What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Age]

Again, I accept everything you present as evidence. You, and attofishpi, clearly do not understand that to accept some piece of evidence as support for an hypothesis does not commit you to accepting the hypothesis.

Will, I am not convinced that evolution is not the correct hypothesis.

'These people', here, could NOT SHOW and PROVE MORE of just HOW NARROWED and CLOSED they REALLY ARE.

'This one', like the others, here, ACTUALLY BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that it can ONLY EVER BE 'one' OR 'the other'.

Thus 'they' could NOT SHOW and PROVE that 'they' could be MORE CLOSED, here.

But, I think I grasp the point you have been making pertaining to evidence of a hypothesis for GOD.

I do believe that, since gnosis of GOD, that this entity has manipulated the lineage of man IF it originated from a primate form - thus a design. But I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

[Will Bouwman]

That "the truth doesn't make sense" to me, is no part of what I am asserting.

It should be, shouldn't it? On what basis can anybody say, "The truth doesn't make sense to you (singular or plural)?" Doesn't one have to wait for the person or persons in question to say that?

What I regard as the truth clearly doesn't make sense to you. It is demonstrably true that evidence can be interpreted in different ways that make perfect sense. So while your interpretation may make perfect sense to you, you cannot know that it is the truth.

But that's only evidence that I have. There's no guarantee it's going to appeal to you.

Then you concede that evidence has to appeal to be taken as compelling.

A person should be able to say what he would accept as proof, or demonstration, or evidence of a particular proposition.

By which reasoning you knew what you would accept as proof, prior to whatever episode you had that you attribute to God.

But I can't tell you what you should accept: you have to decide that, and tell me.

You have effectively told me that I should accept the evidence you have presented, and that if I don't:

...the fault won't be on the lack of evidence, but your staunch refusal to see evidence of any kind as evidence.

...what would be equivalent evidence that you would accept that would convince you of human evolution?

Well, nothing now. It would have to wipe out the contrary experience of God, and I don't think you could pull that off.

Nor do I. Referring to your experience as "experience of God", is consistent with the aesthetic choice of metaphysics you have made.

But you don't have experience of Evolution, nor do you have very good data for it.

That's an interesting claim: what made you think you knew already what evidence I -- or anyone else, presumably -- could possibly have?

So the evidence you have for God is at least one experience that you attribute to God, that you knew beforehand would be sufficient evidence for you to believe that such an experience would persuade you that God exists. You are quite right that I can't know all your experiences, but you do know of at least one experience that has persuaded at least one person. If you can express what that experience is, then I could tell you whether it would persuade me.

What you have -- unless you're far ahead of today's ordinary Evolutionist -- is a theory.

Well, for current purposes, I have two. Creation and evolution, but I'm open to hybrids and alternatives.

It's one that was handed you by others, not experienced by you, and it's one you believe on authority of their certainty, not your own.

Like most philosophy graduates, I know to hold any metaphysical belief with the tenacity most people reserve for hot potatoes. Whatever experience you attribute to God, it is not direct experience of Biblical events; an account that was handed you by others, one you believe on authority of their certainty, not your own.

[Will Bouwman]

...I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

It is a coherent hypothesis supported by a lot of evidence, but if you don't like the idea, you are not compelled to believe it.

[Flannel Jesus]

...I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

It is a coherent hypothesis supported by a lot of evidence, but if you don't like the idea, you are not compelled to believe it.

Some would rather just believe that it's a complete coincidence that we have so many ape like features, and are more genetically similar to apes than any other creature.

I mean ffs it's more rational, if you're going to be silly about all this, to at least be like "well i just think God made evolution happen" instead of just wholesale denying all of modern biology. That's what the pope does. These people are trying to be LESS rational than the pope?

[attofishpi]

...I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

It is a coherent hypothesis supported by a lot of evidence, but if you don't like the idea, you are not compelled to believe it.

Some would rather just believe that it's a complete coincidence that we have so many ape like features, and are more genetically similar to apes than any other creature.

I mean ffs it's more rational, if you're going to be silly about all this, to at least be like "well i just think God made evolution happen" instead of just wholesale denying all of modern biology. That's what the pope does. These people are trying to be LESS rational than the pope?

Well Will did the IC thing there and left out my statements (a tactic to diminish ones actual POV)

I don't deny evolution theory but since KNOWING GOD exists I admit I must consider and concede that I believe the human lineage is likely to have a manipulation to its evolution - a design adaptation.

This was my original statements:

Will, I am not convinced that evolution is NOT the correct hypothesis.

But, I think I grasp the point you have been making pertaining to evidence of a hypothesis for GOD.

I do believe that, since gnosis of GOD, that this entity has manipulated the lineage of man IF it originated from a primate form - thus a design. But I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

Not so certain youd find that less rational than the Pope.

[Immanuel Can]

That "the truth doesn't make sense" to me, is no part of what I am asserting.

It should be, shouldn't it? On what basis can anybody say, "The truth doesn't make sense to you (singular or plural)?" Doesn't one have to wait for the person or persons in question to say that?

What I regard as the truth clearly doesn't make sense to you.

This is precisely my point. One's own finding that something "doesn't make sense" isn't an indication about anybody else.

...while your interpretation may make perfect sense to you, you cannot know that it is the truth.

It's true that feeling that something "makes sense" is not an absolute guarantee of truth, since humans are fallible. But it's also the case that something true, given the right information, will always make sense. The question is, does one have the right data, and is one putting it together correctly? That is precisely why logic works, for example.

But that's only evidence that I have. There's no guarantee it's going to appeal to you.

Then you concede that evidence has to appeal to be taken as compelling.

No; I'm saying the recipient has to be willing to receive it as evidence; if he is not, then nothing at all will ever seem evidence to him. Only the perceiver can set the terms for what he will regard as evidence, even if every other person in the world would otherwise ordinarily recognize it as evidence.

Hence, I've been asking about your evidentiary standard for the existence of God. And you've been asking me about mine for Evolutionism.

A person should be able to say what he would accept as proof, or demonstration, or evidence of a particular proposition.

By which reasoning you knew what you would accept as proof, prior to whatever episode you had that you attribute to God.

When I began, no; but as I progressed in my inquiry, I came to select some things as relevant, and to set other things aside if I had good reason to detect a deficiency of relevance. In every case, I had to determine whether I would accept a particular piece of information as relevant or not. But that's exactly what we all have to do.

But I can't tell you what you should accept: you have to decide that, and tell me.

You have effectively told me that I should accept the evidence you have presented,

No, I have said no such thing. Nor have I even implied it. I've simply asked you what YOU would regard as evidence.

And if you've no such standard, then:

...the fault won't be on the lack of evidence, but your staunch refusal to see evidence of any kind as evidence.

...what would be equivalent evidence that you would accept that would convince you of human evolution?

Well, nothing now. It would have to wipe out the contrary experience of God, and I don't think you could pull that off.

Nor do I. Referring to your experience as "experience of God", is consistent with the aesthetic choice of metaphysics you have made.

I wasn't "aesthetic." In fact, I was not particularly enthused about discovering it, at least at first.

And the reason I cannot be unconvinced of the existence of God is very simple and natural. I have contrary experience now.

But let's illustrate how normal that is. All we have to do is substitute the word "God" for "Detroit," and our exchange reads something like this:

WB: "What evidence would you accept to disconfirm your belief in Detroit?"
IC: "Well, I've been to Detroit."
WB: "That's purely aesthetic. How do you know Detroit exists?"
IC: (Puzzled) "Because I've been there."
WB: "Well, if nothing can convince you there's no Detroit, then your belief is irrational. Popper, remember?"

So the evidence you have for God is at least one experience that you attribute to God, that you knew beforehand would be sufficient evidence for you to believe that such an experience would persuade you that God exists.

Not "beforehand." But when it happened, I of course had to make a decision about its relevance and about the conclusion it would warrant.

You are quite right that I can't know all your experiences, but you do know of at least one experience that has persuaded at least one person. If you can express what that experience is, then I could tell you whether it would persuade me.

How would "I know God" help you?

What you have -- unless you're far ahead of today's ordinary Evolutionist -- is a theory. It's one that was handed you by others, not experienced by you, and it's one you believe on authority of their certainty, not your own.

Like most philosophy graduates, I know to hold any metaphysical belief with the tenacity most people reserve for hot potatoes.

Of course. But always be wary lest skepticism tip over into cynicism. As C.S. Lewis so aptly put it, "The point of seeing through things is to see something through them. To see through everything is the same as to see nothing at all."

Whatever experience you attribute to God, it is not direct experience of Biblical events; an account that was handed you by others, one you believe on authority of their certainty, not your own.

That's how it began; it's not how it finished.

But Evolutionism hasn't been experienced by anybody. It's unrepeatable in a lab, impossible to monitor or test, and relies on vast timespans when there were no observers at all. What we observe, instead, is the fixity of species, of genetic regression to the normal, and mutational injuries, rather than "magic monsters" of Evolutionary "progress," and of a fossil record far too sparse and selective to allow for the existence of the millions and millions of random mutational "failures" the theory requires us to believe must have happened.

[Will Bouwman]

Well Will did the IC thing there and left out my statements (a tactic to diminish ones actual POV)

Hmm. Very well.

This was my original statements:

Will, I am not convinced that evolution is NOT the correct hypothesis.

But, I think I grasp the point you have been making pertaining to evidence of a hypothesis for GOD.

I do believe that, since gnosis of GOD, that this entity has manipulated the lineage of man IF it originated from a primate form - thus a design. But I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

It is a coherent hypothesis supported by a lot of evidence, but if you don't like the idea, you are not compelled to believe it.

[Flannel Jesus]

I do believe that, since gnosis of GOD, that this entity has manipulated the lineage of man IF it originated from a primate form - thus a design. But I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

Not so certain youd find that less rational than the Pope.

If you accept evolution, and just think it's divinely led, that's pretty much as far as I know what the official stance of the catholic church is, and has been for many decades, so no, not less rational than the pope.

[Will Bouwman]

What I regard as the truth clearly doesn't make sense to you.

This is precisely my point. One's own finding that something "doesn't make sense" isn't an indication about anybody else.

But that isn't my point. My point is that you do not have to accept any given interpretation, because different interpretations of the same phenomenon can make perfect sense, even those which are mutually exclusive.

It's true that feeling that something "makes sense" is not an absolute guarantee of truth, since humans are fallible. But it's also the case that something true, given the right information, will always make sense. The question is, does one have the right data, and is one putting it together correctly? That is precisely why logic works, for example.

Well, logically, you can't arrive at "something true, given the right information, will always make sense" from "humans are fallible".

A person should be able to say what he would accept as proof, or demonstration, or evidence of a particular proposition.

By which reasoning you knew what you would accept as proof, prior to whatever episode you had that you attribute to God.

When I began, no...

Then why make that demand of others?

WB: "What evidence would you accept to disconfirm your belief in Detroit?"
IC: "Well, I've been to Detroit."
WB: "That's purely aesthetic. How do you know Detroit exists?"
IC: (Puzzled) "Because I've been there."
WB: "Well, if nothing can convince you there's no Detroit, then your belief is irrational. Popper, remember?"

That is nothing like anything I have said. I have not tried to convince you that your God does not exist. As I keep saying, hypotheses are underdetermined, not that any hypothesis is untrue. What evidence would you accept that that is my position?

So the evidence you have for God is at least one experience that you attribute to God, that you knew beforehand would be sufficient evidence for you to believe that such an experience would persuade you that God exists.

Not "beforehand." But when it happened, I of course had to make a decision about its relevance and about the conclusion it would warrant.

Right. There was a decision to be made and you chose to believe. If you could have decided otherwise, you accept there are alternative explanations for your experience.

If you can express what that experience is, then I could tell you whether it would persuade me.

How would "I know God" help you?

Not much, because I can think of alternatives that are at least as plausible, to the existence of God, and he having a relationship with you, for your belief that you know him.

[Immanuel Can]

What I regard as the truth clearly doesn't make sense to you.

This is precisely my point. One's own finding that something "doesn't make sense" isn't an indication about anybody else.

But that isn't my point. My point is that you do not have to accept any given interpretation, because different interpretations of the same phenomenon can make perfect sense, even those which are mutually exclusive.

That depends on what you mean by "make sense." They might "make sense," given certain assumptions, but not "make sense" when considered in relation to reality. Internal consistency or formal correctness is A requirement of the relation between logic and truth; but it's not THE ONLY requirement. The second requirement is that one's premises also be true.

By which reasoning you knew what you would accept as proof, prior to whatever episode you had that you attribute to God.

When I began, no...

Then why make that demand of others?

Because you're not a beginner, are you? You say you're down the road on this issue. So that means the question becomes very reasonable: since you've rejected what evidences you've seen so far, what would you accept?

What evidence would you accept that that is my position?

It's not? Then I'll not worry about addressing it.

So the evidence you have for God is at least one experience that you attribute to God, that you knew beforehand would be sufficient evidence for you to believe that such an experience would persuade you that God exists.

Not "beforehand." But when it happened, I of course had to make a decision about its relevance and about the conclusion it would warrant.

Right. There was a decision to be made and you chose to believe.

No, the evidence became compelling, and I realized it was absurd to persist in disbelief. That's quite a different proposition.

If you can express what that experience is, then I could tell you whether it would persuade me.

How would "I know God" help you?

Not much, because I can think of alternatives that are at least as plausible, to the existence of God, and he having a relationship with you, for your belief that you know him.

Right. You're not going to know, because you're able to make up "alternatives" you would find "plausible" to that sort of claim. That does not, of course, imply your "alternatives" would be correct or truthful or realistic; simply that you, yourself, found them "plausible."

Since I can't tell you what you find "plausible," I've been asking you what you would find a plausible demonstration of the existence of God. And so far, there's no answer, it seems. So it cannot be a great surprise to you that you don't find the existence of God plausible, can it?

[Will Bouwman]

What evidence would you accept that that is my position?

It's not? Then I'll not worry about addressing it.

I think you need another try.

As I keep saying, hypotheses are underdetermined, not that any hypothesis is untrue. What evidence would you accept that that is my position?

[Immanuel Can]

As I keep saying, hypotheses are underdetermined, not that any hypothesis is untrue. What evidence would you accept that that is my position?

I don't actually need evidence for that one. If you say it, I have no reason to doubt it: you're the one believing it.

Whether or not I agree with that statement about hypotheses, that's a different question.

[Ben JS]

Firstly, you CLAIMED that 'come from' MEANT, 'create', which MEANS 'bring into existence / cause to exist'.
This time, you CLAIM that 'come from' MEANS, to originate from or derive from

Exhibit A:

First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.

Create: 'bring into existence / cause to exist'

Your initial claim before I entered the conversation said every thing was created.
Your words.
-

Exhibit B:

LOL So, 'what' then did the 'Thing', which the 'Universe' word is REFERRING TO, come FROM, EXACTLY?

come from: to originate from or derive from
origin: the point at which something comes into existence

Your initial question to me upon showing your claim presupposed an origin within it's terms [which I disagreed with].
Your question.
-

I denied all is created. Referencing your initial claim.
I denied all has origin. Referencing your initial question.

Your initial claim, and your initial question to me - are different.
In each case, you introduced terms which you want to avoid.

You say create was used 'loosely'.
You claim ignorance as to how 'come from' implies an origin.
-

Perhaps if you type less, and read more -
you'll be able to keep track of what's been said.
You're wrong.. again.

Considering that you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the 'totality of existence' (the Universe) IS 'created' FROM the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things, [...]

You: "First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things."
Me: "The totality of existence (universe) is a thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking."

Does not adhere to = does not match criteria set.

In response, you declare I absolutely believe a position directly opposing what I immediately just stated.

Another time, wrong.

Being wrong so frequently indicates a low regard for truth -
not great for a philosophy forum.

The 'Thing', known as the Universe, or Everything, Totality, or ALL-THERE-IS, ALSO ONLY exists BECAUSE OF 'two things' 'coming-together', or CO-EXISTING. [...]
The Universe, Itself, is One Thing, which consists of two things, namely; 'matter', AND, 'space'. The One Thing came FROM the two things.

Existence is the foundation for any thing to be.
If any thing is, then existence is.
If existence was not, then no thing could ever be.
Existence does not require any other thing, or combination of things to be.
Existence is what allows things to be - it is the per-requisite for all things.

Some hypothetical examples to broaden your narrow perspective:

It is possible that existence has the capacity to create space/matter from it's absence -
that before the big bang, there was no space or matter.
If so, existence would still be - even before space/matter existed.

It is possible that only awareness exists,
with space and matter being false constructs.
In this case, existence would still be.

There is much we do not know about existence.
We're still learning of the laws that govern space & energy,
that exist beyond them.

The TOTALITY OF Existence, [the Universe], Itself, is NOT just One FIXED and/nor UNCHANGING Thing.

This is likely a core component of our disagreement.
I believe in Eternalism or the B-Theory of time.

For your education:

Eternalism:
1. Under standard eternalism, temporal locations are somewhat akin to spatial locations.
[...] When someone says that they stand ‘here’, it is clear that the term ‘here’ refers to their position.
‘Back’ and ‘front’ exist as well. Eternalists stress that ‘now’ is indexical in a similar way.
[...] Events are classified as past, present, or future from some perspective.
-
2. Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places,
and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time. [...]
It is sometimes referred to as the “block time” or “block universe” theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional “block”.
-
3.
Let us distinguish between two senses of “x exists now”.
In one sense, which we can call the temporal location sense, this expression is synonymous with “x is present”.
The non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of “x exists now”, it is true that no non-present objects exist now.
But in the other sense of “x exists now”, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that “x exists now” is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers.
Using the ontological sense of “exists”, we can talk about something existing in a perfectly general sense, without presupposing anything about its temporal location.


B-Theory of Time:
B-theorists think all change can be described in before-after terms.
They typically portray spacetime as a spread-out manifold with events occurring at different locations in the manifold (often assuming a substantivalist picture).
Living in a world of change means living in a world with variation in this manifold.
To say that a certain autumn leaf changed color is just to say that the leaf is green in an earlier location of the manifold and red in a later location.
The locations, in these cases, are specific times in the manifold.

if 'we' were to USE your OWN DEFINITIONS

I'm using standard definitions from dictionaries / encyclopedias.
Each were copied verbatim from the source.
They are not my own, but in the absence of an alternate definition,
I'll take for granted people are using terms in accord with their standard usage.

If you'd like me to direct you to the definition source of any word,
all you need to do is ask.

===
===

Go ahead and sting that strawman, Age.
I plan for this to be my last response to you within in this thread.
I've said what I wanted, and seen enough to my satisfaction.

It was a pleasure - til next time.

[Ben JS]

Ben, my best recommend is not to talk to it, you will eventually understand why.

Age is like a beehive.
I recognized this before interacting.
I expected to be stung before I engaged.
I intentionally provoked them with a stick,
to get direct feedback as to what they're about.

Thanks for the heads up.

[attofishpi]

Well Will did the IC thing there and left out my statements (a tactic to diminish ones actual POV)

Hmm. Very well.

This was my original statements:

Will, I am not convinced that evolution is NOT the correct hypothesis.

But, I think I grasp the point you have been making pertaining to evidence of a hypothesis for GOD.

I do believe that, since gnosis of GOD, that this entity has manipulated the lineage of man IF it originated from a primate form - thus a design. But I am reluctant in some way to think the primate lineage as being true.

It is a coherent hypothesis supported by a lot of evidence, but if you don't like the idea, you are not compelled to believe it.

I agree both times with your concluding statement, but it just means that the likes of Flannel Jesus don't have so much ammo to suggest I am less rational than the Pope on such matters of evolution when my POV is better represented.

PS. It's not that I dont LIKE the idea, it's that once one has gnosis of GOD's existence, it seems evolution particularly where wo/man is concerned is less likely imo.