universe is "fine tuned" to allow life to evolve, how do you explain that over 99.9999% of the observable universe is completely inhospitable to life as we know it?
As far as I'm aware the universe appears so absurdly lucky to be here in the first place that the fine tuned argument either has to be taken into consideration or else, materialists have had to invent all these untestable theories to try and get around this problem. So forget all the 99.9 stuff because the fact we have a universe that can bring forth any life is far far greater.
By the way why is hypothosising something you've never managed to prove because 'it explains the facts' more acceptable than hypothosising God or design. There's a double standard here.
As far as I'm aware the universe appears so absurdly lucky to be here in the first place that the fine tuned argument either has to be taken into consideration or else, materialists have had to invent all these untestable theories to try and get around this problem. So forget all the 99.9 stuff because the fact we have a universe that can bring forth any life is far far greater.
By the way why is hypothosising something you've never managed to prove because 'it explains the facts' more acceptable than hypothosising God or design. There's a double standard here.
But you have still not convinced yourself that a god or Creator or non-natural cause exists so it is clearly understandable that others are not convinced.
1. We do know space and time exist, because we directly observe them. There is no physics model in which space and time do not exist. Not only do they definitely exist, they are inextricably connected.
2. I wasn't saying the god would exist in our universe, but rather that by existing, it's definitely manifestly present in reality, because that's what existing is. Anything that exists necessarily exists in some universe, even if it's nothing like our universe.
3. Space-time, in our universe, may be infinite in the sense of continuous expansion, but we also know from Big Bang theory that our universe has a finite history and at any given moment in time is spatially finite.
4. Nothing about the laws of our universe is relevant to what was being proposed - a conscious being outside of our universe. What I was pointing out was that in an extension of (2), a conscious entity, where for the sake of argument consciousness necessarily entails thought, would necessarily have to have both form and thought. Form necessitates spatial dimension and thought necessitates temporal dimension. So whatever way you look at broader reality, it is necessarily true that any thinking entity exists in space and time, even if it's a universe external to (maybe even containing) our own and are dimensions of space-time that would be inconceivable to us.
All very good points but we don't know if a God would 'think' or be conscious in any way that would be recognisable to us. I think the whole point of a supreme being would be that's it's powers and abilities would be completely unimaginable to our brains and beyond our comprehension, We're presumably talking about an entity that is greater than the universe itself (or perhaps *is* the universe, who knows?)
All very good points but we don't know if a God would 'think' or be conscious in any way that would be recognisable to us. I think the whole point of a supreme being would be that's it's powers and abilities would be completely unimaginable to our brains and beyond our comprehension, We're presumably talking about an entity that is greater than the universe itself (or perhaps *is* the universe, who knows?)
Do you agree that worshiping an entity that is beyond both our comprehension and even our imagination is a rather pointless exercise. ?
All very good points but we don't know if a God would 'think' or be conscious in any way that would be recognisable to us. I think the whole point of a supreme being would be that's it's powers and abilities would be completely unimaginable to our brains and beyond our comprehension, We're presumably talking about an entity that is greater than the universe itself (or perhaps *is* the universe, who knows?)
I'm of the opinion that if something is beyond our comprehension in that way, then you can make no valid claim about it.
It is obvious that 'evolution' cannot show us that 'everything is the result of a natural process'. e.g. it does not explain volcanoes. So what precisely do you mean by 'evolution' and 'natural process'.
By evolution I mean that natural selection has been used to explain what is on my list.
All very good points but we don't know if a God would 'think' or be conscious in any way that would be recognisable to us. I think the whole point of a supreme being would be that's it's powers and abilities would be completely unimaginable to our brains and beyond our comprehension, We're presumably talking about an entity that is greater than the universe itself (or perhaps *is* the universe, who knows?)
In which case that god would not possess consciousness insofar as the word consciousness has meaning to us, therefore you might as well describe the god as possessing blueness, or tallness, or any other word that ends in -ness. In other words, your claim there would be that the god is ineffable, in which case you lose all logical basis to make any claims about its nature.
As far as I'm aware the universe appears so absurdly lucky to be here in the first place that the fine tuned argument either has to be taken into consideration or else, materialists have had to invent all these untestable theories to try and get around this problem. So forget all the 99.9 stuff because the fact we have a universe that can bring forth any life is far far greater.
By the way why is hypothosising something you've never managed to prove because 'it explains the facts' more acceptable than hypothosising God or design. There's a double standard here.
I've posted so much in this thread now that I honestly can't be bothered to do another "What Science Is and How It Works 101", so I'm going to skip over the claimed double standard and merely remark that there is no double standard, there is only what is and isn't scientific and what is and isn't supported by evidence and reason. I am, however, rather worried by the sentence I've put in bold above, because it's rather similar to a lot of the rubbish bolly has been posting about chance and probability. There are two issues with that sentence - the first is that you seem to be implying, much as bolly did, that there's some "low probability" of our life-supporting universe existing, yet as has been explained at least a dozen times already, the chance of our universe existing and supporting life is 100% guaranteed. The second issue is that you seem not to have understood what I asked you, so let me try again: You say this universe appears, in your own words, to be "fine tuned" to support the existence of carbon, DNA-based life. So don't you think it's rather odd that over 99.9999% of the universe doesn't support life? How does a universe that is at least 99.9999% incapable of supporting life seem "finely tuned to support life" to you?
Fine worship away. Perhaps worship needs no purpose.
I don't personally worship a god, but obviously when I'm lost in wonder, watching a sunset. or whatever, I'm doing the same thing, in a way, as people who worship a god. I just don't call it god - if that makes sense.
Again, what is the definition of life. In my view, the whole universe is life.
So there would be no purpose, and there is nothing special about us (outside of us being the universes greatest parasites)? I could live with that. ;-)
Comments
Here's a list then sure I mentioned most of them:
Evolution cannot show us that everything is the result of a natural process.
Nor that we can conclude, by observing evolution, that these same principles were involved in the emergence of the universe.
Evolution cannot show that consciousness was generated by the brain as a result of some process of increasing complexity
Evolution cannot show how our mental functions evolved or are separate from physicsl brain functions.
Evolution can't show how we have certain psychological behaviors.
Evolution can't show how we have the capacity for self-reflection.
It is obvious that 'evolution' cannot show us that 'everything is the result of a natural process'. e.g. it does not explain volcanoes. So what precisely do you mean by 'evolution' and 'natural process'.
As far as I'm aware the universe appears so absurdly lucky to be here in the first place that the fine tuned argument either has to be taken into consideration or else, materialists have had to invent all these untestable theories to try and get around this problem. So forget all the 99.9 stuff because the fact we have a universe that can bring forth any life is far far greater.
By the way why is hypothosising something you've never managed to prove because 'it explains the facts' more acceptable than hypothosising God or design. There's a double standard here.
But you have still not convinced yourself that a god or Creator or non-natural cause exists so it is clearly understandable that others are not convinced.
All very good points but we don't know if a God would 'think' or be conscious in any way that would be recognisable to us. I think the whole point of a supreme being would be that's it's powers and abilities would be completely unimaginable to our brains and beyond our comprehension, We're presumably talking about an entity that is greater than the universe itself (or perhaps *is* the universe, who knows?)
It doesn't claim to show everything,
How do you know the same principles were involved?
That's what neuro-science is working on, again nothing to do with evolution, but will make it stronger if they do find it's a brain process..
Like DNA, when all these things are found to be whatever they are, then it will strengthen or weaken the theory.
Do you agree that worshiping an entity that is beyond both our comprehension and even our imagination is a rather pointless exercise. ?
I'm of the opinion that if something is beyond our comprehension in that way, then you can make no valid claim about it.
Why would that be?
Why worship anything one does not understand? Apart from anything else if we do not know what it is we may be worshiping something evil.
By evolution I mean that natural selection has been used to explain what is on my list.
Whether it can explain them or not.
If the worship doesn't result in anything bad happening to anybody, what harm does it do to exercise the imagination in that way?
Yeah by you.
In which case that god would not possess consciousness insofar as the word consciousness has meaning to us, therefore you might as well describe the god as possessing blueness, or tallness, or any other word that ends in -ness. In other words, your claim there would be that the god is ineffable, in which case you lose all logical basis to make any claims about its nature.
Fine worship away. Perhaps worship needs no purpose.
I've posted so much in this thread now that I honestly can't be bothered to do another "What Science Is and How It Works 101", so I'm going to skip over the claimed double standard and merely remark that there is no double standard, there is only what is and isn't scientific and what is and isn't supported by evidence and reason. I am, however, rather worried by the sentence I've put in bold above, because it's rather similar to a lot of the rubbish bolly has been posting about chance and probability. There are two issues with that sentence - the first is that you seem to be implying, much as bolly did, that there's some "low probability" of our life-supporting universe existing, yet as has been explained at least a dozen times already, the chance of our universe existing and supporting life is 100% guaranteed. The second issue is that you seem not to have understood what I asked you, so let me try again: You say this universe appears, in your own words, to be "fine tuned" to support the existence of carbon, DNA-based life. So don't you think it's rather odd that over 99.9999% of the universe doesn't support life? How does a universe that is at least 99.9999% incapable of supporting life seem "finely tuned to support life" to you?
I don't personally worship a god, but obviously when I'm lost in wonder, watching a sunset. or whatever, I'm doing the same thing, in a way, as people who worship a god. I just don't call it god - if that makes sense.
I think the idea that evolution was is entirely unique to yourself.
I think the question should be, if it were designed for life, then what is the point of the other 99.9% of the universe?
That's maybe a slightly different question, but also an equally good and valid one
Again, what is the definition of life. In my view, the whole universe is life.
So there would be no purpose, and there is nothing special about us (outside of us being the universes greatest parasites)? I could live with that. ;-)
In that case I agree, that the universe definitely appears to be finely tuned to be exactly what it is in its entirety. It's uncanny
Mwahahaha.