Or, in my experience, any arguments at all.
1 Like
Itās the philsophical alternative to the Catch-22 reasoning that makes chance or necessity responsible for everything that occurs in nature.
Pretty well, since weāre all alive, and have ability, time and leisure to consider Peaceful Science.
But bear in mind Iām not doing an apologetic for theism - merely saying that one has to make theistic or epicurean assumptions about the basis of reality: if you want to talk about āhypothesesā, then God is not the only one to be questioned, but the āchance hypothesisā is equally open to scrutiny.
Still smarting over bird ovaries John?
All the result of modern science - increased life expectancy, modern medicine, technological advances. All man made, all the results of human reasoning and scientific inquiry.
Iām not sure you understand what āCatch-22ā means. Should I explain? Did you ever read the novel?
Sorry, by āusā I wasnāt referring just to affluent, comfortable internet denizens. How is Godās intervention currently working for Yemenis, for example? Is this one of those things where thereās an air disaster that kills 147 people, but the lone survivor thanks God for saving him?
1 Like
As I recently said elsewhere, stop digging.
I donāt know how to break this to you, Patrick, but there were living people with ability, time and leisure to discuss things before modern science.
Donāt be so condescending. We have a choice of axioms, either that everything is ultimately due to mind, or that ultimately everything is due to chance.
Christian theology - and, once must add, early-modern science - has always taught that God is the source of both regular events and contingent events. Itās not a Catch 22, but a consistent metaphysic.
Epicureanism, on the contrary, says that all causes are ānaturalā - either caused by the laws of nature, or by chance. Another self-consistent metaphysic - and in the case of laws (as an interminable current thread on BioLogos discusses) those ultimately must resolve to chance as well.
Either both are Catch-22, or neither are.
On your second point, you have fulfilled my former prediction by moving to a theological argument about what God would not do. You will note that my use of the theological argument was only to explain my personal reasons for expecting theistic rather than deistic government of nature - it has no bearing on the ānecessity of God for evolution.ā
1 Like
There is no other explanation for their existence other then conscious intelligence.
I agree but not one of these mechanisms explains FI. To explain lifeās diversity you have to explain the origin of novel FI. We have evolutionary theory however there is no theory of evolution.
Why isnāt evolution an explanation?
Why canāt evolution produce FI?
Sorry. But you did grossly misuse the trope.
I deny the dichotomy. You have turned āchanceā into a catchall term for anything not due to mind. What happened to necessity? And of course we have the difficulty of explaining what mind is due to.
Perhaps you mistake what I was referring to as Catch-22. I meant your notion that whichever stance we adopt, God wins. Thatās exactly how Catch-22 works.
Iām not the one who moved. You attributed a motive to God: ongoing care of human affairs. I claim that this motive is incompatible with what we observe. Your theological claim, not mine. I agree that this has nothing to do with evolution. Why would you imagine otherwise?
Show me an evolutionary model that generates FI.
Conscious intelligence is the only known generator of FI. Evolutionary mechanisms donāt contain conscious intelligence.
That would be a shift in the burden of proof. You are trying to claim that evolution can not produce something you call FI. Letās see the evidence.
Where is the evidence demonstrating that only conscious intelligence can produce FI?
And what makes the laws of nature necessary?
The correct answer is that I donāt know, and I donāt know whether theyāre necessary either. God, however, is not helpful in answering the question as far as I can see.
Not in climate controlled houses with high speed internet and automatic coffee makers. 
No need for a God to live a happy, meaningful life.
No, I think itās your characterisation that misses the point. āWhichever stanceā (in your remark above) was, in my argument, that under theism God is responsible both for contingent and lawlike events. That says nothing to force the hand of the naturalist, but states an alternative.
The naturalist alternative says, āWe see chance and necessity! There is no need for God because those two cover everything, and naturailsm always wins!ā But no evidence has been given that those two elements exist apart from God.
So God is not necessary for evolution because all that is necessary are causes of which you are ignorant. Youāll excuse me for saying that agnosticism is not an argument for anything.
1 Like
Provided you can supply your own molecules.
1 Like