h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello everyone - there has been a recent shift in Christian apologetics away from the pseudo-scientific* and into the philosophical and in particular the pre-suppositional.


These arguments can be heard being run through by Thunderf00t Vs Eric Hovind (Son of Kent "supermax" Hoving AKA: Prisoner 06452-017 )
The basic gist of which runs: "You can't know anything without god." - and this proves he exists.

Listen to it for yourself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-l6_2a-1I4

Yesterday, I was listening to the podcast from The Thinking Atheist, where he interviewed apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate - who runs the website "Proof God Exists"
It's painful to listen to - but it's the same argument: God is asserted to exist, based on scripture (becuase scripture says so) and merely arguing the point proves that you accept this is so but are living in denial. It reaches a nadir IMo at the 41st minute when Sye address one former believer by saying if they aren't a Christian know then they never were becuase to be a Christian in his mind is to be irrevocably changed.

And then just today I was browsing someone's facebook (the person who issued the Lamborghini challenge (see below) and was asking me question like why don't tables reproduce?

So wanting to get a better grasp of where this young man was coming from (he's 20) I was doing my research and I found he'd linked to this page and was speaking of it in glowing terms.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/sovereignfree.html

I suggest reading it for yourself - it concerns the Calvinist dogma of predetermination.

Here's a sample:


"human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men willfully (sic) and voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This act of evil is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, and these men are thus responsible for the act, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that beings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph's brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure.


Does it strike you as it does me, that this is just linguistic word-games and letting god entirely off the hook?


I suppose I mean this as a heads-up, are we going to have to sharpen or rhetorical sabres for taking on the arguments of the pre-determinists, and how best should we go about this?








*that said yesterday I was hit with the classic innanity of - "a tornado never blew threw a junk yard and assembled a Lamborghini - explain that Mr Evolutionist!"

oops:

The Sye Ten Bruggate interview is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4xmw1sVhN8

>> a tornado never blew threw a junk yard and assembled a Lamborghini <<

And yet... when one knows the history of the Lambo
the metaphor is actually quite apt.

http://youtu.be/lgz5403t87E
"The bells! The bells!"

Those pictures are not quite worth 1,000 words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini#History


~jwf~

More specifically:

"...designed and built in only four months... Due to the ongoing disagreement with engine designer Giotto Bizzarrini, a working powerplant was not available for the prototype car in time for the show. The car went on display in Turin without an engine under its hood; according to lore, Ferruccio Lamborghini had the engine bay filled with bricks so that the car would sit at an appropriate height above the ground, and made sure that the bonnet stayed closed to hide the missing engine."


~jwf~

Rather missing the point there Squiggles. The make of car is insignificant - it's an argument from incredulity and probability that something so complex like a car isn't assembled at random.

... and of course they are correct about that cars are designed but evolution is the result of cummulative mutli-step processes happening simultaneously. That was my retort to the creationist, which I don't expect they understood because it is a reoccurring feature of these knuckleheads that they don't understand word one of the very thing they reject and criticise.

Well I mean, put all the right car parts in a heap and wait through 3.5 billion years of tornadoes... you never know it could happen, and probably in small steps too over time.

“Having your cake and eating it”. If we are to except the word “Random” to imply
"Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." and therefore suggesting that there has been a state of non-order, non- coherence.
Then the car is your cake and one is preserving the idea that it cannot exist without being manufactured. It would seem incompatible to allude the idea that by virtue you were to have its collective component parts that you can call these parts a car, for it is only a car after these parts have been assembled in such a way that they performs as a motor vehicle should do and this process requires knowledge and a sequential order of approach to effect the desired result, this is not random
The thought of achieving a car at random alludes to the impossibility of trying to create it this way and having a car afterwards.
As with the above statement, the cake is a cake by virtue of a process and eating it is a process too the cake existed prior to the action of eating it, as a car exists only as a consequence of a manufacturing process so you cant “Have your car and random it”.

Clive, my friend, has it not occured to you that it is not possible to reason with the unreasonable?

Utter waste of time, my brother.

I didn't mean that it would have to be intelligently designed in order for the process to work. I was just making, maybe in bad taste, a joke that with evolution we are talking about a long period of time where the components of life existed and then life evolved. I was kind of trying to use their metaphor against them, I guess the metaphor breaks down when we are a. looking for a particular outcome to occur and b. making something in which the individual parts will not reproduce and act like a living thing when made. I guess I was just trying to take their bad example and twist it in a clever way, but I failed miserably there, sorry.

There is this word, it’s called the “truth”, yet this bastion is open to attack such as grouse on the so called Glorious Twelfth.
I suppose those religious types have their big guns too, as in philosophical pre-suppositionalism , marching around, trampling over other opinions, pointing their narrative defensive apologetics at those who dare to oppose or challenge them.
Yet the truth is not a grouse, it won’t lie dead for anyone, it may have a variety of meanings and the rules of logic may not have the ability to distinguish truth on its own.
But the word truth has to be an essential part of our language so as to convey information of standards by which individual things or people may be compared and judged.
Belief imposes a bias, as it inevitably makes people see and hear only what they want to see and hear in support of their belief and will affect the inferences that people draw.
Being pre-suppositional provides people with beliefs that they cannot necessarily justify, based on intuition so they proceed to a conclusion through intuition rather than reason.

I dunno, to me the idea that the very first Lambo
had a pile of bricks where the engine ought to be
kinda sounds like a tornado mighta been involved.

~jwf~

Meh.

The first DeLorean had a Lotus Esprit where the chassis should have been.

As, in fact, did all future DeLoreans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_DMC-12#Body

Gif

Xanatic Post #29974 “Stone Art: Are you perhaps familiar with the story of Sisyphos?”


Would you agree that Clive and others’ Sisyphean efforts, to convince “young Earth creationists” / “biblical literalists” of the errors in their ways, are laudable?

Restarting a discussion put on hold two/three weeks ago …

Following the general agreement that the premise,
"If evolution is directionless and without purpose” leads to "life (the biological process or collectivity of organisms) is also directionless and without purpose", …

… I am now satisfied there is also general agreement for,
"If evolution is directionless and without purpose then … life (at the level of an individual organism) is also directionless and without purpose."
[Where the meaning of direction and purpose in the first part is identical to their meaning in the second part].



Supporting Notes
1) #29959 quoting Hoovooloo: “Less facetiously: individual organisms have direction and purpose. Their direction is towards food and the opposite sex, and their purpose is to eat and reproduce. And that's all. Any other "purpose" we may believe we have is an illusion.”

I can accept these statements.

The individual organism’s direction towards food and the opposite sex are reflections of two necessary components of evolution. Similarly, an individual’s “purpose” to eat and reproduce are reflections of two necessary components of evolution. Without eating or reproduction at the individual organism level, there could be no evolution.



2) #29959 Quoting from Hoovooloo: “And that's all. Any other "purpose" we may believe we have is an illusion.”

I can accept this statement.

As I have previously mentioned, all I ask is that we use the same definitions for direction and purpose when considering the premise (evolution is ...) and the “contested” inference (hence life is ...). The only differences we have concerns this; I don’t attribute “volition” to the meaning of direction and purpose when going from “evolution” to “life at the individual level”, whereas others do. ... As Hoovooloo recognises in his comment #29968: “ "Direction" and "purpose" in their common usages imply volition. That's where the thing falls down.”

However, this is not the meat and veg of what is being discussed. I am satisfied we agree on the meat and veg. but not on the gravy.


Hence we have acceptance that other than the “direction and purpose” necessary for evolution, expressed at the individual organism level, everything else is illusionary.

I am also in agreement with Clive #29969, to quote:
“Indeed our ability to 'choose' or to have volition as Hoo put it - may well be constrianed by our neurology - and there are experiments already performed that show that decisions are made (detectable by changes in activity) in the sub-conscious layers of the brain, before they rise to the level of consciousness and the person reports making the decision. Experiments such as these complexify and challenge what we even mean to say 'we have volition' like it's a property we innately possess or an action perform.”


Which was something I raised over six/seven weeks ago in my comment #29861:
“To broach the subject of "purpose" and sentience.

“Someone reaches out and grabs a potato. The person who reached out and grabbed the potato says that he saw the potato and "decided" to take it. Some studies have shown that he is already reaching out to grab the potato before he has "decided" to take the potato.””


So other than the “drivers” of the evolutionary process that some here give the attribute of “volition”, when expressed at the individual organism level, everything else that the individual believes to be purpose and direction may certainly well be illusion (or even delusion or for that matter "gravy" – see previous comment).

[ps I must congratulate Clive for his Bushism – to “compexify”]

Now that we have examined the relationship between the premise of evolution and life, let’s return back to examine the premise:
“Evolution is directionless and without purpose”.


I would like to ask two questions to the esteemed members of H2G2:
a) Is the premise testable?
b) Do those that assert its truth claim it is true by definition or by some other means?

I think few here would agree that 'Evolution is directionless and without purpose' is in the form of a valid premise.

This is not dissimilar to making a claim that, 'God does not exist.'

The atheist position does not attempt to offer negative proof, it simply responds to the positive assertion, 'God exists', that there is insufficient evidence supporting any coherent claim of the existence of a god or gods.

Similarly, it would be more correct to state there is insufficient evidence to suggest there is either a direction or a purpose to evolution by natural selection.

A premise must make an assertion. Merely rephrasing a negation in the guise of an assertion does not automatically grant it validity.

The theory of evolution by natural selection makes no statement regarding purpose or direction, and any such claims fall outside of bounds of the theory

The burden of proof remains with those who are making the assertion, and attempts to shift that burden to 'prove a negative' are dishonest.

30098

“ Restarting a discussion put on hold two/three weeks ago …” here we go again

“ Following the general agreement that the premise,” whose agreeing with who

“ I am now satisfied there is also general agreement for,”

“ I can accept these statements”

“ I can accept this statement.” All is peaceful in the world

“ However, this is not the meat and veg of what is being discussed. I am satisfied we agree on the meat and veg. but not on the gravy.” It’s now turning into a cookery forum, more vicar

“I am also in agreement with Clive #29969, to quote:” that’s blatant favouritism now

“Which was something I raised over six/seven weeks ago in my comment #29861:” Hello is there any body out there

“[ps I must congratulate Clive for his Bushism – to “compexify”]”you’ll be bringing a with you next time

“ Now that we have examined the relationship between the premise of evolution and life, let’s return back to examine the premise: 
WhatWhere did any oneget a jot in edge ways and where off again

“ I would like to ask two questions to the esteemed members of H2G2:” I like this bit “esteemed” you were blowing spit and feathers at us a few posts ago

And finally “b) Do those that assert its truth claim it is true by definition or by some other means?”
As in post 30091 “ the word truth has to be an essential part of our language so as to convey information of standards by which individual things or people may be compared and judged.” , “ it may have a variety of meanings and the rules of logic may not have the ability to distinguish truth on its own.”

As Forrest Gump did say" Thats all I have to say about that"


to Taliesin for 30098