The Problem of evoL

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I've seen valid points IMO criticizing science theory, on topic, made by religious folk, that were shut down in that forum.  Anyway, thanks for the info.  

"They" try to be fair; but "they" don't always succeed.  Because protecting our lurkers and newbies sometimes requires subjectivity. 

 

Carry on...

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"They" try to be fair; but "they" don't always succeed.  Because protecting our lurkers and newbies sometimes requires subjectivity. 

 

Carry on...

The truth shall set you free....js.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The truth shall set you free....js.

What is truth?

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What is truth?

 

that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

What is fact?  What is reality?

[midniterider]

One definition of real seems to be whatever a lot of people observe and agree to have observed.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

34 minutes ago, midniterider said:

One definition of real seems to be whatever a lot of people observe and agree to have observed.

 

 

 

Once upon a time a lot of people (i.e., everyone) observed and agreed that the world was flat.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, "reality" is just a big ol' argumentum ad populum?

[walterpthefirst]

32 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, "reality" is just a big ol' argumentum ad populum?

 

No.  There's another way of looking at this, Prof.

 

Perhaps a good working definition of reality isn't one that is commonly agreed upon by everyone but one that is commonly experienced by everyone.  This is because people can believe something about reality but then live in it in a way that contradicts that belief.  A worked example might serve to illustrate this.

 

Mark 16 : 17 & 18

 

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 

18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

 

As you and I know, there are many Christians who hold a solidly literal belief in scripture.  To them these verses are literally true.  But as we also know, their beliefs do not align with reality.  If they drank the cyanide-laced Kool Aid it would hurt them.  They would die, just as the followers of Jim Jones died.  Therefore, in the commonly experienced reality we all seem to inhabit deadly poisons do kill, regardless of belief.

 

Belief always yields to reality and not the other way round.  This explains why there are no historical instances of mountains being moved by faith, as per Matthew 17 : 20.  Or of mountains being thrown into the sea by the power of faith, as per Matthew 21 : 21.

 

So, I would submit that reality is not a matter of choice and belief, it is a matter of common experience.  That is why argumentum ad populum does not apply here.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Once upon a time a lot of people (i.e., everyone) observed and agreed that the world was flat.

 

 

Whether flat or spherical, there seems to be some high confidence (which has become assumption) that observation via the senses is to be trusted. And that there really is an independent 'out there' outside of our awareness. 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, "reality" is just a big ol' argumentum ad populum?

 

If I were to say that the physical universe is just an hallucination, consciousness was the primary substance, and reality was just a big ol' argumentum ad populum....

 

Would you agree or disagree?

 

If you disagreed, would you bolster your rebuttal with information from established scientific sources (aka, the populum)?

 

 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Mark 16 : 17 & 18

 

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 

18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

 

 

 

 

People pick up snakes. Steve Irwin...ok, he used to pick up snakes. 

 

I did read about that guy that drank deadly poison while they read his guilty verdict.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

If I were to say that the physical universe is just an hallucination, consciousness was the primary substance, and reality was just a big ol' argumentum ad populum....

 

Would you agree or disagree?

 

If you disagreed, would you bolster your rebuttal with information from established scientific sources (aka, the populum)?

 

 

I would neither agree nor disagree until or unless more information was made available. 

[midniterider]

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I would neither agree nor disagree until or unless more information was made available. 

 

ok

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I would neither agree nor disagree until or unless more information was made available. 

 

The pendulum rests center....

[Joshpantera]

The problem of evil is an evil problem for apologists to face down. 

 

Burns their asses....

[pantheory]

15 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"They" try to be fair; but "they" don't always succeed.  Because protecting our lurkers and newbies sometimes requires subjectivity. 

 

Carry on....

 

OK

[walterpthefirst]

11 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Whether flat or spherical, there seems to be some high confidence (which has become assumption) that observation via the senses is to be trusted. And that there really is an independent 'out there' outside of our awareness. 

 

I'd be inconsistent if I denied that there seems to be and independent 'out there' outside of our awareness, midniterider.

 

Seeing as 12 hours ago I replied to the Prof and described a 'commonly shared experience' of reality.

 

So Yes, up to a point our senses are to be trusted.

 

Perhaps this thread is relevant?

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82674-truth-knowledge-and-belief-an-exploration/#comment-1215999

 

Because Disillusioned talks about 'brute' facts of reality that are undeniable.

 

Our senses would appear to be adequate in perceiving these.

 

The brute fact of gravity being something we can see and understand.

 

 

 

(Steps off cliff)

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!

 

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Our senses would appear to be adequate in perceiving these.

 

The brute fact of gravity being something we can see and understand.

 

 

 

(Steps off cliff)

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!

 

The main issue here is that we haven't clue what gravity actually is. It's just something that exists. What it is or why it is we have no clue.

 

But whatever it actually is, has an effect on this experience of reality for whatever reason. Evolution by natural selection has shaped us to sense and interact with what we call gravity. It's part of the system of our experience of reality. 

 

In the matrix, for instance, there is a 'brute fact of gravity' built into the simulation. You will fall off the building or over the cliff within the context of the simulation. And die, in the simulation. 

 

Unless you realize that you're in a simulation and start to manipulate its parameters according to what is possible to manipulate. What appeared as unbreakable law, wouldn't have been. Only from the perspective of lacking a better understanding of the reality itself. Our senses never would have been properly revealing true information in any absolute sense. All of it would have been subject to change upon simply realizing it. 

 

I've always wondered about the monoliths. I've looked at a lot of rational attempts to explain and never found any satisfying. And since I've paid more attention to idealist philosophy over physicalist metaphysical assumption, I see a window into how it may have been possible to erect those stones by knowing how to manipulate gravity. If the universe is mentation (Hermetic tradition claims this and links the knowledge back to ancient Egypt) then what is not possible to do? 

 

Usually when speculating this way an urge to ground the speculation in firm fact can arise. But what firm fact can we be talking about?

 

This pull to ground ourselves in firm fact has to go back to a priori assumption and presupposition that physicalism is true, when we don't know that it is. We assume that it is.

 

But what if we are no more right in that assumption than someone making the same assumption from within the Matrix - from a platform of ignorance about the simulation, how it works, and what is actually possible? 

 

What does that do to a brute fact like the example of gravity? 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Y'all really believe in Gravity?  That's just ridiculous.  I mean, gravity is only a theory to begin with.  And if you look at the facts, Intelligent Downward-Pushing makes far more sense.  Blind idiots.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

But what if we are no more right in that assumption than someone making the same assumption from within the Matrix - from a platform of ignorance about the simulation, how it works, and what is actually possible? 

 

What does that do to a brute fact like the example of gravity? 

 

 

 

 

 

If I have a dream that I'm falling ... is it because gravity is making me fall? Nope. That whole dream reality is being manufactured on the fly by consciousness. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

If I have a dream that I'm falling ... is it because gravity is making me fall? Nope. That whole dream reality is being manufactured on the fly by consciousness. 

But the sensation of falling and the thrill of panic you experience, which are both "real" in the dream, are the result of our shared conscious experience with gravity.

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But the sensation of falling and the thrill of panic you experience, which are both "real" in the dream, are the result of our shared conscious experience with gravity.

Wives' dreams seem to even invoke post-dream conscious anger.  

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Y'all really believe in Gravity?  That's just ridiculous.  I mean, gravity is only a theory to begin with.  And if you look at the facts, Intelligent Downward-Pushing makes far more sense.  Blind idiots.

 

Maybe everything has intelligence. Maybe a rock could whip someone at chess if it had an arm and a hand.

[walterpthefirst]

11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The main issue here is that we haven't clue what gravity actually is. It's just something that exists. What it is or why it is we have no clue.

 

But whatever it actually is, has an effect on this experience of reality for whatever reason. Evolution by natural selection has shaped us to sense and interact with what we call gravity. It's part of the system of our experience of reality. 

 

In the matrix, for instance, there is a 'brute fact of gravity' built into the simulation. You will fall off the building or over the cliff within the context of the simulation. And die, in the simulation. 

 

Unless you realize that you're in a simulation and start to manipulate its parameters according to what is possible to manipulate. What appeared as unbreakable law, wouldn't have been. Only from the perspective of lacking a better understanding of the reality itself. Our senses never would have been properly revealing true information in any absolute sense. All of it would have been subject to change upon simply realizing it. 

 

I've always wondered about the monoliths. I've looked at a lot of rational attempts to explain and never found any satisfying. And since I've paid more attention to idealist philosophy over physicalist metaphysical assumption, I see a window into how it may have been possible to erect those stones by knowing how to manipulate gravity. If the universe is mentation (Hermetic tradition claims this and links the knowledge back to ancient Egypt) then what is not possible to do? 

 

Usually when speculating this way an urge to ground the speculation in firm fact can arise. But what firm fact can we be talking about?

 

This pull to ground ourselves in firm fact has to go back to a priori assumption and presupposition that physicalism is true, when we don't know that it is. We assume that it is.

 

But what if we are no more right in that assumption than someone making the same assumption from within the Matrix - from a platform of ignorance about the simulation, how it works, and what is actually possible? 

 

What does that do to a brute fact like the example of gravity? 

 

I think that I'm not communicating the idea of a brute fact of reality very well here, Josh.

 

Such a brute fact, like gravity, is in no way affected or influenced by what we do or don't understand about it.  It affects us regardless of our ignorance or understanding of it.  A Homo Australopithecus and a Homo Sapien falling off a cliff come to the same end, regardless of the differences in their cognitive ability.   Even if someone discovered exactly what gravity is tomorrow, their understanding changes nothing.  They still end up dead if they fall from a great height.  That is an undeniable and unavoidable brute fact of reality.

 

Nor does it matter what the falling person understands or believes about the true nature of reality.  They are still going to die.  Understanding or ignorance, belief or non-belief.  None of it makes any difference.

 

Let's take a different example.

In the days following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japanese scientists were ordered to examine the ruins of both cities to discover what had destroyed them.  These scientists correctly concluded that thermonuclear fission was the destructive agent in both cases.  

 

But if these same scientists had been at ground zero in either city on when the bombs fell would their understanding of the physics of fission have prevented them from being vaporised?  The answer, is, of course, a resounding No.  

 

I suspect that you and I will not agree on this issue, Josh.

As far as I'm concerned, in almost every instance, no special mindset, no mode of understanding, cosmic mentation, assumption or manifestation of consciousness undoes, avoids or transforms what reality inflicts upon us.   

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.