Evidence like the existence of observers (US) points to something more than the material world existing.
Colour me naive, but I’m seriously struggling to understand how the existence of material beings living in a material world and observing some of it through their very much material means in any way points to there ‘being something beyond or outside’ (what ever that means) the material world. A big part of that struggle is my having no clue what it even means. And yes, I did try asking.
2 Likes
How do you explain observers existence within the material world alone without assumptions?
Even simpler. How do you explain the origin of atoms (that can assemble into observers) within the material world alone without assumptions?
So, in other words, you actually have no answer to @Gisteron’s question.
4 Likes
But almost never does.
I doubt you can cite a single non-trivial example where that has happened.
Hint: dependency graphs are not nested hierarchies.
2 Likes
I don’t. I actually do make assumptions. I assume that some form of logic holds. I assume that there exists a world of some sort out there. I make zero attempts to account for anything “without assumptions”, because the idea that there even is anything to account for is itself an assumption, as is the idea that it is possible to account for things in need of an account.
So your challenge makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
What’s your point? How does any part of this message of yours represent any earnest attempt on your part to answer what “The evidence in the material world points to something beyond it that exists.” means?
1 Like
The point is we cannot explain our origins and the origin of the universe with the existence of our own material world alone. There has to be an outside cause and the evidence is strong that the cause was an intelligent cause.
Well, if that was your point, then, respectfully, you have made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. Therefore, for the time being, I am wholly comfortable dismissing it.
No, that does not follow. It is logically possible for us to be unable to explain something with the existence of our own material world alone, and there still not to be an outside cause for the thing we are failing to explain with the existence of our own material world alone.
Maybe. But so far, nobody was willing or able to present any evidence to that effect, “strong” or otherwise.
2 Likes
With all due respect I think your priors make it very difficult to see the evidence. The DNA molecule for example is very strong evidence of intelligence behind its origin. The origin of life is very strong evidence of intelligence behind it. The diversity of life is very strong evidence of intelligence behind it.
What we do not currently have in our material world is evidence of the intelligence capable of these origins.
I realize I was not clear on this. By “stuff” I just mean everything that is the concern of the science if physics. That includes space-time and anything else that physicists spend their workdays trying to understand.
In practical terms, “methodological monism” would also include a situation in which there are other worlds that cannot be described by physics, but which do not interact with our world at all. That would be the case because we wouldn’t need to know anything about these worlds to understand everything about our world.
I approach the issue a bit differently. I see MN, not so much as a directive regarding how science ought to be practiced, but as an attempt to describe how science has been practiced, and to distinguish it from other epistemological methods. If an experiment, using standard scientific practice, detected a ghost, the scientists involved would not have to say, “Well, we’re not allowed to say anything about that, because it would be against the rules. So, let’s just pretend it never happened.” Instead, we would simply expand our understanding of the physical world so that it includes the existence of ghosts (along with any other revisions to the laws of physics this discovery would entail)
Yes. The thing is, on the rare occasions that a member of the DI does something other than writing propaganda, they often are attempting to do science, and observing MN. They just do it really, really, badly and draw very stupid conclusions from their experiments. When others point out how their experiments have failed to support their conclusions, they will then often invoke “methodological naturalism” as a reason their opponents do not accept their results. The truth is those conclusions are rejected because the members of the DI are bad scientists, at least when they are trying to support ID. (They might be perfectly OK scientists at other times).
Your self-contradiction is duly noted.
How does the generation of “new animals” by random and undirected changes in DNA sequences indicate an intelligent being at work?
3 Likes
Assuming this is true what indicates intelligence is the origin of a molecule capable of building animals by chemical sequences alone.
Something merely existing is not evidence of it coming into existence, let alone of it coming into existence in some particular fashion, like creation (what ever that is) by an intelligent being.
Once again you insult your own intelligence, and mine, and that of our readers, by pretending like you had any misconceptions on this point. No, you do know better. You are just sealioning. None of this is with any, much less “all due respect”.
2 Likes
I hope that you realize that every time you make reference to somebody’s “priors,” you are:
(1) conspicuously trying to sound like you have some sort of worthwhile Bayesian analysis going, which of course you don’t, and
(2) reminding everyone that the only reason you believe the things you do is because your own “priors” include a load of things you have exactly zero evidence for.
5 Likes
So, nothing after the point that self-replicating molecules first arose? i.e. nothing in that zebrafish diagram you keep citing?
I’m thinking something more empirical like Angels contained in force fields in Area 51.
Interestingly, even most members of the DI realize the error you are making here. They regularly say that the “intelligent designer” could be a hyper-intelligent extraterrestrial or other such physical being. i.e. nothing “outside” our world at all.
The designer logically could be an extraterrestrial but I see no evidence yet of such a designer. That type of designer would not explain the origin of atoms which are the basic components of DNA.
… As opposed to such a designer who is altogether “beyond” (what ever that means) the universe.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m with you on the lack of concrete evidence for extraterrestrial life, civilized or otherwise. But at least we have some seriously compelling evidence that life can exist in our universe. What “beyond” it even means, meanwhile, is entirely unclear. “Unwarranted” is a generous way of putting just what it is to say that life not only can, but that we have evidence that it does exist in such a way.
Why not? If we can make atoms, what’s to stop a different civilization from doing it? Of course, there’s nothing to indicate that they’d have to be able to do that, even if we assume they can create life. But why wouldn’t it be possible for there to be something that can do both? What objections have you to this physically entirely permissible hypothetical?
Like with life you have a chicken and egg problem. The creator of atoms cannot be made of atoms.
Oh, my bad. I was not aware of this silly extra rule you made up for no reason.
Please, be sure to inform the chickens, that they too must choose between laying eggs and hatching from them, and cannot do both.