Re: No Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory??
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:54 pm
OK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
OK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.
OK. I think your statement that my statement "could not be further from the truth" is at least a little overzealous, though.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:54 pmOK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.
Evolution itself doesn't make any claims at all about theism. There's a reason the pope believes in evolution...Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:56 pmOK. I think your statement that my statement "could not be further from the truth" is at least a little overzealous, though.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:54 pmOK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.
Humans posited the theory of evolution. It was posited within a milieu driven by theology. When I say evolution draws meaning from that, I think it's a fair statement. At the very least, I think there are statements that could be "further from the truth" than mine.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 1:04 pmEvolution itself doesn't make any claims at all about theism. There's a reason the pope believes in evolution...Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:56 pmOK. I think your statement that my statement "could not be further from the truth" is at least a little overzealous, though.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:54 pm
OK, well you can assume in my posts above, that when I say "evolution doesn't but some fans of evolution do", that I'm making that distinction.
I'm not even sure it's meaningful to say evolution "draws meaning", at all, from anything.
Yeah you're probably right about that. It's still notably untrue thoughGary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 1:09 pm. At the very least, I think there are statements that could be "further from the truth" than mine.
Fair enough.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 1:10 pmYeah you're probably right about that. It's still notably untrue thoughGary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 1:09 pm. At the very least, I think there are statements that could be "further from the truth" than mine.
Let's be honest. "Most people" are completely unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and especially the data that underpins it's principles.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:46 pmI think most people tacitly agree that evolution is the more likely scenario (at least since the point of a beginning), up until we start talking about removing intelligent design completely from the picture, then things start to get murky.LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:15 pm The importance of the creation story as pertains to religiosity and theism has too prominent of a status in Philosophical debate when compared to it's importance in the lives of the religious (and nonreligious).
In other words in my experience almost none of the religious and nonreligious people I know hinged their belief (or nonbelief) on how well or poorly religion explained the creation story.
That wouId depend on the context.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 4:31 am What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?
There are empiricaI aspects to the concIusions in both theories.To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical]
One contribution with Big Bang and Evolution [abiogenesis] are as basis to counter against the existence of God argument. But there are other arguments to argue against God's existence.
You are aware that some physicists consider time to have started aIong with space at a certain specific time in the past, or? Further you can believe in the Big Bang theory and not assume that there was nothing before or no greater context for that particuIar event. Were you aware of that?One problem is the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory are still subject to the problem of infinite regression, i.e. what happened before them?
Well, sure. Most people have no need for either theory.I believe there is no loss nor handicap to humanity if we were to deny or ignore the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory for certain arguments.
When people ask him that question about anti-realism, he somehow thinks it's appropriate to say "THE TRUTH!" but he doesn't accept that answer from anybody else.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:00 pmThat wouId depend on the context.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 4:31 am What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?
If most people are unfamiliar with evolutionary theory then the schools they attended are failing them.LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 4:32 pmLet's be honest. "Most people" are completely unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and especially the data that underpins it's principles.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:46 pmI think most people tacitly agree that evolution is the more likely scenario (at least since the point of a beginning), up until we start talking about removing intelligent design completely from the picture, then things start to get murky.LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 5:15 pm The importance of the creation story as pertains to religiosity and theism has too prominent of a status in Philosophical debate when compared to it's importance in the lives of the religious (and nonreligious).
In other words in my experience almost none of the religious and nonreligious people I know hinged their belief (or nonbelief) on how well or poorly religion explained the creation story.
Oh everyone has "heard of it", though many folks' understanding of it is that they're a monkey's uncle.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:43 pmIf most people are unfamiliar with evolutionary theory then the schools they attended are failing them.LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 4:32 pmLet's be honest. "Most people" are completely unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and especially the data that underpins it's principles.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:46 pm
I think most people tacitly agree that evolution is the more likely scenario (at least since the point of a beginning), up until we start talking about removing intelligent design completely from the picture, then things start to get murky.
I agree with the Big Bang and Evolutionary Theory as qualified to the limitations of science-cosmology and science-biology respectively.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 9:13 amFrom what I can make out of what you are saying, this seems like a sensible approach. I think you are right, that evolution draws a lot of its meaning out of its opposition to certain theological theories. And the big bang does beg the question, what happened before it. I mean, if I'm understanding correctly, then I think there's good sense in beginning with what we see here and now and not necessarily postulating a big bang or an evolution.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 4:31 am What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?
To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical] is the Bottom-up approach, i.e. one start with a basic belief at the bottom to explain why things and reality as it is at the present.
One contribution with Big Bang and Evolution [abiogenesis] are as basis to counter against the existence of God argument. But there are other arguments to argue against God's existence.
One problem is the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory are still subject to the problem of infinite regression, i.e. what happened before them?
I believe there is no loss nor handicap to humanity if we were to deny or ignore the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory for certain arguments.
This is where I argue for the Emergence and Realization of Reality [within a FSERC] from the TOP-DOWN approach.
Instead of starting from the bottom to explain the present, we strive to understand reality from what is justified and existing at present to as far down as our empirical evidences and critical thinking can support it without any concern for any ultimate grounds.
With Emergence, what is critical is we can rely on FSERC scientific truths to make useful predictions that can be justified with testing and repeatability thus enable confidence in their ability to predict and therefrom make positive contributions [in all aspects] to humanity in terms of scientific based technology.
What is Emergence & a priori Realization of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40721
There might be some loss if we deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [Bottom-Up] (which is reasonable up to a point), but the tradeoff for Emergence [Top-Down] is a lose-win [net-win] situation.
Discuss??
Views??
On the other hand, what if the big bang and evolution are correct accounts of the history of the universe and living beings? Am I correct that your approach does not deny that possibility?
OK.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:00 pmThat wouId depend on the context.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 4:31 am What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?
But both conclusions are speculations face the regress problem;There are empiricaI aspects to the concIusions in both theories.To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical]
No, they don't. And from what you've said, it's clear that you don't understand the theories, science, nor logic. Your two problems don't affect the theories because they're not the problems/questions that the theories are explaining.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 6:26 am But both conclusions are speculations face the regress problem;
1. -what caused the Big Bang and so on ..
2. -how did abiogenesis happen to enable life from the non-life materials from 1.
Your scenario above is not applicable to the points I raised and with the OP.night912 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 12:36 amNo, they don't. And from what you've said, it's clear that you don't understand the theories, science, nor logic. Your two problems don't affect the theories because they're not the problems/questions that the theories are explaining.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 6:26 am But both conclusions are speculations face the regress problem;
1. -what caused the Big Bang and so on ..
2. -how did abiogenesis happen to enable life from the non-life materials from 1.
Here's a scenario to clarify what I said.
We found a dead body and we want to know what the cause of death was. After examining the body, we found there to be no infection of any kind ie, bacteria, poison, toxins, venom, or viruses. There was also no wound anywhere on the body except for one hole on the forehead. After examining the wound, we found a projectile of a 22 caliber bullet. We come to the conclusion that the cause of death was due to a gunshot wound to the head. As of now, we don't know if the gunshot wound was self inflicted or by someone else.
Answer these questions. Is our conclusion that the cause of death was due to a gunshot wound wrong because we currently don't know if the gunshot was self inflicted or by someone else? If so, why?