Stu wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:17 am
Kurieuo wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:46 pm
Nils wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:37 am
Philip wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:34 am
What can non-intelligent, blind, random things do? First, can they create themselves
? Can they think, see, organize, strategize, position themselves or other things, see advantages or opportunities? Of course not! But what exists shows designs, organization, and adherence of spectacular consistencies and interactivities that we (beings with intelligence) can scarcely understand ourselves. And yet we're led to believe that blind things are more intelligent that the best human minds on the planet? And the Big Bang shows such things happening - not over billions of years - but in minutes, incredible things instantly coming into existence that have these extraordinary designs and capabilities, obeying complex laws, astoundingly interacting with purpose and precision - with a power and on a scale that is mind-boggling. And EVERYTHING that exists is entirely dependent upon what came into existence and happened in the very first minutes of the Big Bang - as where mere minutes before, NOTHING physically existed. Explain that without an intelligence, and then get back to me! Don't babble along with pointless arguments about secondary and totally dependent processes which would have begun many billions of years later - least not when it comes to arguments over an intelligent Designer behind the universe!
1. Blind random processes may create themselves but that is not common. They are often more “intelligent” than the best humans minds. This is sometimes used in technology nowadays. (Not very often because it still takes lot of computer time).
Before you can state "Blind random processes may create themselves", you must first prove than something can be random at all. "Random" as I see doesn't exist at all. Even with computers, what is called "random" follows the same randomizer algorithm each and every time, but this means it isn't truly random.
To truly believe in a fundamental way that true randominity exists is to in fact believe in magic. Perhaps that is why you also don't see PSR as a binding principle. But, I'd be interested to hear your arguments, if you have any, for the existence of true randomness. Indeed, such even seems counter to your deterministic beliefs if I recall those correctly.
It sounds like you are saying that free will doesn't exist, because we make our choices (free will) on random events that occur daily.
Who me? No. I believe free will does exist, and it isn't based upon whether or not something is random.
Rather, those who'd argue our thoughts, decisions and actions are ultimately determined by physical factors external to us (indeed even that the physical forces are "us"), will then often then argue in the content of biological evolution that there are truly random events -- events which aren't determinable
that didn't happen by 1) necessity, or 2) design.
So there seems to be an inconsistency here with those who think in this way. On one hand, they can't fathom how something couldn't be a determined product of physical forces (i.e., humans with free will). On the other hand, they claim something is free from being determinable (i.e., natural selection acting upon random
Now the next layer of that, is to read it into the context of Process Structuralism
, advocates of such will say that we see the same structures in lifeforms appearing over and over again (i.e., "convergent evolution"), that this points to the fact that the physical laws at work will NECESSARILY produce the same structures and the same/similar lifeforms -- akin to acorns always growing into oak trees.
This is much different from Darwinian
forms of evolution wherein it is argued that lifeforms evolve through a mechanism of random
chance. This is something Nils has been arguing for, which the central figures who spawned the 90s ID movement questioned and got stigmatised as being Creationists in cheap tuxedos over -- for critiquing and challenging Darwinian
evolutionary theory. Whether you read books from Behe, Meyer, Dembski, they all question the same thing from their professions and as such unique vantage points.
And, as I tried explaining in my previous posts, it is even a logical condundrum to define exactly what one means by "random". For, if we know all the values of the forces at play before something happens, and have a calculator sophisticated enough to calculate all those values, then we'd have a 100% prediction rate. It is just our lack of knowledge of the variables at play and their values that makes it seem to us such is all "random". HOWEVER, should we know all the variables, we'd be able to predict (if we let it be a given that we evolved from sludge) that we would indeed eventually have our human species and even the time we'd arise.
So then, I'd argue one is in a difficult position to logically argue for Natural Selection acting upon Random
Mutations, the emphasis being on "random". Rather in "Nature" itself there is a necessity imparted by the laws of nature, natural forces, that result in the potentiality of Natural Laws orienting mutational forces towards set forms of species.
Now, once that is realised, the question as to why these laws are oriented towards certain structures may arise. Yet, for the Atheist it shouldn't be any more of a puzzle than an acron always growing into a oak tree. Like the beginning of the universe, "it just is", "just happens", and no further explanation needed. That algae will evolve into vertebrates and eventually sentient beings over and over again, or that we see many convergences in lifeforms that must evolved their structures separately (if you grant the evolution of such), says to me the dice are heavily loaded whether we're talking about 1) necessity, or 2) design.