The explanatory power of evolution.

[kallipolis]

Well, the evidence is on his side.

That you say, so.

 

[kallipolis]

The problem with your view is that for any given organism selected from nature, everything about it can be fully explained without any reference to purpose.

I view no problem...merely a refusal by some to recognise the obvious...

...that the purpose of a living organism is always evidenced, when it provides for the well being of another living organism...which a fruit tree evidences, when providing fruit for me to eat....

 

[kallipolis]

You misunderstand the rat; unfortunate. But you misunderstand yourself; tragic!

Clearly the purpose of that little hollow in the ground is to neatly hold that puddle contained within it. The puddle is exactly the same shape as the hollow. It is no coincidence.

If an apple tastes good to you it is because after 3 billion years of evolution your taste buds exist to differentiate between an apple and something indigestible. Be thankful you're not a dung beetle! The rodent prefers apples to styrofoam chips for the same reason you do.

From my perspective it is a fraternal gesture to clarify meaning when misinterpretations result in ambiguity knowing, that a holier than thou approach only works when your own words are totally lacking error.

If not, the nit picker invites nit picking.....I recommend you consume a glass of Dolcetto to lighten your mood

 

[kallipolis]

Perhaps you have mistaken science, it is not the goal of "science" to describe the divine, it is the goal of "science" to describe the universe.

Yeah and that whole coincidence thing, that I'll give you is impenetrable and bizarre, but unfortunately that has nothing to do with Jung.

Science does not restrict itself to mere observation of the convenient...scientific research explores those matters, that not a few find inconvenient when challening their prejudices..

Carl Jung theories on synchronicity might well encourage you to face your deeply, ingrained prejudices....his thoughts make a fasincating read.

 

[kallipolis]

I've just recommended that bankside drink a glass of Dolcetto (my favourite Italian red wine) to assuage his frustration with my opinions whilst, also reminding the reader that grapes also serve a purpose improving the mood, or feel good factor among those of us who appreciate the medicinal benefits provided by grapes...the wise person consumes wine in moderation preferably, with food.

 

[TX-Beau]

Science does not restrict itself to mere observation of the convenient...scientific research explores those matters, that not a few find inconvenient when challening their prejudices..

Carl Jung theories on synchronicity might well encourage you to face your deeply, ingrained prejudices....his thoughts make a fasincating read.

This says absolutely nothing.

 

[TX-Beau]

What what?

Do you mean something from months and months ago? The God Who Blew Up in the Big Bang™?



Hah!

Yup, it was ages ago, and you were saying something about how if god started the whole thing then walked away, god wouyld be irrelevant.

I suppose I could go look it up, but ya know, I'm the lazy American.

 

[mightbe]

Carl Jung theories on synchronicity might well encourage you to face your deeply, ingrained prejudices....his thoughts make a fasincating read.

Has it never occurred to you that all of your references are people that are well out of the loop? Einstein, Jung, various Greek classicists that have no bearing on modern science, etc. They're all long dead and they've had plenty of time to give their two cents. We've no evaluated it, and moved on. Thus is the point of science, to move beyond where were were before, and that often means starting over.

Next you'll be bringing up Freud.

The point is, you're moving backwards from present. Let me assure you that at the very cusp of time (there was no time before the Big Bang, end of story), sub-atomic particles were not contemplating the horticultural conveniences of organisms that will live at an arbitrary time in the future. By no means are we the result of anything. The end "result" will be the last reproducing globule on an otherwise dead planet. Then Earth's biological story will be over. We are not the last word.

It's somewhat amazing that you take the hard way on this. As Kulindhar pointed out, working in logical order from A to B doesn't negate a creator. You've maintained (with no evidence of an sort, and a lot of meaningless blabbering outlined with ellipses) that everything is working towards a predetermined point, and that a naturalistic precipitation of developments is untrue.

To compare; did your math teachers direct you towards a final cliff-like obstacle that could never be surmounted? No! They led you towards the difficult and undiscovered with all the tools you'd need to move beyond what was known at the time (though you'd need to be a mathematical genius to actually find new ground). They never said, "All math led up to this; now we're done. You can go home now knowing that we've come to the end of math." That's an absurd statement. You started with the basics; the constants. The numbers. Then you added and subtracted the numbers. Then you multiplied them. Then you divided. Then you learned algebra. Somewhere you learned about fractions. Then you'll learn about the order of operations. It builds.

In your schema, math's goal was always toward quantum mechanics. Doesn't that sound silly? Wouldn't it make more sense to just move up in complexity by what we needed next in a somewhat-linear fashion? Most people think so. Disagreeing with the consensus doesn't make one any more clever, it just means they disagree. To actually have good reason to boldly reject all of science's plight (which you've basically done), one ought to have demonstrable evidence; not this anecdotal nonsense. The reason scientists aren't impressed with anecdotes as they neither explain nor define, they send people in meaningless circles.

You've demonstrated a sub-par or deficient understanding of science on this; you haven't alluded to numerical findings of any sort, just personal experience (another scientifically meaningless phenomena). I can say something's red and so can you, but we have absolutely no way of telling if we're seeing the exact same shade of red. The problem is more pronounced with colors, as they're only real to us; substances have no intrinsic color, it's just a side-effect of evolution that we can conjure them up in our minds with a fair degree of accuracy. That's beside the point, however.

 

[bankside]

I've just recommended that bankside drink a glass of Dolcetto (my favourite Italian red wine) to assuage his frustration with my opinions whilst, also reminding the reader that grapes also serve a purpose improving the mood, or feel good factor among those of us who appreciate the medicinal benefits provided by grapes...the wise person consumes wine in moderation preferably, with food.

I would have hoped for your recommendation of a nice retsina!

 

[TX-Beau]

Evidently the wise person does NOT consume Retsina.

 

[TX-Beau]

Has it never occurred to you that all of your references are people that are well out of the loop? Einstein, Jung, various Greek classicists...

I'm not sure that Einstein, Jung, and various Greek classicists would agree with him anyway.

 

[kallipolis]

Evidently the wise person does NOT consume Retsina.

Yesterday evening, I did...to accompany the football game, being televised at my local taverna....my team, lost.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure that Einstein, Jung, and various Greek classicists would agree with him anyway.

I'm not old enough to have known them, so intimately....to be able to speak on their behalf.

 

[kallipolis]

I would have hoped for your recommendation of a nice retsina!

Retsina does not travel well....best drawn from a barrel....bottled retsina is not recommended...even here in Greece....

Retsina is an Attica (the county surrounding Greater Athens) sourced drink maintained in barrels in most Athens/Piraeus restaurants.

Edessa, and Nemea are districts that produce very fine quality wines.

http://www.newwinesofgreece.com/nemea_agiorgitiko/en_nemeaagiorgitiko_1.html

My home island of Rhodes has an international reputation for its wines, originally introduced into Rhodes by the Italians (Italy administered Rhodes, and The Dodecannese islands from 1911, to 1943) from seedings cut in the Asti (near Turin) region, a wine producing district famous for Asti Spumante (a white sparkling wine, whose quality is often compared to Champagne)....wine production in Rhodes can be traced back to ancient times.

http://www.allaboutgreekwine.com/wineries/emery/

 

[kallipolis]

Has it never occurred to you

Yes, it has.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yup, it was ages ago, and you were saying something about how if god started the whole thing then walked away, god wouyld be irrelevant.

I suppose I could go look it up, but ya know, I'm the lazy American.

This reminded me of a weird story I once read, where these two beings are talking, and one mentions "that universe you created", and the other one is like, "Universe? Oh, no -- I left it running on its own!"

 

[TX-Beau]

...I'm not old enough to have known them, so intimately....to be able to speak on their behalf.

...and yet you manage to speak on their behalf with shocking regularity.

 

[kallipolis]

...and yet you manage to speak on their behalf with shocking regularity.

Never...my opinions, are just that.

 

[ludolfo]

Perhaps you have mistaken science, it is not the goal of "science" to describe the divine, it is the goal of "science" to describe the universe.

Implied in that retort is a dualistic premise between your concepts of "the divine" and "the universe"!

What your doing, or supporting is not science but scientism. The utter arrogance of the 'scientific mind' who believes now they can explain the mystery of reality. You for example from what I have read are specific what reality MUST be---'no spirit nonesense'

But again, that is not science. That is your belief system based on scientism. You no doubt believe everything is physicalist? And the brain as complex 'matter' produces 'consciousness'? But you know what's hilarious? Real scientists will let you know that they do not know what either consciousness or matter is...!!! Hear what I just said? It is a completely mystery.

But people like yourself assume you now have it all sewn up and shout others down, like any fundy Christian would, if you feel their words threaten your scientism dogma.

 

[TX-Beau]

Bullshit. End of story.

"Scientism" is a bunk pseudo-philosophy pushed by purveyors to the gullible.

NOWHERE does "science" (LOL which is a process of inquiry anyway not a monolithic "thing") attempt to define magical mythology. Nowhere.

Please point out where it does.

 

[ludolfo]

Bullshit. End of story.

"Scientism" is a bunk pseudo-philosophy pushed by purveyors to the gullible.

NOWHERE does "science" (LOL which is a process of inquiry anyway not a monolithic "thing") attempt to define magical mythology. Nowhere.



Please point out where it does.

In 'your' 'scientific description of the universe' are you then stating that spirits do not exist?