Human Evolution

[SelfSim]

The problem is that someone here keeps insisting that God made all the rules of math, and that there would be no rules of math if God hadn't done that. That person is wrong. I cited one example of a rule of math that has to be true regardless of whether a God exists:

2 + 2 <> 53567

Do you or do you not agree that this rule exists, even if God does not exist? If this rule exist even if God does not exist, then we have shown that person to be wrong when he tells us all laws of math come from God.

That algebraic (underlined) statement can be 'true' for either the person who believes in God, or the person who doesn't believe in God, simply because what it says, can be demonstrated as being true by way of the rules of logic (alegbra) and by way of being consistent with scientific objective test evidence.

The existence of 'God' however can happen, when the word existence is based on faith (or beliefs).

Quantities exist regardless of people or Gods, yes? On distant galaxies there are distinct counts of bodies, ratios, shapes, etc. So surely you must agree with me that quantities exist without people being there.

No .. that latter (underlined) statement is not consistent with objective test evidence. You see, that hypothetical 'someone' has to be doing the counting and therefore there is a person is present (or is implied) as being there, doing the counting.

'Quantities' is a model. Its our description. It conveys a meaning which we assigned to that word. Its therefore a human model.

And number systems are manmade. That is obviously so. Are you disagreeing that the decimal system, for instance, was made by people?

No .. you got that part right. But for some reason, you exclude all the other human models (eg: like 'quantities'). That's inconsistency.

Are you really, truly trying to argue that sometimes 2+2=10?

There's no reason to exclude the person who makes that (rather bizarre) claim.
They're still humans and they can be shown to exist. Whereas your view just cancels them out .. for some strange reason.

There was a distinct quantity of stars long before people were around to count.

Show me the objective test (and its evidence) which specifically excludes human minds, in order to substantiate your claim there. Good luck!

Planets moved in elliptical orbits long before anybody knew what an ellipse was.

Well no .. I recall there was a long stretch where the planets were wandering stars attached to some kind of rotating spheres, (or the like), and moved in circles around the Earth. The term 'orbit' changed its meaning from that to 'eliptical' around Kepler's time. 'Orbits' is therefore a definitional model, which is subject to change with new evidence. How could that change in 'what an orbit is', possibly happen in your 'world' where the orbits were always eliptical? (Or are you just going to ignore the evidence of that change in meaning process, as though that plays no role in informing us of 'what an orbit is'?)

These mathematical relations were true long before anybody discovered how to express human math. Human math is just a way for us to state the mathematical relationships that are already existing in the world.

Math is a formalised axiomatic system for tracking consistency with its axiomatic 'truths'.
The time element you rely on there however, comes from science's testable, (and well tested) definition of what time is.
The combination of those above two human invented elements, underwrite your claim there and I have no problems with moving forward on that basis.
There is no evidence that either of them 'truly exist' independently of the human fingerprints left all over both of them. The only way that can happen, is if you completely ignore that abundant evidence, or just believe that.

 

[AV1611VET]

The light from supernova SN 1987A has been traveling for 169,000 years.

No it hasn't.

 

[SelfSim]

No it hasn't.

(as far as your beliefs are concerned, that is).

 

[doubtingmerle]

AV1611VET,

You must have missed this thread: SN1987A

I see your thread. I see nowhere where you even address the evidence that SN1987A was 169,000 light years away when the supernova happened. I describe that evidence at my website (How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free). I also link to the primary literature.

The evidence is based on light having traveled for 0.66 years from the supernova to a distant dust cloud before being reflected back to earth. We can then use basic trig to calculate the distance to this supernova at the time of the event-- 169,000 lightyears.

Your link in no way addresses this gas cloud, the geometry involved, or the distance calculation. It simply ignores this evidence.

You write this to show that Creationists don't need to ignore evidence, but it sure looks to me like this ignores the evidence. How do you deal with the light in the dust ring I mention at my site?

Can you tell us please where the calculation from the peer-reviewed literature that I summarize at my site is wrong?

Your post asserts that the supernova actually happened in 2345 BC, 4332 years before the light was observed on earth. If this is so, then the calculations to the light ring would show that it was 4332 years away when the supernova occurred. That is not what the calculations show. So what do you do with this evidence? Ignore it?

You say the supernova was moved from its original location some 160,000 light years further away. How did it get there so fast? It would have been moving far faster than the speed of light, which is impossible (without resorting to an impossible cosmic inflation).

But if we ignore all that, and assume that it had somehow gotten there faster than the speed of light, then it would have completely disappeared from our view, never to be seen again for 160,000 years. And yet we continued to see it.

So no, this post simply does not deal with the cloud ring calculation, and makes an ad hoc assumption that turns out to be demonstrably false.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well, I did read both what you wrote and the other link, and they are both bunk, proving nothing, assuming a lot.

You ignored my point. The point was that your description of what I said misrepresented what I said.

Now you justify it by claiming that what I wrote was bunk and proved nothing. Good sir, with all due respect, it is fine for you to think that what I wrote is bunk, but that does not give you the right to misrepresent what I said.

If you think God is subject to logic and math and reality itself, then we have nothing to talk about because that is not God. I've had enough of this for now.

I'm sorry, but the laws of logic and math state that 2 + 2 <> 10. And yes, any God, no matter how powerful, simply could not change that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

OK SelfSim, I am responding to a number of posts that I found addressed to me this morning. I saved the best for last.

You describe yourself as a non-"ist" (quotation marks yours). I really don't know what that means. But your writings seem to indicate that you interpret all reality as just a figment of human imagination. And I simply cannot agree with that. There is a real objective world out there. We humans can and should be seeking to understand it.

You also identify as a Humanist. I will assume that means you identify with at least much of the philosophy of life at Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association . So that certainly gives us something in common. Now lets look at your post.

The existence of 'God' however can happen, when the word existence is based on faith (or beliefs).

If there is objective reality out there, then no, one cannot simply make the existence of God happen simply by believing it to be so.

You see, that hypothetical 'someone' has to be doing the counting and therefore there is a person is present (or is implied) as being there, doing the counting.

No sir, objective reality exists, even if there is nobody there to observe it.

For instance, NASA has recently photographed galaxies 4.6 billion light years away that had never been seen before. There were no humans around when the light left those galaxies. And yet there is clearly a quantity of galaxies in the photos. So yes, quantities of things can exist, even if there is nobody around to observe them. See https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/...livers-deepest-infrared-image-of-universe-yet

'Quantities' is a model. Its our description. It conveys a meaning which we assigned to that word. Its therefore a human model.

No sir, there is such a thing as objective reality. In that objective reality quantities of things exist. That objective reality exists regardless of whether you acknowledge it exists.

When I use the word "quantities", I am referring to the amount of anything in that objective reality.

When I refer to "numbers" that are used to calculate those quantities, I am referring to the human construct to enable our minds to understand the objective reality of quantities.

There's no reason to exclude the person who makes that (rather bizarre) claim.
They're still humans and they can be shown to exist. Whereas your view just cancels them out .. for some strange reason.

I do not exclude the person who claims that 2 + 2 =10. I will disagree. And I will explain why I disagree. But no, if somebody says 2 + 2 =10, I will not cancel that person out.

Well no .. I recall there was a long stretch where the planets were wandering stars attached to some kind of rotating spheres, (or the like), and moved in circles around the Earth. The term 'orbit' changed its meaning from that to 'eliptical' around Kepler's time. 'Orbits' is therefore a definitional model, which is subject to change with new evidence. How could that change in 'what an orbit is', possibly happen in your 'world' where the orbits were always eliptical? (Or are you just going to ignore the evidence of that change in meaning process, as though that plays no role in informing us of 'what an orbit is'?)

No sir, the planets were never attached to some kind of rotating spheres. Humans built models that described them this way. Their models did not change objective reality. Objective reality still did what it did. As a result, people started to realize that their models did not perfectly reflect objective reality. So, they built better models that do a better job of describing how that objective reality works.

 

[Astrid]

Which questions do you mean there?

The ones identified by a question mark in post
replied to.

 

[Astrid]

That algebraic (underlined) statement can be 'true' for either the person who believes in God, or the person who doesn't believe in God, simply because what it says, can be demonstrated as being true by way of the rules of logic (alegbra) and by way of being consistent with scientific objective test evidence.

The existence of 'God' however can happen, when the word existence is based on faith (or beliefs).

No .. that latter (underlined) statement is not consistent with objective test evidence. You see, that hypothetical 'someone' has to be doing the counting and therefore there is a person is present (or is implied) as being there, doing the counting.

'Quantities' is a model. Its our description. It conveys a meaning which we assigned to that word. Its therefore a human model.

No .. you got that part right. But for some reason, you exclude all the other human models (eg: like 'quantities'). That's inconsistency.

There's no reason to exclude the person who makes that (rather bizarre) claim.
They're still humans and they can be shown to exist. Whereas your view just cancels them out .. for some strange reason.

Show me the objective test (and its evidence) which specifically excludes human minds, in order to substantiate your claim there. Good luck!

Well no .. I recall there was a long stretch where the planets were wandering stars attached to some kind of rotating spheres, (or the like), and moved in circles around the Earth. The term 'orbit' changed its meaning from that to 'eliptical' around Kepler's time. 'Orbits' is therefore a definitional model, which is subject to change with new evidence. How could that change in 'what an orbit is', possibly happen in your 'world' where the orbits were always eliptical? (Or are you just going to ignore the evidence of that change in meaning process, as though that plays no role in informing us of 'what an orbit is'?)

Math is a formalised axiomatic system for tracking consistency with its axiomatic 'truths'.
The time element you rely on there however, comes from science's testable, (and well tested) definition of what time is.
The combination of those above two human invented elements, underwrite your claim there and I have no problems with moving forward on that basis.
There is no evidence that either of them 'truly exist' independently of the human fingerprints left all over both of them. The only way that can happen, is if you completely ignore that abundant evidence, or just believe that.

.

Mathematical relationships would be the same even if therewere no universe.

 

[Larniavc]

Poor little post never had a chance.

You should sue. You could get $10,000

 

[Astrid]

You should sue. You could get $10,000

Ain't my post got truncated

 

[Mark Quayle]

You said 'When people hear the Word of God, they always react, sometimes negatively, sometimes positively.'

I'd assume that if someone heard the word of God telling them what was the right course of action, then they'd take that course. How do I know they are doing what God wants them to do?

Knowing it was the word of God telling them what was the right course, no, even in my case, does not mean that I would take that course. The sin nature wants its own way.

By, "How do I know they are doing what God wants them to do?", do you mean, "How would I know whether they are doing what God says is the right course?"? You may not know. Why would that matter to you?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem is that someone here keeps insisting that God made all the rules of math, and that there would be no rules of math if God hadn't done that. That person is wrong. I cited one example of a rule of math that has to be true regardless of whether a God exists:

2 + 2 <> 53567

Do you or do you not agree that this rule exists, even if God does not exist? If this rule exist even if God does not exist, then we have shown that person to be wrong when he tells us all laws of math come from God.

It is propositional logic:

IF God exists, he exists independently, or he is not God. IF God exists, all fact, all principles and all reality, proceed from him, or he is not God.

Until you can prove that hypothetical wrong, or my assertions wrong, you have NOT shown me to be wrong.

But since I see no other logical conclusion to the law of causation; I obviously exist, my existence is obviously an effect, therefore, God (first cause) exists. The FACT that God exists necessarily rises above your whole discussion: therefore, the CAUSED fact that 2 + 2 ≠ 53567 proceeds from God and is not true independent of him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm sorry, but the laws of logic and math state that 2 + 2 <> 10. And yes, any God, no matter how powerful, simply could not change that.

So you assert. For all you links, articles, arguments, you have not proven it, not having given First Cause fair (not to mention 'full') consideration. You continue to write as though First Cause is NOT first cause, and is subject to other principles. You are wrong. But I've had enough of this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is propositional logic:

IF God exists, he exists independently, or he is not God.

Correction: IF God as you define him exists, he exists independently, or he is not God as you define him.

But how do you know that God might be something different from how you define him?

But since I see no other logical conclusion to the law of causation; I obviously exist, my existence is obviously an effect, therefore, God (first cause) exists.

Which just ignores the other possible causes that you might exist.

As I explained multiple times, I see two possible causes:

1) A first cause without a mind.
2) A First Cause with a mind.

Now we find that you refuse to recognize the possibility of a First Cause with a mind that did not decide how math will work, so let's divide #2 into 2 possibilities:

1) A first cause without a mind.
2) A First Cause with a mind that works within the reality of the logically possible.
3) A First Cause with a mind that decides what will be logically possible.

That's what we have. Three options.

You then decide you want to ignore options 1 & 2. Therefore it must be 3. But you have offered no real reason to believe it is not 1 or 2.

 

[Astrid]

Correction: IF God as you define him exists, he exists independently, or he is not God as you define him.

But how do you know that God might be something different from how you define him?

Which just ignores the other possible causes that you might exist.

As I explained multiple times, I see two possible causes:

1) A first cause without a mind.
2) A First Cause with a mind.

Now we find that you refuse to recognize the possibility of a First Cause with a mind that did not decide how math will work, so let's divide #2 into 2 possibilities:

1) A first cause without a mind.
2) A First Cause with a mind that works within the reality of the logically possible.
3) A First Cause with a mind that decides what will be logically possible.

That's what we have. Three options.

You then decide you want to ignore options 1 & 2. Therefore it must be 3. But you have offered no real reason to believe it is not 1 or 2.

No first cause.
A probability you left out.
Of that you do it but-
And invoking a "law" based on limited observation is just dumb,
as a way of arriving at some Ultimate reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

So no, this post simply does not deal with the cloud ring calculation, and makes an ad hoc assumption that turns out to be demonstrably false.

Looks to me like you're SOL then (short on luck).

Can God create a star tomorrow that is 60 trillion light years away, yet we'll see it tomorrow night?

Ever heard of wormholes? or Jacob's ladder? or the windows of heaven?

Can a person on Mars talk to someone on Earth without the use of any electronic equipment -- in real time?

Can I turn on a faucet here on Earth, and the water come out of a faucet on Alpha Centauri instantly?

If God wills it -- yes I can.

I know I'm being facetious with my examples, but you need to see the point I'm making.

Can God make a [hologram?] star appear and lead a contingent of men from the east of Israel, right up to the exact address of the house that Jesus is living in; yet no one else can see it?

Stop putting God in a box and limiting Him with your junk science and junk calculations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Correction: IF God as you define him exists, he exists independently, or he is not God as you define him.

But how do you know that God might be something different from how you define him?

Because I have no interest in giving my complete trust to, nor can I submit myself to, a mere superhuman. If you can somehow prove that God is subject to anything from outside himself, i.e. anything that exists independently of his own causation, then I will admit he is not, after all, first cause, and I will tell you plainly I am an atheist. Such a thing/being is not God.

But you cannot prove it.

Which just ignores the other possible causes that you might exist.

As I explained multiple times, I see two possible causes:

1) A first cause without a mind.
2) A First Cause with a mind.

Now we find that you refuse to recognize the possibility of a First Cause with a mind that did not decide how math will work, so let's divide #2 into 2 possibilities:

1) A first cause without a mind.
2) A First Cause with a mind that works within the reality of the logically possible.
3) A First Cause with a mind that decides what will be logically possible.

That's what we have. Three options.

You then decide you want to ignore options 1 & 2. Therefore it must be 3. But you have offered no real reason to believe it is not 1 or 2.

Been there, done that. There are reasons showing that first cause is necessarily with intent; but I am glad to see you here, at least, ignore the usual claims concerning the beginning of causation: Infinite Regress, Just IS, Nature abhors a vacuum, Nothingness is of itself unstable, Multiple 'universes', etc.

For what it is worth, the narratives you present are all 3 wrong. God need not 'decide' anything, according to our use of the word, 'decide'. God is, God does. Simple.

Furthermore, if first cause, then by definition what logic says is impossible is not what limits first cause, but first cause is the CAUSE of what is only logically possible —not just the items that are logically possible, as opposed to logically impossible, but the very source of logic and existence.

Whether or not we see first cause as bound or limited, is irrelevant to the fact that the whole question of source of all other things (other than himself —he did not create himself); he is the only thing of which it can properly be said, "Just IS".

First cause is necessarily self-existent. "Self-existent" necessarily implies unchangeable by outside causes. Thus, not limited or controlled in any way by outside principles or fact, such as are proposed to be, logic and existence and reality.

So:
1) First cause without a mind is mere mechanical fact, which is subject to principles from outside itself, thus, not first cause.
2) First cause with a mind but subject to fact from outside itself is not first cause.
3) First cause with a mind need not decide, as such, at least not from how we think of it. He need not consider anything that to us would be relevant —since that is already all 'proceeding from him'. He need not mull over possibilities —there is only one possibility, and he is the primary cause of it. God has no 'concept' which he must represent by words. The word that God spoke into being IS, both macro and micro, every detail down to the last irreducible component. The Simplicity of God, is logically the way of First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And invoking a "law" based on limited observation is just dumb,
as a way of arriving at some Ultimate reality.

Not that I disagree, but isn't that what we all do, to arrive at our axioms? We do the best we can, perhaps, but we are unable to even do it without bias, nevermind without full knowledge of the facts, and so we proceed tentatively, (though ever-so dogmatically, haha!) A good amount of self-skepticism is a healthy thing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I posted something like what follows on 1+1=3 some time ago.

I'm going to go with 1+1=3 rather than 2+2=4, because in order for 2+2 to equal 5, it seems that other fundamental understanding of math would also be different. But, even if I'm wrong about that, 1+1=3 still illustrates a problem with the concept that fundamental mathematical principles could be different.

N.b., I'm not talking about using different bases such as base 2, 4, 8, 16 or 99. This is about quantities however they are represented.

So what would it mean if 1 + 1 = 3? If you are in a room by yourself and another person enters, how many people are in the room? 3. Where did that person come from? If you get up and leave, which one of the remaining 2 people vanishes? Where does the person who vanished go? Or, does another person appear to keep the total 3? Where did that person come from? Can we create an infinite number of people this way?

If I am content in my existence but one of the two other people in the room leave, should I live in terror of disappearing? Of ceasing to exist?

If one starts counting objects (of any kind, of any type, of any concept), how does one do it? One ... three? If I manage to observe the 2nd person, does that mean we now have four people in the room...wait 5...no, 6...7...∞? (If I start counting the atoms in my body, am I now infinite?)

Now imagine this with photons. (Or any countable thing.) Perhaps it's not impossible that such a universe exists, but how long could it exist? Surely the capacity to maintain 1+1=3 would fail. Could such a universe exist longer than a few Planck seconds?

Perhaps such a universe could rely on the lack-of-an-observer effect. That is, if there is no one to count objects then there is no explosion of entities. OTOH, if this were the case, could you really say that this universe instantiates "1+1=3"?

I'm no physicist, but I'd guess whether or not such a universe is logically possible (which I doubt), it isn't physically possible.

Too often we speculate on whether 1+1 could equal something other than 2 without considering the implications.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I posted something like what follows on 1+1=3 some time ago.

I'm going to go with 1+1=3 rather than 2+2=4, because in order for 2+2 to equal 5, it seems that other fundamental understanding of math would also be different. But, even if I'm wrong about that, 1+1=3 still illustrates a problem with the concept that fundamental mathematical principles could be different.

N.b., I'm not talking about using different bases such as base 2, 4, 8, 16 or 99. This is about quantities however they are represented.

So what would it mean if 1 + 1 = 3? If you are in a room by yourself and another person enters, how many people are in the room? 3. Where did that person come from? If you get up and leave, which one of the remaining 2 people vanishes? Where does the person who vanished go? Or, does another person appear to keep the total 3? Where did that person come from? Can we create an infinite number of people this way?

If I am content in my existence but one of the two other people in the room leave, should I live in terror of disappearing? Of ceasing to exist?

If one starts counting objects (of any kind, of any type, of any concept), how does one do it? One ... three? If I manage to observe the 2nd person, does that mean we now have four people in the room...wait 5...no, 6...7...∞? (If I start counting the atoms in my body, am I now infinite?)

Now imagine this with photons. (Or any countable thing.) Perhaps it's not impossible that such a universe exists, but how long could it exist? Surely the capacity to maintain 1+1=3 would fail. Could such a universe exist longer than a few Planck seconds?

Perhaps such a universe could rely on the lack-of-an-observer effect. That is, if there is no one to count objects then there is no explosion of entities. OTOH, if this were the case, could you really say that this universe instantiates "1+1=3"?

I'm no physicist, but I'd guess whether or not such a universe is logically possible (which I doubt), it isn't physically possible.

Too often we speculate on whether 1+1 could equal something other than 2 without considering the implications.

Perhaps we should organize a group centered around the need for Awareness of the Implications! Would 2, or 3 of us, be enough to start it up? JK