Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is hostile to reason.

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

Dave...

Member
What was the first cause that caused everything else? Ask a naturalist what started it all, and the only answer that they can come up with is "chance". But chance is not a force, it simply cannot be the cause of anything, much less the cause of everything. The only legitimate sense of the word "chance" has to do with mathematical probability. Chance determines nothing. mathematical probability is merely a way of measuring what actually does happen.

"Yet in the naturalistic and evolutionary parlance, chance becomes something that determines what happens in the absence of any other cause or design...In effect, naturalists have imputed to "chance" the ability to cause and determine what accures. And that is an irrational concept.

The concept is so fraught with problems from a rational and philosophical viewpoint that one hardly knows where to begin. But lets begin at the beginning. Where did matter come from in the first place? The naturalist would have to say that either that all matter is eternal, or that everything appeared by chance out of nothing. The latter option is clearly irrational.

But suppose the naturalist opts to believe that matter is eternal. An obvious question arises: What caused the first event that originally set evolutionary process in motion? The only answer available to the naturalist is that is that chance made it happen. It literally came out of nowhere. No one and nothing made it happen. That, too, is clearly irrational....

Abandon logic and you are left with pure nonsense. In many ways the natualists' deification of 'chance' is worse than all the various myths of other false religions, because it obliterates all meaning and sense from everything. But it is, once again, pure religion of the most pagan variety, requiring a spiritually fatal leap of faith into an abyss of utter irrationality. It is the age- old religion of fools (psalm 14:1)-- but in modern, "scientific" dress.

What would prompt anyone to embrace such a system? Why would someone opt for a worldview that eliminates all that is rational? It boils down to the sheer love of sin....(Macarthur from his book "Think Biblically")"

What you say?
 
If I understand you correctly, I certainly agree that "chance" is not a very satisfying explanation for anything. As I have argued elsewhere, it seems to be a concept we use to cover for ignorance.

On the other hand, I think it is clear that a Christian really runs into the same problems as a naturalist. The positing of the existence of God as an uncaused being seems just as irrational as deploying the concept of random chance. This is not to I do not believe it. I just think we need to be honest and admit that we Christians have basically the same philosophical problem as everyone - namely that our "chain of explanation" ultimately ends up in a very unsatisfying place. We have to claim that God "just is", that His very existence is uncaused. To me, this is as much of a problem as invoking random chance as an explanation for how we got here.
 
Dave... said:
"Yet in the naturalistic and evolutionary parlance, chance becomes something that determines what happens in the absence of any other cause or design...In effect, naturalists have imputed to "chance" the ability to cause and determine what accures. And that is an irrational concept.
I think this is the problem. This shows what we want to be true but nature has shown that what we think out to be is not what really is. For example, quantum theory basically says that everything is some probability. Everything is chance. We may not like it, but this is what nature shows us.

Humans have the nature to see human like intelligence in everything. We thought the planets moved because Gods or angels pushed them. Pagans prayed to dryads and sylphs not to haunt them when they cut down a tree or drank from a river. A storm was a sign of an anrgy god while a gentle rain wa the sign of a happpy god.

Yet, we know now that nature has no personality other than chance. A tsunamis killing a few thousand people makes sense if it was just left up to chance. However, it is hard to envision God wanting to kill all the people in the latest tsunami if it were not chance.

Quath
 
Dave... said:
What was the first cause that caused everything else?
We don't know. It's OK not to know everything.


Ask a naturalist what started it all, and the only answer that they can come up with is "chance". But chance is not a force, it simply cannot be the cause of anything, much less the cause of everything.
Sure it is. Ask anyone who's had an accident. Accidents have changed lives permanently.If it can happen and does happen that is a force that is reckoned with on a daily basis. Whole industries have sprung up aroung "chance". Seat belts, better tires, life insurance etc etc . Why? Because of what might happen.

The only legitimate sense of the word "chance" has to do with mathematical probability. Chance determines nothing. mathematical probability is merely a way of measuring what actually does happen.

If it can be shown that it can happen and their is a probabity that it will then you must accept the reality of the fact we are here.

"Yet in the naturalistic and evolutionary parlance, chance becomes something that determines what happens in the absence of any other cause or design...In effect, naturalists have imputed to "chance" the ability to cause and determine what accures. And that is an irrational concept.
The flip side to your argument is if you throw out chance you want to replace it with the cause being a supernatural being who is even less likely to exist and even less evidence to support the claim.

The concept is so fraught with problems from a rational and philosophical viewpoint that one hardly knows where to begin. But lets begin at the beginning. Where did matter come from in the first place?
We don't know, do you?

The naturalist would have to say that either that all matter is eternal, or that everything appeared by chance out of nothing. The latter option is clearly irrational.
It's a tough question but not knowing the answer does not default to a God as the reason.

But suppose the naturalist opts to believe that matter is eternal. An obvious question arises: What caused the first event that originally set evolutionary process in motion?
We don't know. We don't have too. We are still studying and still hoping to someday be able to provide an answer.

The only answer available to the naturalist is that is that chance made it happen. It literally came out of nowhere. No one and nothing made it happen. That, too, is clearly irrational....

Unfortunately it is the only answer that makes sense at the present time. It's OK.

Abandon logic and you are left with pure nonsense. In many ways the natualists' deification of 'chance' is worse than all the various myths of other false religions, because it obliterates all meaning and sense from everything.
Exactly right on your first point. However chance as I explained is a very real variable and all religions are false because none have been proven true.

But it is, once again, pure religion of the most pagan variety, requiring a spiritually fatal leap of faith into an abyss of utter irrationality. It is the age- old religion of fools (psalm 14:1)-- but in modern, "scientific" dress.

It is faith that is the center of the Christian religion and admits as much.

What would prompt anyone to embrace such a system?
UH evidence?

Why would someone opt for a worldview that eliminates all that is rational? It boils down to the sheer love of sin....(Macarthur from his book "Think Biblically")"
The worldview accepts what is known and the flip side accepts as true that which has no evidence. You tell me what makes sense.

What you say?
 
Dave... said:
What was the first cause that caused everything else? Ask a naturalist what started it all, and the only answer that they can come up with is "chance".

Thats right. IOW, they are evading the evidence of God.

Chance isn't even a noun - its saying absolutely nothing.

But chance is not a force, it simply cannot be the cause of anything, much less the cause of everything. The only legitimate sense of the word "chance" has to do with mathematical probability. Chance determines nothing.

Well said.

"Yet in the naturalistic and evolutionary parlance, chance becomes something that determines what happens in the absence of any other cause or design...In effect, naturalists have imputed to "chance" the ability to cause and determine what accures. And that is an irrational concept.

Again, well said.

Chance is evading God at all cost.

The degree chance and accident is asserted is equal to the degree the God of Genesis is hated.

And of course, this makes Darwinism a religion - bound to the naturalist faith parading as science.

The concept is so fraught with problems from a rational and philosophical viewpoint that one hardly knows where to begin.

So very true.

Imagine that, naturalists invoking a concept (chance) anathema to their very philosophy = the lengths hate will go to avoid the Creator.

But lets begin at the beginning. Where did matter come from in the first place? The naturalist would have to say that either that all matter is eternal, or that everything appeared by chance out of nothing. The latter option is clearly irrational.

You are shredding their dogma in just a few sentences.



But suppose the naturalist opts to believe that matter is eternal. An obvious question arises: What caused the first event that originally set evolutionary process in motion? The only answer available to the naturalist is that is that chance made it happen. It literally came out of nowhere. No one and nothing made it happen. That, too, is clearly irrational....

The floor wiping continues.

Abandon logic and you are left with pure nonsense. In many ways the natualists' deification of 'chance' is worse than all the various myths of other false religions, because it obliterates all meaning and sense from everything. But it is, once again, pure religion of the most pagan variety, requiring a spiritually fatal leap of faith into an abyss of utter irrationality. It is the age- old religion of fools (psalm 14:1)-- but in modern, "scientific" dress.

One of the most truth packed paragraphs I have ever read.

What would prompt anyone to embrace such a system? Why would someone opt for a worldview that eliminates all that is rational? It boils down to the sheer love of sin....(Macarthur from his book "Think Biblically")"

Listen closely:

Romans 1 says the belief that created things originate from other created things (Darwinism) is a penalty from God for denying Him Creator status.

IOW, Darwinism is a penalty from God for deliberately refusing to acknowledge Him AS the Creator.

The lack of ANY credible evidence proves the penalty claim above.

Ray Martinez
 
Quath wrote:
I think this is the problem. This shows what we want to be true but nature has shown that what we think out to be is not what really is. For example, quantum theory basically says that everything is some probability. Everything is chance. We may not like it, but this is what nature shows us.

Humans have the nature to see human like intelligence in everything. We thought the planets moved because Gods or angels pushed them. Pagans prayed to dryads and sylphs not to haunt them when they cut down a tree or drank from a river. A storm was a sign of an anrgy god while a gentle rain wa the sign of a happpy god.

Yet, we know now that nature has no personality other than chance. A tsunamis killing a few thousand people makes sense if it was just left up to chance. However, it is hard to envision God wanting to kill all the people in the latest tsunami if it were not chance.

But again, chance is not a force. Chance cannot make anything happen. Chance is nothing. It simply does not exsist. And therefore it has no power to do anything.

"Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. And as we have seen, the evolutionists' ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God all together and thereby do away with moral accountability....

To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen race has devised in order to supress our innate knowledge and the biblical testimony that there is a God and that we are accountable to Him (Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society aims to do away with morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with such enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and leaves them free to do whatever they want without guilt and without consequences." Macarthur

Judge Marvin L. Lubenow writes,

"The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the docrtine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Saviour, and Judge. all are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awsome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable."

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Dave
 
Drew said:
If I understand you correctly, I certainly agree that "chance" is not a very satisfying explanation for anything. As I have argued elsewhere, it seems to be a concept we use to cover for ignorance.

So far so good.

On the other hand, I think it is clear that a Christian really runs into the same problems as a naturalist.

This comment assumes the Bible is not evidence = naturalist philosophy.

Philosophy is not evidence.

The positing of the existence of God as an uncaused being seems just as irrational as deploying the concept of random chance.

Only if you assert the evidence is not evidence which is what you are doing.


This is not to I do not believe it.

Glad you made this announcement - somehow I got the distinct feeling you were a non-believer prior to this comment.

I just think we need to be honest and admit that we Christians have basically the same philosophical problem as everyone - namely that our "chain of explanation" ultimately ends up in a very unsatisfying place.

Placing the ridiculous philosophy of Darwinism on the same plane as Genesis makes your argument "closet atheism".

It is only unsatisfying if you reject the evidence.

Imagine that - a christian lecturing about the dishonesty of christians which dilutes the implied known dishonesty of Darwinists.


We have to claim that God "just is", that His very existence is uncaused. To me, this is as much of a problem as invoking random chance as an explanation for how we got here.

What is evident is that you are claiming to be christian in order to promote Darwinism = taking advantage of the silly rules that most debate boards have.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mische ... itler.html

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

--Adolf Hitler [1922]


As we can see anyone can claim to be a christian.

Ray Martinez
 
Dave... said:
What was the first cause that caused everything else? Ask a naturalist what started it all, and the only answer that they can come up with is "chance".
I asked 6. They all said "We don't know" or "Science can't say" or something to that effect. None said "chance." It looks like your diatribe rests on a false premise.

Dave... said:
The only legitimate sense of the word "chance" has to do with mathematical probability. Chance determines nothing. mathematical probability is merely a way of measuring what actually does happen.
As someone who uses probability to predict future financial results and set current prices based on that prediction for a mutli-billion dollar company, I can most definitely tell you that probability does more than measure the past.

But lets begin at the beginning. Where did matter come from in the first place? The naturalist would have to say that either that all matter is eternal, or that everything appeared by chance out of nothing. The latter option is clearly irrational.
No, the naturalist mustn't say either of those. He can simply say that he does not know. That is an acceptable position for a naturalist. Science doesn't say anything about the very beginning of the universe, and most scientists acknowledge this.
 
Dave... said:
But again, chance is not a force. Chance cannot make anything happen. Chance is nothing. It simply does not exsist. And therefore it has no power to do anything.
Chance is part of science. It is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics. To understand most of science, you have to understand statistics, which is the study of chance.

Chance is not a force like design is not a force. It is just an explanation for how things can be.

To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law.
If you study the history of science, you will find out this is not the case. Christians came up with the theories of an old Earth and pushed forward evolution. They decided that the facts outweighed their religious teachings.

Remember, religious teachings are that the Earth is fixed in place and does not move. Are people that embrace Copernicus theory, in which the Earth moves, doing so to eliminate God and obliterate His law?

Remember, that 95% of all scientists believe in evolution while about half are religious. So that means that if science were biased, it would be towards promoting religious ideas.

Quath
 
If I understand you correctly, I certainly agree that "chance" is not a very satisfying explanation for anything. As I have argued elsewhere, it seems to be a concept we use to cover for ignorance.

On the other hand, I think it is clear that a Christian really runs into the same problems as a naturalist. The positing of the existence of God as an uncaused being seems just as irrational as deploying the concept of random chance. This is not to I do not believe it. I just think we need to be honest and admit that we Christians have basically the same philosophical problem as everyone - namely that our "chain of explanation" ultimately ends up in a very unsatisfying place. We have to claim that God "just is", that His very existence is uncaused. To me, this is as much of a problem as invoking random chance as an explanation for how we got here.

Drew, the point in my first post was to show that naturalism stumbles over its own two feet and collapses even when we evaluate it in theory only. In light of this fact, naturalism starts at an "unsatisfying place", while the Bible does not.


"... The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it "scientific" in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduces in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more "scientific" than any other kind of religious faith."

""...Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis (or any other portion of the scripture for that matter). Scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)--inspired truth from God. "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" ( 2 Peter 1:21). Jesus summed the point up perfectly when He said, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17 KJV). The Bible is supreme truth, and therefore it is the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice versa"

"... scripture is God's own eyewitness account of what happened in the beginning. When it deals with the origin of the universe, all science can offer is conjecture. Science has proven nothing that negates the Genesis record. In fact, the Genesis record answers the mysteries of science." Macarthur

Drew, something to consider. When a Prophet in scripture made a prophecy that was so far in the future that it could not be verified by the listeners, and they were told to test a prophets credibility by whether or not every prophecy uttered by that prophet was true, how could they test it/him? What many of the prophets did, and Jesus did this also, was to give a near and a far prophecy. The purpose was that the near prophecy was for the purpose of testing the credibility of the far one. Jesus did this in Matthew 24:2 when he gave the near prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. This happened in AD 70. And this verified the far prophecy of the End times as later prophesied in that same chapter Matthew 24:4-18.

On a much bigger scale we take the things that we know are true of scripture, to use as a test of the things in the past and future that we cannot test. This is a minor example of what Jesus Himself offered as proof. If we use this on a larger scale (the whole Bible), the same is sufficient.

God bless

Dave
 
Hey Ray. It's good to have some help in here. This is not my specialty, I only just recently started to study this topic. It's fun though. Welcome to the forum. 8-)

I'm not going to have time to answer everyone today.

God bless
 
Ray Martinez said:
.

Imagine that - a christian lecturing about the dishonesty of christians which dilutes the implied known dishonesty of Darwinists.

What is evident is that you are claiming to be christian in order to promote Darwinism = taking advantage of the silly rules that most debate boards have.

Ray Martinez

Ray:

Your claims are absurd. I have taken great care not to "lecture" or stoop to the level of some who frequent this board. I suggest you review all my posts (since you are new). If you feel you have what it takes to engage me in a serious debate, then by all means bring it. Until then, don't try to score cheap points by taking potshots (e.g. questioning whether I am a Christian or making the vague suggestion that Hitler and I are in same camp).
 
Drew said:
Ray Martinez said:
.

Imagine that - a christian lecturing about the dishonesty of christians which dilutes the implied known dishonesty of Darwinists.

What is evident is that you are claiming to be christian in order to promote Darwinism = taking advantage of the silly rules that most debate boards have.

Ray Martinez

Ray:

Your claims are absurd. I have taken great care not to "lecture" or stoop to the level of some who frequent this board. I suggest you review all my posts (since you are new). If you feel you have what it takes to engage me in a serious debate, then by all means bring it. Until then, don't try to score cheap points by taking potshots (e.g. questioning whether I am a Christian or making the vague suggestion that Hitler and I are in same camp).

You have evaded my point = inability to refute.

Your previous posts are irrelevant. The one in question states your christianity then "admits" how we are just as dishonest as Darwinists.

You had to claim christianity in order to insult it which of course benefits Darwinism.

As for Hitler, it was my point that anyone can claim to be a christian.

I suppose you will now pander for an Admin intrusion to salvage some face.

Ray Martinez
 
Ray Martinez said:
You had to claim christianity in order to insult it which of course benefits Darwinism.
I think your comments insulted Christianity enough.

Drew is a Christian that uses logic and reason to figure out problems. He admits the tough areas instead of shouting some irrelevant scripture or throw out some silly explanation.

I heavily disagree with some of the issues that Drew takes. But I know we can talk about it and in the end, we may come down to agreeing to disagree. However, it will be a meaningful exchange in which we will both learn from one another.

Coming on here to attack another Christian for a difference of view is very petty. Remember Christians knew that the Earth did not move because the Bible said so. Yet they were proven wrong. So did anyone learn a lesson? Maybe the Bible doesn't seek to try to answer "how" just "why."

Quath
 
Quath said:
Ray Martinez said:
You had to claim christianity in order to insult it which of course benefits Darwinism.
I think your comments insulted Christianity enough.

Drew is a Christian that uses logic and reason to figure out problems. He admits the tough areas instead of shouting some irrelevant scripture or throw out some silly explanation.

I heavily disagree with some of the issues that Drew takes. But I know we can talk about it and in the end, we may come down to agreeing to disagree. However, it will be a meaningful exchange in which we will both learn from one another.

Coming on here to attack another Christian for a difference of view is very petty. Remember Christians knew that the Earth did not move because the Bible said so. Yet they were proven wrong. So did anyone learn a lesson? Maybe the Bible doesn't seek to try to answer "how" just "why."

Quath

What else could a Darwinist who is defending another Darwinist say ?

Very predictible.

Nowhere does the Bible make the absurd claim that you make for it - straw man.

Ray Martinez
 
*Alert brain shutting down*
-Hard Reboot!-
*Hummmmmm-boink*

Chance is not considered a force in evolution, it is simply the probability of events playing out. The events that transpired throughout the course of the history of the universe have determined the result of evolution. It doesn't change evolution, it's just that evolution is a process that is affected by what is in the world and its result is caused by those events, not chance. It is chance that those events occured to cause evolution to follow its course. However because the way that events unfold in the universe is chaotic, that is where chance actually acts.
 
Imagine that - a christian lecturing about the dishonesty of christians which dilutes the implied known dishonesty of Darwinists.

I didn't get that impression. Drew's question made me think of this from the "quotation of the day" thread.


"A man may be haunted with doubts, and only grow thereby in faith. Doubts are the messengers of the Living One to the honest. They are the first knock at our door of things that are not yet, but have to be, understood... Doubt must precede every deeper assurance; for uncertainties are what we first see when we look into a region hitherto unknown, unexplored, unannexed. George Macdonald (1824-1905), “The Voice of Job,†Unspoken Sermons, Second Series [1885]

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. -- 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)

Peace

D
 
Dave... wrote:
What was the first cause that caused everything else? Ask a naturalist what started it all, and the only answer that they can come up with is "chance".

Cubedbee wrote:
I asked 6. They all said "We don't know" or "Science can't say" or something to that effect. None said "chance." It looks like your diatribe rests on a false premise.

I'll raise your six mystery men with one verifyible source.

"Unfortunately it (chance) is the only answer that makes sense at the present time. It's OK." reznwerks

I'm sure that Drew has not been debating with ghosts either. How would you describe chaos, if not chance?

Dave... wrote:
The only legitimate sense of the word "chance" has to do with mathematical probability. Chance determines nothing. mathematical probability is merely a way of measuring what actually does happen.

Cubedbee wrote:
As someone who uses probability to predict future financial results and set current prices based on that prediction for a mutli-billion dollar company, I can most definitely tell you that probability does more than measure the past.

"probability to predict", exactly, you cannot measure the future to predict the future, you can only measure the past to predict the future. Which is why I said "mathematical probability is merely a way of measuring what actually does happen."

Quote:
But lets begin at the beginning. Where did matter come from in the first place? The naturalist would have to say that either that all matter is eternal, or that everything appeared by chance out of nothing. The latter option is clearly irrational.

Cubedbee wrote:
No, the naturalist mustn't say either of those. He can simply say that he does not know. That is an acceptable position for a naturalist. Science doesn't say anything about the very beginning of the universe, and most scientists acknowledge this.

Ok, then I think we are in agreement concerning science and the origin of all things.

D
 
The notion of "chance" as a philosophical concept bothers me greatly. To explain what I mean, I would first like to draw a distinction between what I will call "pure chance" (PC) and "ignorance chance" (IC).

IC is not mysterious - we use the term "chance" to cover up ignorance about known underlying mechanisms. Tossing a coin is a classic example. We say that the outcome is a matter of chance, but I think we all agree that if we knew all the relevant physical details (weight of the coin, "strength" and direction of the flip, air currents, distance to the floor, etc.), we could predict the result.

PC is a lot more problematic. To claim that nature, at its foundational level, includes an element of chance seems very counterintuitive. The notion that some processes in our World are not deterministic goes against deeply ingrained human belief in the necessity of cause and effect relationships. Like my friend Quath (thanks for the words of support, by the way), I am inclined to look for "hidden variables" - to think that ultimately all events have a deterministic cause. But the quantum experts (at least for now) tell us this is not what nature shows us. Hmmm.....

Suppose there is a fundamental physical process whose outcome can achieve one of 6 values with equal probability. Suppose further that someone claims that there is no underlying causal mechanism, even in principle - that God truly plays dice. To me such a claim has the same philosophical status as invoking magic. The issues here are subtle (I think). In such a circumstance, nature is behaving in a way that violates our sense of mechanistic order. Our minds cry out for some "reason" for the result assuming whatever value it did. Given the pervasiveness of deterministic processes, it seems "unnatural" to introduce an element of arbitrariness into nature. I guess what I am saying is that a pure chance process seems to have the same philosophical status as claims that "universe just is" - such processes are completely opaque mysteries that do not conform to any kind of "comfortable" mental models.

I still have a lingering sense that PC processes are telling us that we are not using the right concepts to think about the world or that perhaps there are some hidden variables (despite what the quantum people tell us).
 
Dave... wrote:
But again, chance is not a force. Chance cannot make anything happen. Chance is nothing. It simply does not exsist. And therefore it has no power to do anything.

Quath wrote:
Chance is part of science. It is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics. To understand most of science, you have to understand statistics, which is the study of chance.

Chance is not a force like design is not a force. It is just an explanation for how things can be.

I agree.


Quote:
To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby oust the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law.

Quath wrote:
If you study the history of science, you will find out this is not the case. Christians came up with the theories of an old Earth and pushed forward evolution. They decided that the facts outweighed their religious teachings.

What facts are these Quath?

Quath wrote:
Remember, religious teachings are that the Earth is fixed in place and does not move. Are people that embrace Copernicus theory, in which the Earth moves, doing so to eliminate God and obliterate His law?

Remember that there are true and false religions also. And "naturalism is also a religion.

Quath wrote:
Remember, that 95% of all scientists believe in evolution while about half are religious. So that means that if science were biased, it would be towards promoting religious ideas.

It amazes me that both you and peaceforlife, no matter what the topic, no matter what your opinion of that topic is, always have no less than 95% of the scientific community's support. The mathematical probability of that has got to be a gazillion to two, and we have both of you here at this forum. Call Guiness.

I would put more weight on what the top scientists can prove, over what the majority believe. Still, I will ask you to prove the 95%.
 
Back
Top