An open challenge to evolutionists.

[QuestioningMind]

Normally when I see Evolution used it is to contradict Creationism.

In Evolution theory it seems everything is coincidental randomness, and changes within living / non living and organic / non organic material, over time.

The majority of people who believe in a creator god also believe in evolution, so clearly for most theists there is no contradiction. If you're talking about young Earth creationists, who claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, yes evolution is a contradiction... but then so is geology and astronomy, both of which tell us the Earth is billions of years old.

For a theist who believes in evolution there is no coincidental randomness... what appears to be coincidental and random is actually the mysterious plan of god.

 

[ratiocinator]

Humans are never illogical, yet they are, so how can the universe as such be just logical.
And yes, that is a contradiction. All parts of the universe are without being illogical, yet humans as parts are sometimes illogical and humans as parts are parts of the universe.

We've already covered that - do keep up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say that. Logical self-consistency is a state that can be described using logic.
...

So how does the universe describe that?!!
You are using a human behavior and claiming that the universe as such has this behavior. How do you observe that?!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We've already covered that - do keep up.

And please explain how the universe as the universe describes something? How do you observe that?

 

[ratiocinator]

So how does the universe describe that?!!

It doesn't.

You are using a human behavior and claiming that the universe as such has this behavior.

No, I'm not.

This is getting silly - you really don't have anything to offer, do you? You totally ignore the obvious nonsense I've pointed out in your own claims and keep on changing the subject.

 

[ratiocinator]

And please explain how the universe as the universe describes something?

I never once claimed that it did.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It doesn't.



No, I'm not.

This is getting silly - you really don't have anything to offer, do you? You totally ignore the obvious nonsense I've pointed out in your own claims and keep on changing the subject.

Reductio ad Absurdum | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Reductio ad absurdum is applied to:

• individual propositions or theses
• groups of propositions or theses (that is, doctrines or positions or teachings)
• modes of reasoning or argumentation
• definitions
• instructions and rules of procedure
• practices, policies and processes

Notice something about these words? They are human behaviors.
So if the universe does that, where do you observe that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never once claimed that it did.

Yes, you did. The universe is logically self-consistent.

Logic applies to:

• individual propositions or theses
• groups of propositions or theses (that is, doctrines or positions or teachings)
• modes of reasoning or argumentation
• definitions
• instructions and rules of procedure
• practices, policies and processes

So the universe does do that. The universe does logic as for:

• individual propositions or theses
• groups of propositions or theses (that is, doctrines or positions or teachings)
• modes of reasoning or argumentation
• definitions
• instructions and rules of procedure
• practices, policies and processes

Reductio ad Absurdum | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[ratiocinator]

Reductio ad Absurdum | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Reductio ad absurdum is applied to:

• individual propositions or theses
• groups of propositions or theses (that is, doctrines or positions or teachings)
• modes of reasoning or argumentation
• definitions
• instructions and rules of procedure
• practices, policies and processes

Notice something about these words? They are human behaviors.
So if the universe do that, where do you observe that?

You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

I have never once claimed that the universe "does" logic. I said it was logically self-consistent - what's more you claimed that it wasn't, hence invalidating any application of the process of logic (including reductio ad absurdum, that you tried to use) to it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, you did. The universe is logically self-consistent.

Logic applies to:

• individual propositions or theses
• groups of propositions or theses (that is, doctrines or positions or teachings)
• modes of reasoning or argumentation
• definitions
• instructions and rules of procedure
• practices, policies and processes

So the universe does do that. The universe does logic as for:

• individual propositions or theses
• groups of propositions or theses (that is, doctrines or positions or teachings)
• modes of reasoning or argumentation
• definitions
• instructions and rules of procedure
• practices, policies and processes

Reductio ad Absurdum | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Sorry, but you really don't have the first clue, do you?

Propositions need to be about something and if that something isn't self-consistent, then logic simply doesn't apply. The logical self-consistency of the universe simply means that logic can be applied to propositions about the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Start here: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." - Aristotle
We are playing same, similar and different for different aspects of the universe and not all things at all time are the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.

No, we are not. the logical aspect of the universe is in the fundamental laws. The illogical aspect in in the mental representation people have of the universe.

Those are two *different* respects of the word 'logical'. So Aristotle's dictum (whether it is true or not, see below) is not applicable.

But, I would suggest that Aristotle's dictum is actually *false* and is known to be false via modern physics. All you have to do is take the superposition of a particle in two different states. it can then be both 'in' and 'not in' the same thing at the same time and in the same respect. This is the strange aspect of superpositions that makes it crucial to rethink much of metaphysics (and entanglement does even more damage to Aristotelian metaphysics).

 

[Polymath257]

So the underlying logic of the universe causes not logical thoughts and beliefs.
Now explain that and not just claim it.

Well, we have illogical thoughts and beliefs (by observation) and the logic of the universe still exists (regular physical laws).

The point is that regular physical laws (i.e, underlying logic) does not imply that systems within the universe fully represent things around them perfectly (in fact, they cannot). And that means that the representations can have internal illogic even though the rules governing things are systematic and 'logical'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

I have never once claimed that the universe "does" logic. I said it was logically self-consistent - what's more you claimed that it wasn't, hence invalidating any application of the process of logic (including reductio ad absurdum, that you tried to use) to it.

Yes, the dog is brown. Whether that is the case can be checked through observation.
The universe is logically self-consistent. How do you observe that?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, the dog is brown. Whether that is the case can be checked through observation.
The universe is logically self-consistent. How do you observe that?

By a lot of observation and testing? By being precise enough that logical inconsistencies are eliminated? By having mathematical models, so self-consistency is more likely?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, but you really don't have the first clue, do you?

Propositions need to be about something and if that something isn't self-consistent, then logic simply doesn't apply. The logical self-consistency of the universe simply means that logic can be applied to propositions about the universe.

Yeah, we are getting somewhere.
Now we end here:
Ontological: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." Aristotle
About something, not everything. The universe is not a thing, it is not even the set of things, because set is a human word.
The universe is not the same thing at same time and in the same respect and it is not a set. You can't observe that it is a set.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, the dog is brown. Whether that is the case can be checked through observation.
The universe is logically self-consistent. How do you observe that?

Once again, you're shown to have been talking nonsense and so off you go in another direction...

Yeah, we are getting somewhere.

Nope - just you twisting and turning as each of your ideas gets knocked down.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By a lot of observation and testing? By being precise enough that logical inconsistencies are eliminated? By having mathematical models, so self-consistency is more likely?

Start here: Ontological: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." Aristotle

You and I are not the same thing at the same time in the same respect. We are in part covered by the same scientific laws, but they break down for differences in humans.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
It is right, there!
I am informing you of the limit of science as it pertains to logic. Logic is a behavior in computers and some lifeforms. It has a limit, just like human mobility.
And yes, in principle if you become an all logical god, you can do that you dream of, but you are not a god. You are a human and the root limit of logic breaks down for humans in some cases.

If there are 2 humans, there are 2 cases of different for the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.
If you accept say - war - I don't have to, because I am a pacifist. And no, logic doesn't apply to that.
If you are as I believe non-religious, I don't with logic have to be that. And indeed I am religious.

That is the limit of - with only reason, logic and objective empirical observation as self-consistent. I can do differently than you in some cases and you can do nothing about that with logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, we have illogical thoughts and beliefs (by observation) and the logic of the universe still exists (regular physical laws).

The point is that regular physical laws (i.e, underlying logic) does not imply that systems within the universe fully represent things around them perfectly (in fact, they cannot). And that means that the representations can have internal illogic even though the rules governing things are systematic and 'logical'.

We agree. I can be different than you in some cases and you can do nothing about that. I believe in God and that is in accordance with the laws of physics or indeed I am in fact actually doing something supernatural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Once again, you're shown to have been talking nonsense and so off you go in another direction...



Nope - just you twisting and turning as each of your ideas gets knocked down.

I am religious and you can do nothing about that with logic alone. That is the actual, real life in practice limit of your logic.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am religious and you can do nothing about that with logic alone.

And off you go on yet another tangent....

That is the actual, real life in practice limit of your logic.

Yet again arguing against something that I've never claimed. You can't reason somebody out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into...