Neutral Name
Active Member
I guess that's why the world is in such bad shape - God is busy making individual snowflakes.
In reality, God is allowing man to be man, unfortunately.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I guess that's why the world is in such bad shape - God is busy making individual snowflakes.
It is not up to me to set a standard for you. You have to provide your own standard, and I have to examine it to see whether it is flawed or not. It's not a matter of conflicting standards - it's a matter of whether the reasoning provided is flawed or not.Please explain how one would "demonstrate" the intelligence (complex inter-functionality, and purpose) being expressed in a strand of DNA to your satisfaction. (Because I suspect it is not possible to do, to your satisfaction.)
This is not a good faith argument. You are not providing an actual refutation to, or even addressing, what I have written.Do you think that typing this somehow makes it true? Because billions of humans perceive the nature of existence as implying purpose. Again, I wonder, what is the criteria that would need to be met for you to recognize such an implication, yourself? As I suspect you have rendered it ideologically unattainable.
Then you cannot assert that intent is implied in reality.Objectivity is not a requirement of truth, nor of existence. It's just another conceptual tool we can use to help us cognate our experience of being. But purpose is not an "objective" phenomena even when the fulfillment of that purpose is an objective phenomenon. So there's never going to be a logical objective criteria for determining the presence of an organized, focused, intent.
Please demonstrate this.All cognition IS imaginary.
I'm addressing what I see as flaws in your logic and bad faith in your arguments. I've been polite and reasonable - you have gotten personal and accused me of saying things I never said. You'r the one wasting our time.Then please do not read my posts solely for the purpose of negating my intellectual perspective. That's just a waste of both our time. If you were not doing this, then I apologize.
This is another claim you have to demonstrate.There is no alternative. "Objectivity" is an illusion. It does not "exist" beyond our cognition of it.
The difference is the assertion that our cognition is therefore necessarily imaginary or unable to assess objective facts. It is one thing to point out that our cognition is flawed, and therefore subject to interpretation and lacking in true objectivity - and asserting that we, on no level, perceive or are capable of cognitively understanding or acknowledging reality on some level. In other words, there can still be an objective reality and, until you demonstrate otherwise, we have good reason to believe our cognitive experiences are directly related to it.EVERYTHING IS COGNITIVE from the human perspective. So arguments based on the subjective nature of human cognition are logically incoherent. There is no avoiding the subjective nature of our experience and understanding of being ... delusions of an 'objective reality' not withstanding.
Equivocation. I am clearly referring to "design" as act of intellectual intent or cognitive will.If design is not an "inherent facet of the universe", what is it that you think scientists are seeking knowledge of? How can existence exhibit a pattern without it following a set of design parameters? How do you explain genetic replication if DNA is not a biochemical mechanism (expression of) of design?
Sure, I'd accept the former question as valid.Please stop and consider these instances more carefully.
This is just semantics. The question is: If existence has a purpose, what is it? Or, from the (semi-articulate) individual human's perspective: why am I here? Apart from that we're just sliding into the 'rabbit hole' of possibility vs. probability.
Of course words can have multiple meanings, but it's hard to believe anyone would find talk about scientific or mathematical laws ambiguous. We hear about all sorts of natural laws everyday.My comment re linguistics meant that words develop new meanings, and can also retain a previous, and in this case concurrent one.
In the days before science, ‘laws’ were the decrees of whoever was lord and master - God or king.
As you are saying, ‘laws of the universe’ in a scientific sense means the observably inevitable behaviours of matter/energy.
But the other meaning, the cultural/religious meaning of intentional, prescribed conduct, is conflated with the scientific meaning, perhaps unconsciously.
My mention of dopamine was tongue-in cheek.You don’t see the point? You only brought in dopamine. I suggested that it was self evident that living beings are intentional beings who strive for sensual delight
It is good that you agree that you have no clue about the origin of intentionality in living beings. But two points arise. First. Do you have clue regarding origin of life? Second. Do you think that life and intentionality are unrelated aspects?
What bias? Energy has a clear definition, and it has nothing to do with intention. You're the one redefining 'energy'.... Again with the bias. And I suspect you are not capable of thinking past it.
You're ascribing qualities of consciousness to 'energy'; "the will for change to occur" --?? how can a non living stuff have a will?I made no such claim.
A great many people are wrong. They don't think. They don't base their opinions on evidence, but on feelings and tradition.I simply am pointing out that a great many humans perceive a strong possibility of there being a purpose for existence, from the way existence, exists. What is determining that purpose, or what that purpose is, is anyone's guess.
Exactly! If we don't know, the logical position is "I don't know." This is what I've been saying. It doesn't matter how many popular opinions are out there, until we have empirical evidence we must, logically, assume no-thing.We don't even know for sure that there is a purpose.
Exactly! That's what a default position is. That's why I say "unknown". You don't need evidence for "unknown." "Unknown" is what you start with, pending evidence, ie: a default position.No evidence logically leads to the "default position" of unknown. But that is not the position you have chosen.
No, these result in false premises. With a false premise, it doesn't matter how logical your processing is. Garbage in -- garbage out.Experience, intuition, imagination, need, desire: these are all fodder for logical reasoning, for most humans.
No -- because it's the only reasonable conclusion, when you exclude intuition, imagination and desire; these are not evidence.And no one here has asserted that position.
That's only a part of the conceptual inquisition. It's the part YOU hold onto to the exclusion of all else, because it allows for you to be 'right'.
Therefore, as long as we have no empirical evidence, as you say, the logical position is "I don't know." Pulling magical deities out of your hat as "explanations" is decidedly not reasonable.Not being omniscient, the reasoned probability of an apparent possibility are all the "substantiation" we humans are ever going to get.
It must be backed by logical reasoning backed by actual evidence, not intuition and imagination. We've always had these, and where did they get us? Evidence isn't a totem, but science's sine qua non.No, it must be backed by logical reasoning, derived from actual experience. You seem to have turned "evidence" into some sort of divine totem. It's not. All evidence is, is observed experience subjected to logical reasoning. It's not the holy grail of truth. And it's certainly not "objective".
Mine are the standard definitions and criteria. They are effective because they avoid the bias of "most people: Experience, intuition, imagination, need, desire." They're the definitions that launched the scientific revolution -- and the computer you're typing on.At this point it's becoming apparent that you have defined your criteria out of the realm of possibility, guaranteeing that only your biased opinion can be 'right'. So what do you suggest I do in response to this insurmountable "wall of bias" you've built for yourself?
What are some of the most interesting facts and possibilities regarding abiogenesis? Where do you think it might go in the future?
Did it exist in the distant past?
But we're an acquisitive species.