Lies or Incompetence?

[ElCodeMonkey]

I am often fascinated by the fact that people cannot come to an agreement about something. I can lay out what I think is solid and rational argument only to find the recipients entirely incapable of comprehending. Similarly, the arguments brought forth to me sound ridiculous and easily defeated, but they can never see how they've been defeated so soundly and logically. It's easy to see them as incompetent or dishonest yet I strongly believe they feel the same about me. They are absolutely just as convinced as I am in the opposite direction. We often think the other side is just being dishonest, evil, or stupid. And yet the other side thinks the same. So how in the world can we ever truly know? Is there a method of knowing if we're lying to ourselves and we're the dumb ones? Has science shown anything in the brain perhaps that can reveal that we truly DO understand something but choose to reject it and so deceive ourselves? What is really going on? Or is one side of an argument actually just evil incarnate like we're led to believe?

[Divine Insight]

they cannot author the very systems that support that capacity for variation.

And again, you are right back to square one.

Evolution isn't your problem. Your problem has to do with trying to explain how the original laws of physics came to be what they are. That would be the "Author" that you are seeking.

Actually, and quite un-intuitively, that original "author" doesn't need to be a complex intelligence that has everything pre-planned. That original author can be a very simple system, as simple as binary on and off states that have only a coupe of very simple rules.

See John Conway's' Game of Life computer simulation.

So once again, your arguments are arguments from ignorance, not arguments based on any evidence of any need for any higher intelligence that pre-designed the whole show.

The conclusions you are jumping to are simply non-sequitur based on a lack of information of what's actually possible.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

Again we already have a known mechanism capable of organizing complex information systems; creative intelligence, you are using proof of that right now.

I'm certainly open to there being a purely spontaneous one discovered one day, but we both remain ignorant of any such system existing in reality. what you allude to was always going to be the last resort for a hypothetical materialist explanation, some sort of infinite probability machine that can create anything and everything.... except God of course, that would defeat the purpose

so you are back to square one with the poker player playing 4 royal flushes in a row-
of course a simple random card shuffler could create that result, it's just not the least improbable explanation for the observation

[Divine Insight]

what you allude to was always going to be the last resort for a hypothetical materialist explanation, some sort of infinite probability machine that can create anything and everything.... except God of course, that would defeat the purpose

There's your problem right there. You are in an imaginary war with an imaginary enemy that you have labeled a "hypothetical materialist".

In the meantime you feel a need to defend an imaginary God at all cost.

The problem is that even your defense of this hypothetical God doesn't work as a rejection of evolution.

First off, your argument isn't consistent. You need to claim that your God is the "author" of major designs, whilst conceding that evolution is the "author" of variation. So you are still relying upon evolution in the end.

And you absolutely need evolution lest your God would be extremely malevolent. Your imaginary God would need to be responsible for every genetic defect that has ever occurred, as well as every deadly disease that ever came to be, etc.

Your God would need to be the intentional designer of animals that prey on each other. So you desperately need evolution as a defense against your God's malevolence.

So now you have a God who created and designed a process of evolution that necessarily works against his very own goal of righteousness and perfection.

So theologically you have an argument that basically backfires.

I mean, at this point we can ignore your ignorance of science and evolution, and begin to focus on how ridiculous the theology you are attempting to support truly is. You want to give God credit for designing all things, whilst demanding that God is not responsible for anything that doesn't go correctly in this process. So you still need evolution lest your God becomes either incompetent or malevolent. But even if evolution is the culprit, then you creator God would still have been required to have designed evolution. So once again, your God is either incompetent or malevolent.

So you have a theology that can't even be made to work in the first place.

If you had a theology that could actually make sense, then you might have some form of argument. But you can hardly argue against evolution whilst demanding that evolution is responsible for the world not being perfectly designed. You've got a theological argument that defeats itself. Never mind the misguided scientific knowledge that you're attempting to peddle.

As the thread topic asks, when do we cross the line between mere incompetence to outright lies in an attempt to win a war against an imaginary enemy called "hypothetical materialists"?

By the way, accepting evolution does not lead to pure materialism. Many of the Eastern Mystical religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and others fully embrace evolution as the means by which their God created the world. Keep in mind however, that those religious paradigms don't have their God trying to pin the "evils" of the world onto humans. That's the difference right there.

[Divine Insight]

so you are back to square one with the poker player playing 4 royal flushes in a row-
of course a simple random card shuffler could create that result, it's just not the least improbable explanation for the observation

Take this idea into your theology and examine it.

What's the probability of a perfectly competent benevolent Creator God creating a world that is filled with animals that prey on each other and diseases that maim and kill the humans he creates, along with horrible genetic defects that produce extremely grotesque male-formed humans?

The probability that a perfectly competent benevolent Creator God would ever do such a thing is absolutely ZERO. Why? Because it would neither be competent nor benevolent to design such a hideous system on purpose.

So there you go. If you are going to appeal to probability and want to also demand that there is a creator God, then you have no choice but to conclude that your God is necessarily either incompetent, or outright malevolent.

Try using your probability observations on your own theology once in a while.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

There's your problem right there. You are in an imaginary war with an imaginary enemy that you have labeled a "hypothetical materialist".

In the meantime you feel a need to defend an imaginary God at all cost.

not my war, eternal/steady state, big crunch, multiverses, string theory, M theory- were all explicitly touted to 'make God redundant' to use Hawking's words.

All have been debunked where testable, while the one that prevailed - the Big Bang, was mocked and rejected as 'religious pseudoscience' by academic atheists for what they saw as the overt theistic implications of such a creation event

materialism v science is the war here

'materialistic naturalism' explicitly rules out certain types of hypotheses being permissible- which invariably leads to avoidance of hypotheses that might happen to even imply a forbidden hypothesis- hence the initial explicit repulsion towards Lemaitre's primeval atom from materialists

I make no such arbitrary laws, I don't need to banish natural processes to allow ID to win by default! . Why not just look for the best answer period, regardless of the implication? if there is a materialist solution that works as well as ID for constructing hierarchical digital information systems, such as we see in DNA, I'm entirely open to that if it ever crops up.

But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it is far from a default assumption that this is even possible

God's malevolence.

if a car breaks down after lots of use, was the designer malevolent?
If you crash it into a tree, is it their fault?

Based on those risks- do you chose to avoid cars altogether? or gladly accept them by your free will- and be thankful that you are lucky enough to have that choice?

Good and evil define each other, as left and right- one cannot exist without the other- as experiences or as personal character.

Having said that, ID does not preclude a malevolent designer. If you dig up the Rosetta stone, you know it's the product of ID. Whether the author was a nice guy... is a separate question you may opine about according to your subjective interpretation of the text

By the way, accepting evolution does not lead to pure materialism

exactly, and vice versa, so recognizing ID is not a religious argument. - like Hoyle you are explicitly using certain implications that YOU infer, to oppose it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 20 by Guy Threepwood]

they cannot author the very systems that support that capacity for variation.

That has yet not been shown to be correct. We have a lot to learn still about the gory details of how biological systems work at the molecular level, and understanding of things like epigenetics, the specific roles of various RNA catalysts, all of the factors controlling gene expression, etc. are really just getting started. So it is too early to claim that, at the end of the day, a thorough description of how more significant features arise won't be found and fit perfectly well within an evolutionary framework. I expect a large number of genuine evolutionary biologists would argue that we've already crossed a boundary for this milestone and it is downhill from here.

The alternative explanation of an intelligent designer (presumably a god of some sort) is just an unsupported hypothesis that amounts to a default explanation for anything we don't yet fully understand. No physical evidence for any such being has ever been found, so it boils down to "it looks designed, so therefore it must be designed." Gaps in our understanding of things have progressively narrowed since gods were first proposed to explain earthquakes, thunder, volcanic eruptions and famines, etc. I think that will continue and eventually squeeze out these ideas of ID completely ... it is already backed into a very small corner. ID has yet to win out as an valid explanation for those subjects that we have found the answers to. Not once.

[Guy Threepwood]

so you are back to square one with the poker player playing 4 royal flushes in a row-
of course a simple random card shuffler could create that result, it's just not the least improbable explanation for the observation

Take this idea into your theology and examine it.

What's the probability of a perfectly competent benevolent Creator God creating a world that is filled with animals that prey on each other and diseases that maim and kill the humans he creates, along with horrible genetic defects that produce extremely grotesque male-formed humans?

The probability that a perfectly competent benevolent Creator God would ever do such a thing is absolutely ZERO. Why? Because it would neither be competent nor benevolent to design such a hideous system on purpose.

So there you go. If you are going to appeal to probability and want to also demand that there is a creator God, then you have no choice but to conclude that your God is necessarily either incompetent, or outright malevolent.

Try using your probability observations on your own theology once in a while.

in this analogy the poker player IS malevolent- he is trying to cheat, his motive is money.

God created a world utterly free of pain, suffering, hate, hunger, grief.. and that still exists today.. for Jellyfish. And hence of course, they experience no love, joy, gratitude, comfort, inspiration etc either

would you trade?

me neither..

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 26 by DrNoGods]

That has yet not been shown to be correct.

I'd say that's debatable, many top scientists at the recent Royal Society meeting were certainly stumped when they tried to come up with a solution- but taking a neutral stance;

Currently only the theory demands that it must have happened, not the evidence. So far from there being 'overwhelming indisputable' evidence for Darwinian evolution, as a mechanism which can transform single cell into a human being- there are several crucial hurdles that are entirely beyond it's ability to account for presently.

we all agree it can kill off light color moths, or give finches smaller beaks, take away a birds ability to fly or a fish's to see- i.e. thing we can actually scientifically observe- and which are overwhelmingly neutral or destructive, just like random mutations themselves

Of course this in itself does not conclude ID, just that it is 'too early' as you concede, it's still an open question, not a closed case by any means- fair enough?

The alternative explanation of an intelligent designer (presumably a god of some sort) is just an unsupported hypothesis that amounts to a default explanation for anything we don't yet fully understand.

Not at all.

Again when we conclude ID from the Rosetta stone- is this because we don't understand how it could have been created? or because we DO understand how it could have been created?

How about complex hierarchical digital information systems that likewise include organized specified information

what proven method DO we know of which CAN construct such information systems?

so which is the argument from the gaps? it MUST be materialistic - because materialistic naturalism literally demands that particular conclusion?- yes, but what does the actual evidence have to say on this? how about at least giving it a chance to speak for itself without arbitrary restrictions?

earthquakes, [] volcanic eruptions ..

which used to be held as examples of 'bad design' until we learned to appreciate them as playing crucial roles in the development and support of complex life on Earth..

remember when the inverted retina was still 'bad design'? not so many posts ago?

there will always be things we don't yet understand, where the light of science has not reached, where we can point and say 'look, bad design!!'

materialism of the gaps, is it not?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 28 by Guy Threepwood]

Again when we conclude ID from the Rosetta stone- is this because we don't understand how it could have been created? or because we DO understand how it could have been created?

But we already knew humans were capable of similar constructions, eg. putting lettering of some type onto barrels for trade, etc. So it wasn't a stretch to conclude that putting organized lettering onto a stone was also done by humans. It was figuring out what the lettering meant that was the challenge for the Rosetta stone ... not that it was designed by an intelligent human. I don't see the analogy to DNA and evolution. We know a lot now about how it works at the molecular level, but not everything, and there's every reason to believe based on what we do know now, that extensions in knowledge along the same path will lead to a fuller understanding ... without any assumptions of ID being behind it.

what proven method DO we know of which CAN construct such information systems?

We know that humans can do this, but it doesn't follow that because we don't yet understand 100% of all of biology at the molecular level yet that the default answer is there is some kind of ID behind it that is undefined, unseen, in fact never seen under any circumstances, etc. Again, it is an unsupported hypothesis, and an inference. If any evidence for such an ID came to pass I'd be happy to change my mind, but I think it is safe to say as I type this in late 2018 that there is zero evidence for such an ID entity ... it exists only as a hypothesis with (so far) no evidence. Zilch. On the other hand, we do have a solid groundwork for evolution based on observation (fossil record, genetics, general biology) which can continue to be researched and expanded upon. My opposition to ID is not some mental block against it, but that it has no evidence to support it of any kind other than pure inference. Where's the beef ... as the old Wendy's commercial said?

remember when the inverted retina was still 'bad design'? not so many posts ago?

I don't think I ever called that "bad design" (someone else may have), but like the giraffe's laryngeal nerve an example of a design that you'd expect from evolution, but not from ID. That was the point, but there are plenty of other similar examples where a thought out, intelligent designer would have arrived at something very different from what we actually see in nature. This, again, is physical evidence to support evolution even if by itself it isn't conclusive. Add it all up though, and you have good supporting evidence for evolution. What solid, experimental evidence is there for the existence of an intelligent designer ... apart from as a default explanation for things we don't yet fully understand?

[Divine Insight]

Again when we conclude ID from the Rosetta stone- is this because we don't understand how it could have been created? or because we DO understand how it could have been created?

Once again you are simply displaying your ignorance of how evolution works by using the Rosetta stone as an analogy for evolution.

We do understand how evolution works, and therefore we understand how molecular structures can self-create. So if you're heading down the road to the Watchmaker's argument you're only displaying an ignorance of evolution once again. As per the topic of this thread, "Is this due to genuine incompetence, or a desire to misrepresent the truth?"

Comparing evolution to the Rosetta stone surely reveals either incompetence or a purposeful desire to mislead.

God created a world utterly free of pain, suffering, hate, hunger, grief.. and that still exists today.. for Jellyfish. And hence of course, they experience no love, joy, gratitude, comfort, inspiration etc either

would you trade?

me neither..

What kind of nonsense preaching is this?

Again, all you are doing is preaching a totally failed theology. If you claim that in a world that is free of pain, suffering, hate, hunger and grief there can be no experience of love, joy, gratitude, comfort, inspiration, etc., then your religion cannot have a perfect heaven as an afterlife where there is no pain, suffering, hate, hunger, or grief, because by your very own proclamation love, joy, gratitude, comfort, inspiration, etc., could not exist in that heaven.

Your arguments aren't even compatible with a consistent theology.

~~~~~~

It's also true that if you want to reject evolution, then you need to have an alternative explanation for how complex life came to be. If you want to claim that some God did it, then you need to demonstrate a theology that is itself consistent.

But you have just now blown your own theology clean out of the water.

If, in your theology, there could ever be a perfect paradise where love, joy, gratitude, comfort, inspiration, etc., can exist, without pain, suffering, hate, hunger, or grief then you have just negated your very own argument.

I would suggest that you come up with a viable working theology before attacking known scientific knowledge with theological arguments that can't even stand on their own merit.

As far as I can see all you are doing is verifying the topic of the OP that in some cases, arguments are clearly being made from a perspective of either incompetence, or serious denial of the facts.

From the OP:

Has science shown anything in the brain perhaps that can reveal that we truly DO understand something but choose to reject it and so deceive ourselves?

I don't think it's a matter of truly understanding something, but rather it appears to have more to do with a strong desire to simply ignore the truth in favor of supporting some other idea. Perhaps an idea that appears to the person in question as being far more desirable, and therefore 'must be true' at all cost. Simply because it's too attractive to give up on.

Many religious people have incorrectly concluded that either their specific religion is true, or there is no God, and no afterlife. Having embraced this idea they simply cannot afford to allow for their religion to be wrong, because this would then mean that they are going to cease to exist when they die. And that very thought is a thought that they are simply not prepared to accept.

In the case of Guy Threepwood, he keeps bringing up "Materialism". This isn't even the conclusion of evolution at all. There are spiritual religions that are totally compatible with evolution. Yet Guy Threepwood appears to be under the belief that if evolution is true, this means that the world is necessarily secular and purely materialistic. Therefore this is a worldview that must be discarded at all cost.

Moreover, the religion that a person has officially accepted must also be true at all cost. Otherwise, their guarantee at eternal life might be in jeopardy. And that thought is simply unacceptable and must be rejected at all cost.

So, it's not just a ignorance of evolution, but it's also an ignorance of theology. The very idea that only one specific theology must be true or there is no "God" and therefore no afterlife, is itself an extremely misguided view. But this view is indeed taught by many theologies. Fail to believe in our theology and you will either die when you die, or far worse! You might even be cast into a state of eternal torture for the rest of eternity!

Clearly there are many people who actually believe in this latter theological threat. And that could certainly motivate them to argue against anything that might even remotely suggest that their religion is wrong, because they don't want to be cast into hell for having been convinced that their religion is false.

This fear motivation is extremely powerful.