The Problem of evoL

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, if you can't give the proper epistemological context of his comments, then I can't really comment either can I?

 

What you've given us here Ed is hearsay.

 

It's not hearsay.  I gave you the university and the lectureship series.  I'm sure it's online somewhere.  In the interim you can fill in the missing pieces for us and tell us how triangulating iffy measurements puts us in the "know" category...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

18 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

But I think its important not to give the Theists anything that they can seize upon.  Because, seize upon it they will.

I'm not overly concerned about christians having seizures.  

 

But, more to the point, I'm not going to curtail, or custom-tailor, my online musings on the off-chance that something I say might eventually be used against me.  I've met such challenges in the past; and, so long as I keep my wits about me, I'll face the next one head on.

[walterpthefirst]

58 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not hearsay.  I gave you the university and the lectureship series.  I'm sure it's online somewhere.  In the interim you can fill in the missing pieces for us and tell us how triangulating iffy measurements puts us in the "know" category...

 

But I've already done that, Ed.

 

I've nailed my colours to the mast whenever I've said that empirical science and scientific data should be considered as tentative and provisional, never absolute.  When I've done this I've usually been careful to add that the only branch of the sciences that deals with absolutes is mathematics.

 

Science only 'knows' things tentatively and provisionally.  Therefore, we 'know' that the universe's expansion is accelerating, but only so far as our instruments and our minds will let us.  In the advent of better instruments and better data for our minds to chew on, that which we 'know' today may well be overturned by what we will 'know' tomorrow.

 

And this is exactly how it should be.  Because science never promises to deliver absolute truths.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm not overly concerned about christians having seizures.  

 

But, more to the point, I'm not going to curtail, or custom-tailor, my online musings on the off-chance that something I say might eventually be used against me.  I've met such challenges in the past; and, so long as I keep my wits about me, I'll face the next one head on.

 

Each to their own, Prof.

 

 

I bought this book recently, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/415129.Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf and the author (a Naval officer based at Annapolis) painted some interesting differences in the command styles of the various USN admirals involved.  It's just a matter of personal preference but I don't see myself as a Bull Halsey so much as a Jesse Oldendorf.

 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#The_Battle_of_Surigao_Strait_(25_October)

 

As the Southern Force approached the Surigao Strait, it ran into a deadly trap set by the 7th Fleet Support Force. Rear Admiral Jesse Oldendorf had a substantial force. There were six battleships: West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Tennessee, California, and Pennsylvania; all but Mississippi had been sunk or damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor and since repaired, Tennessee, California, and West Virginia having been rebuilt since then.

 

There were also the 35 8-inch (203 mm) guns of the four heavy cruisers (USS Louisville (flagship), Portland, Minneapolis and HMAS Shropshire) and 54 6-inch (152 mm) guns of four light cruisers (Denver, Columbia, Phoenix and Boise). There were also the smaller guns and torpedoes of 28 destroyers and 39 motor torpedo boats (Patrol/Torpedo (PT) boats). To pass through the narrows and reach the invasion shipping, Nishimura would have to run the gauntlet of torpedoes from the PT boats followed by the large force of destroyers, and then advance under the concentrated fire of the six battleships and their eight flanking cruisers disposed across the far mouth of the Strait.

 

Oldendorf's preparedness and planning are more my style, Prof.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

The potential problem I see in the arguments being tossed back and forth in this thread is that anything that looks like us questioning our senses and the evidence derived from them plays right into their hands.  We are coming to close to saying 'Nothing we perceive can be trusted.'   If that is so, then the Presupps will just seize on that and say, 'Therefore trust only in god and not in your senses.'

 

 

 

That could be construed as a false dilemma. Either pick Jesus or your senses. There are other choices, FSM, Zeus, Thor, idealism, etc etc. 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Pontificating on the more philosophical side isn't something we should be afraid of or run from.  The philosophy is what brings us the most important questions that the science can answer.  

 

What he said ^^

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, midniterider said:

 

That could be construed as a false dilemma. Either pick Jesus or your senses. There are other choices, FSM, Zeus, Thor, idealism, etc etc. 

 

Good call, midniterider.  

 

If memory serves, in the debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty, the former tried to catch the latter in a logical fallacy.  So, if the Presupps are prepared to use them then they can't complain when they're caught in one.

 

To assert that only Jesus is the answer is special pleading - another logical fallacy.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thanks again for the vote of confidence, Prof.

 

Josh and I seem to agree that we have no choice but to live as if reality were 'real'.  As you say, there are no viable alternatives.  But I think its important not to give the Theists anything that they can seize upon.  Because, seize upon it they will.

 

 

Maybe a Christian will show up soon. Hope so...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Oldendorf's preparedness and planning are more my style, Prof.  

I prefer Sun Tzu:

 

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

[walterpthefirst]

40 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I prefer Sun Tzu:

 

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

 

I agree.

 

But being honest I tend to find it easier to know something about others rather than to know something about myself.  It's a (self) learning process I suppose.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

54 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Good call, midniterider.  

 

If memory serves, in the debate between Sye Ten Bruggencate and Matt Dillahunty, the former tried to catch the latter in a logical fallacy.  So, if the Presupps are prepared to use them then they can't complain when they're caught in one.

 

To assert that only Jesus is the answer is special pleading - another logical fallacy.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Yeah, I think special pleading is more accurate than false dilemma. 

 

...

 

So if you walk into a room full of Presupps, do you say, "Sup, Presupps?"

[TheRedneckProfessor]

42 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I agree.

 

But being honest I tend to find it easier to know something about others rather than to know something about myself.  It's a (self) learning process I suppose.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Which brings us to Lao Tzu:

 

He who conquers others is strong; He who conquers himself is mighty.

 

And Confucius:

 

He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Another way to look at it, @walterpthefirst, which I was going to mention earlier, is to consider the statement, "Nothing is ever exactly how it seems; nor is it otherwise."  Alan Watts is often credited with turning that particular phrase; but it actually goes all the way back to the Buddha.  There has been some debate over the centuries as to exactly what the Buddha meant by the statement; and the irony of debating it is that any possible explanation you can think of based on the statement, would be exactly what the Buddha meant, and simultaneously not exactly what he meant.

 

This is due to the Law of Impermanence, the Buddhist principle that everything is subject to change.  This obviously includes our perceptions and the ways our brains process the information gathered by our senses.  But, it also includes the information we receive from the world around us.  Our lives, our environments, our situations, are all in a constant state of flux; and our minds and perceptions react with fluidity.

 

Even science, as you often astutely observe, accepts its theories and models tentatively.  Because as new information becomes available, the ideas we hold today will change.  Even the definitions we assign to the concepts we describe will eventually be replaced by newer, more accurate terminology. 

 

So, everything you perceive is exactly as you perceive it; but also, not exactly as you perceive it.  It is exactly as you perceive it now, according to your current perception and understanding.  But it is also exactly as it actually is, outside of your perception and understanding.  And it is exactly as it will be when your perception and understanding change.  It is as it seems to be; but also, not as it seems to be.

 

It is, as they say, a complete:

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

"Nothing is ever exactly how it seems; nor is it otherwise." 

 

 

https://www.penguin.com.au/books/reality-is-not-what-it-seems-9780141983219

 

Snapped up by me on the very same book-buying expedition as that Leyte Gulf book.

 

 

Synchronicity, Professor?

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 8/18/2022 at 10:47 AM, walterpthefirst said:

But what about this, Josh?  A clever Christian apologist who reads our dialogue could challenge us in the following way.

 

If there's no way to know through our senses if we are living in a simulation or not, then why rely on the evidence from our senses when it comes to what you believe about the true nature of reality?  Surely it's better to rely on faith and not go with evidence that cannot be trusted?  As per Hebrews 11 and other passages in the bible?  

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

An Eastern Orthodox guy just posted those precise versus today in a Bernardo Kastrup group. This is what he's up against: 

 

'This amounts to faith in a transcendent reality. So, what does that transcendent reality amount to? Something that can't be described with words, thoughts, or any concept? This prohibits any myth, the bible notwithstanding, from describing in any factual way a transcendent reality. It's beyond the words and descriptions of any myth and it's beyond sense perception entirely which knocks out physical reality describing either. So, you can use any myth as a metaphor for the transcendent reality. And you can also use no religions or myth and just use physical reality as your metaphor. In the best-case scenario, Christianity's place in the world is still nothing more than one option among many other options for a metaphor. None of which are ever literally true.'

 

No one can tell you what exactly this transcendent reality that have "faith" in consists of, certainly not the bible or any other religious work. He hasn't responded back because he obviously hadn't thought this out very far previously. He'll have to try and chew on that. 

 

That's what I've been doing when I'm not here - tackling the apologists that pop up in the philosophy groups. There are Eastern Orthodox snobs in those groups trying to claim idealist philosophy for Christianity. And I've been taking them to task.

 

The apologists who come here are generally not very sophisticated philosophically. It's a lot of low hanging fruit most of the time. You get into these philosophy groups and they're a little more on top of their game. But they're still trying to cling to Christianity, which, will always put them at a disadvantage over those who don't cling to Christianity. 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

I think you're missing the whole point in trying to ask questions and in trying to use your understanding, Josh. 

 

If you look at the content of Hebrews 11 you'll see that none of the people mentioned troubled themselves with questions or with trying to understand  -  they just acted in faith, without evidence and without understanding.

 

I would suspect that the EO will take a similar line.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

I think you're missing the whole point in trying to ask questions and in trying to use your understanding, Josh. 

 

If you look at the content of Hebrews 11 you'll see that none of the people mentioned troubled themselves with questions or with trying to understand  -  they just acted in faith, without evidence and without understanding.

 

I would suspect that the EO will take a similar line.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

They're trying to use verses like Hebrews 11 to claim that it's referring to invisible reality that we can't see. And then linking that to the notion that we don't perceive reality directly and so the bible was right all along. Here's what he quoted at me from an EO theologian: 

 

"“I think faith is best defined in the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when the writer says 'Faith is certainty about things invisible.' It is certainty, that is the operative word, and things which are invisible are not simply things imagined. Speaking for instance of myself and a number of other people, I'm sure we began with an experience that was totally convincing. Now at a certain moment this experience faded away, as does every experience of beauty, of love, of joy, of pain. There is a moment when it is no longer actual, but the certainty of it has remained. And this is the moment when faith comes into it. But faith doesn't mean credulity; it means that the certainty remains about something which is not our actual present experience of things.” (God and Man by Archbishop Anthony Bloom (1971).)"

 

They're trying to shoehorn this stuff into Analytic Idealist philosophy. And claim that the EO has been right all along because we don't perceive reality directly. And I've shot back at them. 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

They're trying to use verses like Hebrews 11 to claim that it's referring to invisible reality that we can't see. And then linking that to the notion that we don't perceive reality directly and so the bible was right all along.

 

And claim that the EO has been right all along because we don't perceive reality directly. And I've shot back at them. 

 

 

It seems to me that if we don't directly and correctly perceive things we can see, we should be much less inclined to trust our perception of things we cannot see.  That's just Redneck spit-balling, though; I admit I don't understand all this philosophy stuff too well.

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

They're trying to use verses like Hebrews 11 to claim that it's referring to invisible reality that we can't see. And then linking that to the notion that we don't perceive reality directly and so the bible was right all along. Here's what he quoted at me from an EO theologian: 

 

"“I think faith is best defined in the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when the writer says 'Faith is certainty about things invisible.' It is certainty, that is the operative word, and things which are invisible are not simply things imagined. Speaking for instance of myself and a number of other people, I'm sure we began with an experience that was totally convincing. Now at a certain moment this experience faded away, as does every experience of beauty, of love, of joy, of pain. There is a moment when it is no longer actual, but the certainty of it has remained. And this is the moment when faith comes into it. But faith doesn't mean credulity; it means that the certainty remains about something which is not our actual present experience of things.” (God and Man by Archbishop Anthony Bloom (1971).)"

 

They're trying to shoehorn this stuff into Analytic Idealist philosophy. And claim that the EO has been right all along because we don't perceive reality directly. And I've shot back at them. 

 

 

 

Well, are you at all surprised by this, Josh?

 

Look at how it all started.  Adam and (not) Eve weren't expected to obey god out of understanding what death was.  They were just expected to trust and obey him.  This fits with Hebrews 11 because at that time death was not known or seen by them.  And that's the whole thrust of that chapter, isn't it?  To trust in the reality of things you cannot see or have not yet seen.

 

Of course, this immediately sets up a tension with other parts of the bible.  (And you may wish to point this out to the EO.)  If believers are to trust and obey without evidence and without understanding, why was it ever necessary for there to be signs and miracles for believers to see?

 

Why did the Israelites in the desert need to see signs from god if they were expected to trust and obey without evidence and without understanding?  Why did the crowds on Mount Carmel need to see fire come down from heaven and consume the altar and offerings set up by Elijah?  And most pertinently, why did Jesus' disciples and his followers need to see miracles confirming his divinity if they were just expected to trust and obey without evidence and without understanding?

 

Instead of tackling the EO about transcendent reality Josh, why not tackle him about contradictions within the bible?

 

Of course, he may just flip this back at you by saying that signs were given to those who lacked faith, whereas those who didn't were expected to just obey without evidence or understanding.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It seems to me that if we don't directly and correctly perceive things we can see, we should be much less inclined to trust our perception of things we cannot see.  That's just Redneck spit-balling, though; I admit I don't understand all this philosophy stuff too well.

 

Notice also how the EO theologian makes "certainty" an issue? 

 

Certainty does not factor in to a "transcendent" reality. It's by definition beyond certainty. Beyond perception, thought, concepts, etc., etc,. is by definition uncertainty. It's not knowing.  

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Of course, this immediately sets up a tension with other parts of the bible.  (And you may wish to point this out to the EO.)  If believers are to trust and obey without evidence and without understanding, why was it ever necessary for there to be signs and miracles for believers to see?

 

Why did the Israelites in the desert need to see signs from god if they were expected to trust and obey without evidence and without understanding?  Why did the crowds on Mount Carmel need to see fire come down from heaven and consume the altar and offerings set up by Elijah?  And most pertinently, why did Jesus' disciples and his followers need to see miracles confirming his divinity if they were just expected to trust and obey without evidence and without understanding?

 

Instead of tackling the EO about transcendent reality Josh, why not tackle him about contradictions within the bible?

 

Of course, he may just flip this back at you by saying that signs were given to those who lacked faith, whereas those who didn't were expected to just obey without evidence or understanding.

 

That's exactly what he'd do. And then he'd disregard the bible where it suites his fancy because the EO don't regard scripture as the highest authority. They regard themselves, the EO church as the highest authority. It's a different beast altogether. 

 

So, we face off on the philosophical front where they're trying to usurp modern scientific and philosophical ideas as their own. And he's pinned against the ropes if he wants to make assertions of "certainty" about what is considered "transcendent." 

 

The majority in these groups are western thinkers gone Buddhist or Advaita Vedanta. Who have been christian and then moved on. I get a lot of "likes" when I debate these apologists. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Notice also how the EO theologian makes "certainty" an issue? 

 

Certainty does not factor in to a "transcendent" reality. It's by definition beyond certainty. Beyond perception, thought, concepts, etc., etc,. is by definition uncertainty. It's not knowing.  

 

Ah... but it is, Josh.

 

(See next post)

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's exactly what he'd do. And then he'd disregard the bible where it suites his fancy because the EO don't regard scripture as the highest authority. They regard themselves, the EO church as the highest authority. It's a different beast altogether. 

 

So, we face off on the philosophical front where they're trying to usurp modern scientific and philosophical ideas as their own. And he's pinned against the ropes if he wants to make assertions of "certainty" about what is considered "transcendent." 

 

The majority in these groups are western thinkers gone Buddhist or Advaita Vedanta. Who have been christian and then moved on. I get a lot of "likes" when I debate these apologists. 

 

 

 

Here's how it works, Josh.

For the non-EO's, scripture is the highest authority and these apologists can 'know' because of 1 John 2 : 20

 

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.

 

So, they can bypass any limitation you can impose on them concerning knowledge, Josh.

 

For the EO's, their church is the highest authority and the Holy Spirit works through them and not scripture, again bypassing any limitation you can impose upon them concerning how they 'know' and how they are certain.

 

Now, you and I can easily see that both of these are just circular arguments.  So, if these EO's have ever used logical fallacies in their debates with you, you can return the favour.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Thinking about this a bit more Josh...

 

John 14 : 26

 

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 

 

John 15 : 26

 

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

 

John 16 : 12 - 15

 

12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 

13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 

14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 

15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

 

The Holy Spirit gives direct access to this transcendental reality, bypassing any limitations of human perception, knowledge or understanding.  That is because nothing is impossible with god.  That which you cannot understand and which seems impossible to you is possible through faith.

 

 

But it's all still a circular argument.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Thinking about this a bit more Josh...

 

John 14 : 26

 

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 

 

John 15 : 26

 

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

 

John 16 : 12 - 15

 

12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 

13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 

14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 

15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

 

The Holy Spirit gives direct access to this transcendental reality, bypassing any limitations of human perception, knowledge or understanding.  That is because nothing is impossible with god.  That which you cannot understand and which seems impossible to you is possible through faith.

 

 

But it's all still a circular argument.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Honest and sincere question please Walter.  Did you ever have essentially a transcendent experience, and if so, what was the general theme.

 

Thx.