Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by jinydu

Also, you seem to be defining "non-arbitrary" as "something created by God". While you are of course free to define the word "arbitrary" to have any meaning you want, your new definition may lack some of the features of the old definition.

In other words, what my buddy jinydu is saying is, your definition of "arbitrary" is rather ... arbitrary.

In particular, I don't see how "arbitrary" (your definition) implies "purposeless". For instance, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the total entropy of the universe always increases or stays the same. So why can't increasing entropy be considered a "purpose"?

The purpose of the universe is for us to leave the lights on, the water running, and the frdige door open? Hmmm ... we should try it, and then my next monthly utility bill could be the Bible of this new religion, "Entropism."

And the LAWWD raised up his right hayy-annd and commandethed the mighty demon Maxwell to goeth amongst the SINNERS and BLASPHEMERS, yay-ess, and SMITE them with ah-randomness, dissipayy-shun, and a mighty utility bill-ah, yay-ess. Praise be, brothers!

[masser]

Can I get an Amen?!

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by jinydu

Also, you seem to be defining "non-arbitrary" as "something created by God". While you are of course free to define the word "arbitrary" to have any meaning you want, your new definition may lack some of the features of the old definition. In particular, I don't see how "arbitrary" (your definition) implies "purposeless". For instance, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the total entropy of the universe always increases or stays the same. So why can't increasing entropy be considered a "purpose"?

If that's what it "seems", then I should restate it. It's not "non-arbitrary" because it's "created by God" it's non-arbitrary because whatever "it" was was created with a purpose if God created it. The first definition at www.dictionary.com for the word arbitrary is: ar·bi·trar·y
–adjective 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

That's the idea I am using. God's decisions aren't subject to individual will or judgement because He's God and runs things and humans really have no say in that. Basically, anything that is subject to individual will is a human created thing. That's why it is ultimately pointless without an ultimate non-arbitrary point to things.

As for your line about entropy, a true purpose requires thought, or planning, or intent. Those things can only come from an intelligence. Only an intelligence can think and plan and intend to do things. Now, unless the universe itself has an intelligence, it has no purpose without God because it can't have one. It's like saying "my book has its own purpose because it was written that is independent of the person who wrote it" or something to that effect. That book can no more intend to do anything than any other inanimate lifeless thing.

[retina]

I see no reason why the universe needs to have a purpose. It just is, so what! No need to invent gods, reasons or purposes.

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

If that's what it "seems", then I should restate it. It's not "non-arbitrary" because it's "created by God" it's non-arbitrary because whatever "it" was was created with a purpose if God created it. The first definition at www.dictionary.com for the word arbitrary is: ar·bi·trar·y
–adjective 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

That's the idea I am using. God's decisions aren't subject to individual will or judgement because He's God and runs things and humans really have no say in that. Basically, anything that is subject to individual will is a human created thing. That's why it is ultimately pointless without an ultimate non-arbitrary point to things.

Thanks for clarifying. I suppose that you are not considering God to be an individual; perhaps by "individual", you mean "individual human". But even so, that definition of arbitrary does not support your argument:

1) Even if God were real, God's decisions would still be subject to judgment, at least under the usual definition of the word, since people are apparently still capable of agreeing or disagreeing with the judgments, even if they have no power over them. Of course, the same is true for the laws of nature; if I have just fallen down the stairs, I may develop a very negative judgment of the law of gravity.

2) I agree that the definition establishes that:

(God makes the main decisions) --> (The universe is not arbitrary)

However, that is definitely not the same thing as saying:

(The universe is not arbitrary) --> (God makes the main decisions)

This is a classic error in logic; knowing that A implies B tells you nothing about whether or not B implies A.

In fact, by your definition of arbitrary, a universe governed by physical laws but that was not created by any God would be just as non-arbitrary, since humans have no control over the laws.

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

As for your line about entropy, a true purpose requires thought, or planning, or intent. Those things can only come from an intelligence. Only an intelligence can think and plan and intend to do things. Now, unless the universe itself has an intelligence, it has no purpose without God because it can't have one. It's like saying "my book has its own purpose because it was written that is independent of the person who wrote it" or something to that effect. That book can no more intend to do anything than any other inanimate lifeless thing.

Ok, but you have now used a definition of purpose that is different from what I had in mind. It is no longer obvious why purposeless of the universe, under your definition of purpose, should imply

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

we might as well just blow up the planet right now and be done with it

. After all, the non-existence of an original purpose would not prevent humans from creating their own purpose. Now you may counter that this new purpose would be arbitrary, but you have not shown why an arbitrary purpose should be considered illegitimate, under your definitions of "arbitrary" and "purpose".

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ET_

P.S. #1: The idea that homosexual tendencies appear in different disguises in men and women should, by itself, show that those tendencies are driven most by our environment than by genes themselves.

What?!?

I think you have that logic reversed.

Do you think that whether a person is man or woman is driven by environment rather than by genes? I doubt you do.

Some amphibians and fish can have their genders affected by environment (e.g., temperature of eggs), but the relationship between gender and environment in those species is determined by their genes, not their environment. Other species (and the reason they are "other" species is that they have different sets of genes!) living in the same environments never undergo gender changes.

If gender is determined by genes, then shouldn't different manifestations of homosexual tendencies in men versus in women imply that those manifestations were more gene-related than environmental, not the reverse?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I know you won't see it this way, but without intelligence behind things, there actually is no real reason as we know it.

But there is intelligence behind all the things you mention: human intelligence!

It seems to me that you're just not willing to credit humans for all the thinking they(we) have done: Your insistence on requiring intelligence that's beyond human is based only on refusal to grant that all manifestations of intelligence that you cite are in fact traceable to humans, with no superhuman extension required.

A reason or explanation requires a previous thought or a plan and only intelligence can think and plan.

... and humans have that intelligence, think those thoughts, make those plans, and construct those reasons and explanations.

Everything just ultimately becomes pointless except for the arbitrary things humans think.

But that's only because you've been taught (by humans!) to consider some products of intelligence (such as religion, or God) to be beyond human capabilities, when they're actually not, and to consider other ideas to be beyond human capabilities, when they're not.

Some people want to attribute part of their thinking to "supernatural" origin, and seek to satisfy that desire by convincing other people to adopt the same ideas, but that desire does not prove that there is actually any "supernatural" other-than-human origin of that thinking.

[ET_]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

It's more like that because God created everything in the universe that He is in charge of it, so His wishes, or whatever you want to call them, are not arbitrary by definition because God isn't human. First of all, it's not just "an intelligent entity" of any kind, it's God Himself that I use in my defining of things for this attempt at explanation. Perfection simply means "without fault or the ability to have fault" as far as God goes. The reason things in the universe as we know it are not perfect, from a Biblical standpoint is that sin "entered the world" in Eden.

Sounds like the episthemologic proof of St. Anselm... arrived half millennium late.

Luigi

[ET_]

Originally Posted by retina

I see no reason why the universe needs to have a purpose. It just is, so what! No need to invent gods, reasons or purposes.

Reversing your sentence shows that we (and the universe) are the purpose of God.

Now, the logical question: if God is omnipotent, could he avoid creation, defying His existence purpose (and so Himself)?

Luigi

[ET_]

Originally Posted by jinydu

(God makes the main decisions) --> (The universe is not arbitrary)

However, that is definitely not the same thing as saying:

(The universe is not arbitrary) --> (God makes the main decisions)

This is a classic error in logic; knowing that A implies B tells you nothing about whether or not B implies A.

You told it better than me

Luigi

[ET_]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Do you think that whether a person is man or woman is driven by environment rather than by genes? I doubt you do.

I was talking about homosexual tendencies, that is what a man or woman feels (s)he is. As it is not necessarily related to his/her sex, your question is not correct.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Some amphibians and fish can have their genders affected by environment (e.g., temperature of eggs), but the relationship between gender and environment in those species is determined by their genes, not their environment. Other species (and the reason they are "other" species is that they have different sets of genes!) living in the same environments never undergo gender changes.

Not completely exact. We are not talking about roles taken by individuals.
And various examples of homosexuality between animals are known and etologically, not genetically, explained.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If gender is determined by genes, then shouldn't different manifestations of homosexual tendencies in men versus in women imply that those manifestations were more gene-related than environmental, not the reverse?

Substitute "homosexual" with "sexual".
Do you believe in the superiority of man over woman? Or are these different manifestation of sexual behaviour forced by the social environment?

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly: I believe that is the social environment that drives human sexual behaviour.

Luigi