Why not atheism?

[Tarski]

Well maybe I didn't state it as well as I might have, but it is you who missed my point. Design and complexity has nothing to do with the fact that there are "multiple generations" in evolution. The fact that there are multiple generations is in fact part and parcel of evolution- you can't have evolution without that fact.

My point is that if gods "evolved" in some sense, your argument goes out the window. If the universes somehow grew in complexity over multiple big bangs- (totally unknowable of course) God's "great grandfather" could have existed as per King -F. without postulating the need for some transcendent Designer in the beginning.

Not the point. To catch the drift simply ask yourself how the complexity of life and apparent design could provide evidence for either the basic King-F God or your fanciful evolved God?

It doesn't. Why? Because in either case, the human form and the forms of nature would not be designed!

By the way, I take the evolving Gods notion to be manifestly absurd. What form would it take? What forces of survival of the fitest could act on Gods who are by any reasonable definition of a God, already perfectly fit! And, what happens to those who aren't fit to survive? Do they die? In what sense do they not survive? Since evolution is by selection, only some are selected. What does an unfit God look like? Is he a even a God?

Also, the form of the human body relects adaptation to an earthly environment and has nothing to do with baby universes.

Am I to imagine ape gods, fish gods etc?

Why would an entirely different game involving Gods and baby universes somehow mimick ordinary biological evolution? Which kind of evolution explains the existence of hands, eyes and hair?? It just doesn't pass the laugh test.

It is also irrelevent to my point--entirely.

How does design provide evidence for any variation of a King-F God where the Gods don't originally design life but follow a pattern? Doubling up on evolution to make it apply to God in some strange way only makes it worse. This is the point from the begining.

In either straight King-F theology or in your theo-evolution, all the impressive design-like structure was either unintelligently designed (evolution) or had always existed and so not designed at all.

One can extend this view, as I was in the other post to imagine God himself (ie: the purpose(s) of multiple gods and multiple universes) "evolving" and progressing through generations of gods and universes who preceded him. And the purpose? Bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Evolution does not involve overarching purposes --no teleology. The watchmaker is blind!

I think you need to read "Darwins Dangerous Idea" to both remind yourself of the whole point of the theory of natural selection and also to see just how forelorn is process philosophy compared to a purely physical/evolutionary theory of mind where subjectity is the endpoint of increasing complexity rather than a building block.

[LeSellers]

There are many layers of experience below the level of consciousness, like an onion.

You meant, I'm sure, "... like an ogre", right?

Lehi

[Facsimile 3]

You meant, I'm sure, "... like an ogre", right?

Lehi

Did you recently read about ogres in a C.S. Lewis book?

[tonyloaf]

The existence of evil is proof that there is a God. If there were no God, there would be no such thing as evil. As Dostoevsky said, if there is no God all things are allowed.

[wenglund]

To catch the drift simply ask yourself how the complexity of life and apparent design could provide evidence for either the basic King-F God or your fanciful evolved God?

Again, this question presupposes that finite/physical principles apply to the infinite/spiritual. Those of us who don't presuppose this, aren't limited to the two options you present. It is sufficient for us to say we just don't know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Not the point. To catch the drift simply ask yourself how the complexity of life and apparent design could provide evidence for either the basic King-F God or your fanciful evolved God?

It doesn't. Why? Because in either case, the human form and the forms of nature would not be designed!

Ok you are just not going to get this I guess. We are talking about God here. Since when is anything about God observable? You are just so stuck in your own paradigm that you cannot break out. It is like you are programmed permanently to think one way only.

By the way, I take the evolving Gods notion to be manifestly absurd.

That's nice. Talk to Whitehead- you know, the guy who wrote Principia Mathemetica with Russel? Man was he a dummy! But you are smarter! Good for you!

What form would it take? What forces of survival of the fitest could act on Gods who are by any reasonable definition of a God, already perfectly fit! And, what happens to those who aren't fit to survive? Do they die? In what sense do they not survive? Since evolution is by selection, only some are selected. What does an unfit God look like? Is he a even a God?

Did you even read the post? All you are doing is re-asserting Darwinianism. Be my guest. Did you even understand that this theory does not require natural selection?

Also, the form of the human body relects adaptation to an earthly environment and has nothing to do with baby universes.

Am I to imagine ape gods, fish gods etc?

Why would an entirely different game involving Gods and baby universes somehow mimick ordinary biological evolution? Which kind of evolution explains the existence of hands, eyes and hair?? It just doesn't pass the laugh test.

It is also irrelevent to my point--entirely.

This reflects absolutely NO understanding of the position.

How does design provide evidence for any variation of a King-F God where the Gods don't originally design life but follow a pattern?

There is no pattern.

Doubling up on evolution to make it apply to God in some strange way only makes it worse. This is the point from the begining.

In either straight King-F theology or in your theo-evolution, all the impressive design-like structure was either unintelligently designed (evolution) or had always existed and so not designed at all.

None of the above. Read the post. Evolution is like a natural law. It unfolds itself. It is it's own "force" if you want to call it that.

Evolution does not involve overarching purposes --no teleology. The watchmaker is blind!

This has nothing to do with the theory.

I think you need to read "Darwins Dangerous Idea" to both remind yourself of the whole point of the theory of natural selection and also to see just how forelorn is process philosophy compared to a purely physical/evolutionary theory of mind where subjectity is the endpoint of increasing complexity rather than a building block.

I am very familiar with his argument and it is largely understood to be inadequate by theists and atheists as well. You need to read some Nagel, Plantinga and even Gould.

His whole argument is based on a straw man view of religion. I've about had it. If you have nothing new to say, I won't respond. You are like a broken record.

Maybe Analytics can come back and attempt to translate, but he is right- we are not communicating. But I am not sure he understands either.

[mfbukowski]

The existence of evil is proof that there is a God. If there were no God, there would be no such thing as evil. As Dostoevsky said, if there is no God all things are allowed.

Not so. Read John Stuart Mill. You can construct a perfectly valid morality as an atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

[Tarski]

Again, this question presupposes that finite/physical principles apply to the infinite/spiritual. Those of us who don't presuppose this, aren't limited to the two options you present. It is sufficient for us to say we just don't know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am asking a question. Do you have an answer or not?

The way you state the above is so open ended and vague it might as well read: "the question presupposes that there isn't some unseen way out of your argument based on stuff about which we know nothing which we will call the infinite just to make it sound impressive."

Well all know how the argument by design is supposed to work and what the conclusion is supposed to be. God did the designing.

Did God design the anthropomorphic form, the human body? Was he the first to creatively imagine, design and produce trees, oceans, cells, eyes, hands, brains, etc?

Or not? If he did how does it fit in with the notion that he was once as we are now?

If you ever become a god will there be beings, your spiritual offspring, that argue for your existence based on design and conclude that you exist and designed cells, plants, animals, people? Planets, oceans, rain?

Would they not be wrong?

[wenglund]

I am asking a question. Do you have an answer or not?

As indicated several times, I can't logically answer the question as asked because it presupposes things that I don't. I am wisely choosing to reserve drawing a conclusion absent suffient facts.

I realize that my response robs you of your precious "gotcha", but I am sure you will find a way to live with it. I know I will and have.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Well all know how the argument by design is supposed to work and what the conclusion is supposed to be. God did the designing.

Who here is arguing the argument from design? No one. You are dreaming this up.

[Tarski]

Ok you are just not going to get this I guess. We are talking about God here. Since when is anything about God observable? You are just so stuck in your own paradigm that you cannot break out. It is like you are programmed permanently to think one way only.

what dribble. Are you just shooting words off in random directions? What has the observability of God got to do with this? I am not get it because there is no "it".

That's nice. Talk to Whitehead- you know, the guy who wrote Principia Mathemetica with Russel? Man was he a dummy! But you are smarter! Good for you!

Did you even read the post? All you are doing is re-asserting Darwinianism. Be my guest. Did you even understand that this theory does not require natural selection?

This reflects absolutely NO understanding of the position.

There is no pattern.

None of the above. Read the post. Evolution is like a natural law. It unfolds itself. It is it's own "force" if you want to call it that.

This has nothing to do with the theory.

I am very familiar with his argument and it is largely understood to be inadequate by theists and atheists as well. You need to read some Nagel, Plantinga and even Gould.

His whole argument is based on a straw man view of religion. I've about had it. If you have nothing new to say, I won't respond. You are like a broken record.

Maybe Analytics can come back and attempt to translate, but he is right- we are not communicating. But I am not sure he understands either.

Dude, I give up. My opinion of your clarity of thought and intellectual integrity is dropping like a brick.

Either tell me a coherent story with some kind of detail and proposed mechanism about how a mammal god "evolves(?)" into being (with or without natural selection) or admit that you have nothing of interest to say on the topic. You're just throwing out the word evolution and waving your hands around. Do you not tire of ad hoc theological fantasy?

More importantly address my real point. Tell me clearly what the appeal to design or the complexity of life can do to provide evidence of a God that Mormons can accept--one consistent with traditional interpetation of the King Follet discourses and the resulting common beliefs in Mormonism. I am addressing those that believe God was once a man who had his own God etc. How are they served by appealing to complexity and apparent design? How???

If you don't answer that then you are on a different topic than what I brought up and you misguidedly replied to.

Look; lets come back to earth here. The existence of things called "mammals" is the result of earthly biological evolution driven by random mutation and conditioned by massively contigent biohistorical accident. It wouldn't happen twice according to Gould.

To think that there was a primate form (god) before all that happened here on earth is analogous to supposing that there is a great eternal "grand canyon" somewhere in space that looks just like our grand canyon and that mysteriously was the model for our grand canyon even though ours came about through geological events conditioned by nealry infinite accidents and random contingencies.

PS, I have told you many times that I have read Nagel and consider his reasoning on the topic of consciousness quite confused and regressive. He has been subjected to withering criticism by more scientific minded philosophers.

What the heck has Plantinga got to say about the significance of design arguments for the Mormon ape-shaped God? Give me a break.

Whitehead was a good mathematician but a misguided philosopher (he was eloquent and creative to be sure). It is rather childish to assert that he is smarter than me. I know mathematicians smarter than me that believe insane things. Shavarevich was a rabid anti-semite. Newton was massively into alchemy.

Perhaps Frank Tipler is smarter than me, but his book "The Physics of Immortality" is deeply confused and delusional.

The arguments and later devastating critiques of Nagel and Whitehead are what need to be adressed. Name dropping is going to get you only so far.

On top of that I can't help but point out that Witgenstein would have declared much of process theology to be meaningless and addressing pseudo-problems born of misuse of language. It is ironic that you invoke Whitehead given your enfatuation with Witty. Your apologetics make purely opportunistic and ad hoc use of various philosophies without a self consistent philosophical vision.

Like I said, I give up-- but I challenge you to take a big step back and soberly look at what you are defending and by what means.

[Skywalker]

More importantly address my real point. Tell me clearly what the appeal to design or the complexity of life can do to provide evidence of a God that Mormons can accept--one consistent with traditional interpetation of the King Follet discourses and the resulting common beliefs in Mormonism. I am addressing those that believe God was once a man who had his own God etc. How are they served by appealing to complexity and apparent design? How???

If you don't answer that then you are on a different topic than what I brought up and you misguidedly replied to.

If I may chime in here...

Mormons believe in the Bible. We believe God created us in his image. We may not fully understand the process, or fully understand in what capacity his image reflects ours, but we take certain things on faith. Just like atheists do.

Genesis 1

1 IN the ^abeginning ^bGod ^ccreated the ^dheaven and the ^eearth.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth ^agrass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

20 And God said, Let the ^awaters ^bbring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and ^cfowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created ^agreat whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

24

[Facsimile 3]

PS, I have told you many times that I have read Nagel and consider his reasoning on the topic of consciousness quite confused and regressive. He has been subjected to withering criticism by more scientific minded philosophers.

What the heck has Plantinga got to say about the significance of design arguments for the Mormon ape-shaped God? Give me a break.

Whitehead was a good mathematician but a misguided philosopher (he was eloquent and creative to be sure). It is rather childish to assert that he is smarter than me. I know mathematicians smarter than me that believe insane things. Shavarevich was a rabid anti-semite. Newton was massively into alchemy.

Perhaps Frank Tipler is smarter than me, but his book "The Physics of Immortality" is deeply confused and delusional.

The arguments and later devastating critiques of Nagel and Whitehead are what need to be adressed. Name dropping is going to get you only so far.

On top of that I can't help but point out that Witgenstein would have declared much of process theology to be meaningless and addressing pseudo-problems born of misuse of language. It is ironic that you invoke Whitehead given your enfatuation with Witty. Your apologetics make purely opportunistic and ad hoc use of various philosophies without a self consistent philosophical vision.

Like I said, I give up-- but I challenge you to take a big step back and soberly look at what you are defending and by what means.

Can you even present a coherent case against Nagel or Whitehead? Just saying things like I'm a stereotypical atheist who is fundamentally orthodox doesn't really repudiate what we have shared from Whitehead. All you are saying is Darwinism is better SO THERE! If you repeat evolution based solely on survival enough times, I'm sure things will become so much clearer for all of us.

[Tarski]

Who here is arguing the argument from design? No one. You are dreaming this up.

It happens all the time. It essentially happened in this thread with Rameumton's post #127. Mudcat did one too but he isn't Mormon I guess.

Whole threads are devoted to ID and vigorously defended by some Mormons.

It is implicity in the BoM in the idea that all things witness of God's existence.

Ask Mordecai if he thinks God designed living things.

But if you wanted to just assert that Mormons don't promote the idea that the complexity of the universe, fine tuning, and apparent design of life provide evidence for God then you could have just said so rather than dragging me through far fetched irrelevancies such as evolving mammal Gods and baby universes and Whiteheadian process theology.

In anycase, the King Follet style God isn't a truly creative one. He is more procreative and more of a copycat and a cog in the cosmic procreation machine.

[Honorentheos]

Interesting.

My daughter (age 9) plays Pok

[mfbukowski]

If you don't answer that then you are on a different topic than what I brought up and you misguidedly replied to.

It's really not that complicated.

The classical picture of Mormon Doctrine, as you know, is that man was created in God's image, and if the KFD is considered doctrinal, WHICH IT IS NOT, the presumption is that God had a father and so forth "back" through the eternities.

This view is a very naturalistic view- God had children in the way that all fathers have had children throughout eternity. Most would say that this view is not compatible with evolution, though many feel it is. On this view, there is no "Designer" since man is essentially created as a replica of God, perhaps biologically, perhaps not.

So no need for a designer in that argument.

Then we have the "problem" of evolution. One hypothesis to supposedly reconcile evolution with the existence of God is that evolution proceeds through an "Intelligent Designer"- theoretically God or some other intelligence. Your point is that if a human God was the designer,and if we are created in God's image, where did the original design for the human body come from? I am not a proponent of intelligent design so I am not sure I can answer that question. Then of course we add the KFD to the formula and it appears that the entire problem becomes a paradox, but I think the problem is there for any proponent of ID.

One possible solution - and here I am speaking metaphysically which means it is beyond verification- would be that God intentionally created humans in his own image by supernaturally directing evolution. That would solve the problem for a religious believer, and as I was trying to indicate, would of course not be observable scientifically since God's intentions are not observable. But that "solves" the need for a transcendent God designer which you are postulating.

Now we get to your argument. You originally said that the problem of an intelligent designer for the human form could only be solved by postulating a non-human transcendent God without a body as the designer.

My sole point was that there was another way of doing it, and that was to propose a God who essentially IS the universe, that matter has in some sense intelligence and that the universe created mankind over a period of time. This is essentially the position of Whitehead, abbreviated nearly beyond recognition, but nevertheless it is the essence of his pov.

Indeed this is a solution to problem- no designer is needed- the universe through its own natural law, transformed its matter into mankind.

I have simplified the argument to make it more understandable but this is essentially it.

This is of course a metaphysical theory which cannot be proven and for which there is no evidence. But that was not the question since nothing we were discussing could be shown by evidence either.

As you correctly point out, I am a fan of Wittgenstein and typically do not mix metaphysical discourse with philosophical discourse.

But none of this thread has been about philosophy- which is about language, definitions and logic.

You persisted in talking about natural selection, which was not even part of the theory I was proposing, assuming continually that natural selection was part of it.

I still don't know if you understand my point, but at this point I am growing weary of trying.

It's quite simple. If we postulate that the universe itself has intelligence and has a force within it to push toward the creation of man, there is no need for "natural selection" there is no need for an Intelligent Designer.

As I said more than once, I am not subscribing necessarily to this theory except perhaps in a metaphysical and not philosophical sense, but I have not decided yet.

It is simply an if-then statement. If the universe created mankind out of its own intelligence with an immanent God, there is no need for a designer. Period.

The statement stands on its own or falls on its own. It is not supportable by evidence- it is metaphysics, it is about religion. It is an alternative explanation to what you were proposing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let me summarize.

The argument for a need for a transcendent designer of the body of man can easily be defeated if God is either 1) not transcendent- ie is immanent or uses immanent forces 2) God is in some sense literally our father and not our "designer" or 3) the universe of intelligent matter essentially created itself with God standing by watching natural forces take over.

Any three of these views can be seen as compatible with a traditional Mormon view, and these correspond to the above numbers:

1) God created the universe through natural laws directed by his Priesthood authority

2) Is a pretty traditional view

3) God commanded the intelligence in matter to create the worlds.

Edit:- Honorentheos is right- we are not talking about "evolution" here in a Darwinian sense- just that one stage leads to the other- its more the transformation of one species into another as directed by the universe.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting.

My daughter (age 9) plays Pok

[mfbukowski]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

ev

[Honorentheos]

Hi MFB. It's been a while. I hope all is well with you and your family.

I think it would benefit both you and Tarski to not use the term "evolution" for what you are describing. Maturation may be better. Metamorphosis may be even more exact but exactness in this case gets muddied up by the more vulgar conceptualization of what that term means.

Evolutionary theory inherently includes concepts that seem to be getting labeled "Darwinism" or "natural selection" with an implication of the pejorative. Evolutionary theory, for example, does not include a necessary change in complexity from simple to higher complexity. It's about fitness and adaptation.

Still, I think that with this distinction you and Tarski can discuss the three counter-arguments you list above that you feel invalidate Tarski's point. I am not sure if you completely understand Tarski's argument about human form being a result of mammalian evolution on this planet and if this process is, indeed, what is necessary for God to stand aside and let the universe create man in his image it says something unpleasant about God and the universe...(hint - it isn't just indifferent to us, which may be the result of a certain line of atheistic think, but is actually malicious to most of creation) but we'll see where this goes I guess.

[Tarski]

If you don't answer that then you are on a different topic than what I brought up and you misguidedly replied to.

It's really not that complicated.

I will address what you posted so we don't keep going in circles but let me point out that you still don't get my point.

I have to break this into two posts since I end up with more than the allowed number of quotes blocks so look for a follow up.

1) Here is what I asked for: "Tell me clearly what the appeal to design or the complexity of life can do to provide evidence of a God that Mormons can accept--one consistent with traditional interpretation of the King Follet discourses and the resulting common beliefs in Mormonism. I am addressing those that believe God was once a man who had his own God etc. How are they served by appealing to complexity and apparent design? How???"

2) Here is what you mysteriously think I asked for: "Please explain how there can be a mammal God without there having been a designer God above our God.

I do not claim Mormons are forced into a original super-God. I merely claim the following:

3) My claim: Appeal to notions complexity/design are said to provide evidence for God. However, they specifically are thought to provide evidence for a ddesigner of life etc! Such a God who would be the designer of even the human form does not fit well with the most common version of Mormon theology (what you called the classical picture).

Please focus on just the claim for a minute!

Now I can add the observation that your evo-God theory also has no designer and so one holding to your theory would also have no evidential use for the observed complexity and apparent design of nature. (And you never claimed that it did--you are trying to promote your theory as a way around the super-God which is fine. Just fine. I have a way around the super God too (and any God at all) and it is called biological evolution. OK? Now look at my clam (3) again. See? You cannot refute it by inventing Mormon friendly theologies that have no designer God. It is a different topic. I only claimed what I claimed. I did not every say that that Mormons are forced into a super-God. I only say that Mormons who appeal to 'complexity" etc. as evidence for something divine end up with a designer God and must find a way to fit this with classical Mormon theology or just abandon classical Mormon theology or any variation of it that does not include a designer God. Either that or abandon the idea that complexity is evidence of a designer.

OK, now, since you don't want to address my claim but would rather fight about the possibility of a Mormon version of process theology, I guess I will address it since I also have opinions about -that- topic.

The classical picture of Mormon Doctrine, as you know, is that man was created in God's image, and if the KFD is considered doctrinal, WHICH IT IS NOT, the presumption is that God had a father and so forth "back" through the eternities.

OK fine.

This view is a very naturalistic view- God had children in the way that all fathers have had children throughout eternity. Most would say that this view is not compatible with evolution, though many feel it is. On this view, there is no "Designer" since man is essentially created as a replica of God, perhaps biologically, perhaps not.

No designer. Check! (Appeal to complexity as evidence for God does not come up)

So no need for a designer in that argument.

Of course (although I don't see a really viable theory yet)

Then we have the "problem" of evolution. One hypothesis to supposedly reconcile evolution with the existence of God is that evolution proceeds through an "Intelligent Designer"- theoretically God or some other intelligence.

Of course this would not be an impressive theory and wouldn't be natural selection. Darwin's theory explains things without the need for intelligent design. It is natural in exactly this sense. It explains in terms of mechanisms that we already understand and accept--random, mutation, mindless natural selection etc. No need for God.

It is worth noting that the idea that life evolved from lower forms was already there before darwin. What darwin did was show how it could work (natural selection) and this is what is usual meant when one speaks of "evolution" in biology.

Your point is that if a human God was the designer,and if we are created in God's image, where did the original design for the human body come from?

No that is NOT my point. I personally don't think that there needed to be a designer at all. My point was that if one invokes complexity and apparent design as evidence then one get a designer God (and what to do with THAT god if you are Mormon??)

I am not a proponent of intelligent design so I am not sure I can answer that question. Then of course we add the KFD to the

formula and it appears that the entire problem becomes a paradox, but I think the problem is there for any proponent of ID.

There is only a paradox if one thinks the universe is designed. I don't and apparently Mormons who like the classic Mormon theology should not think so either!

One possible solution - and here I am speaking metaphysically which means it is beyond verification- would be that God intentionally created humans in his own image by supernaturally directing evolution.

and thereby deny the modern theory of evolution by natural selection which does need a designer or prior intelligence.

That would solve the problem for a religious believer, and as I was trying to indicate, would of course not be observable scientifically since God's intentions are not observable. But that "solves" the need for a transcendent God designer which you are postulating.

Of course, since natural selection can do the job and has explanatory power, the reinsertion of a God directing things is odd. It reminds me of the story of the guy who believed demons made his car move. After having the mechanics of an automobile explained to him he excitedly accepted it and explained it to another person in great detail only to finally add "and then the demons make the car move".

Now we get to your argument. You originally said that the problem of an intelligent designer for the human form could only be solved by postulating a non-human transcendent God without a body as the designer.

My argument??? What is the problem of the intelligent designer? I only say that if you use complexity as evidence for a designer then you are stuck with a designer and this doesn't fit with classical Mormon theology.

My sole point was that there was another way of doing it,

Doing what? Fitting a designer gos into Mormonism (you don't do this). Finding an evidential role for complexity? (you don't do this either)

and that was to propose a God who essentially IS the universe, that matter has in some sense intelligence and that the universe created mankind over a period of time. This is essentially the position of Whitehead, abbreviated nearly beyond recognition, but nevertheless it is the essence of his pov.

so what?

Indeed this is a solution to problem- no designer is needed- the universe through its own natural law, transformed its matter into mankind.

It's not a solution to any problem I proposed. I don't need a designer and I am aware thast there is no designer in classical Mormon theology also. The problem was what to do if one wishes to use complexity as evidence for something divine.

continued...

[Tarski]

continuation of immediately previous reply to mfbukowski:

I have simplified the argument to make it more understandable but this is essentially it.

OK, now you are going to give a no designer theology. Tgis is off topic for my original point addressed to Mormons who invoke design/complexity as evidence. But lets proceed on with this since you keep putting it out there.

This is of course a metaphysical theory which cannot be proven and for which there is no evidence. But that was not the question since nothing we were discussing could be shown by evidence either.

Already I smell immanent meaninglessness.

As you correctly point out, I am a fan of Wittgenstein and typically do not mix metaphysical discourse with philosophical discourse.

But none of this thread has been about philosophy- which is about language, definitions and logic.

?? *sigh* OK whatever. lol

You persisted in talking about natural selection, which was not even part of the theory I was proposing, assuming continually that natural selection was part of it.

Natural selection it the only evolutionary theory that I know of that proposes a comprehensible mechanism and thereby has explanatory power.

I still don't know if you understand my point, but at this point I am growing weary of trying.

It's quite simple. If we postulate that the universe itself has intelligence and has a force within it to push toward the creation of man, there is no need for "natural selection" there is no need for an Intelligent Designer.

As I said more than once, I am not subscribing necessarily to this theory except perhaps in a metaphysical and not philosophical sense, but I have not decided yet. For example, a theory that says things evolve because they imbued with "a changiness force" is not a theory with explanatory power.

It is simply an if-then statement. If the universe created mankind out of its own intelligence with an immanent God, there is no need for a designer. Period.

This would be fine except that I think you are about to abuse the word intelligence and treat it like a fundamental force rather than as a manifestation of biological complexity -- a loosely related set of abilities found especially in humans.

The statement stands on its own or falls on its own.

First we must determine if it makes sense. For this we must clarify meanings. The usual way to do this is operationally. If we did that then we could in principle expect to make connection with experiment and evidence.

It is not supportable by evidence- it is metaphysics,

A very bad situation that not only calls into question the truth of the assertion but also its very meaning.

It is an alternative explanation to what you were proposing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unless you can provide something like a mechanism that makes connection with simpler understood entities and notions already in play in science (such as atoms, energy, selection, probability, etc.) then I don't think we will end up with anything i would call an explanation.

Let me summarize.

Whoa! You are now going to summarize before you give the full detailed version?? Oh there is no full version.

The argument for a need for a transcendent designer of the body of man can easily be defeated if God is either 1) not transcendent- ie is immanent or uses immanent forces 2) God is in some sense literally our father and not our "designer" or 3) the universe of intelligent matter essentially created itself with God standing by watching natural forces take over.

Any three of these views can be seen as compatible with a traditional Mormon view, and these correspond to the above numbers:

1) God created the universe through natural laws directed by his Priesthood authority

2) Is a pretty traditional view

3) God commanded the intelligence in matter to create the worlds.

In the first part you are coming back to address what I never had issue with. One can do without a design- we agree. (My point was for those who use design/complexity as evidence)

As for the rest (not much there) all I can say is this: I can make no sense of number (3).

As far as I can see to "command intelligence in matter" is meaningless. No non-silly understanding of intelligence allows simple matter to have intelligence especially if you are going to imagine that an electron can understand a command.

It also looks like an abuse of language to "command intelligence". One can command an intelligent being but not intelligence itself (whatever that might be).

To isolate and hypostatize notions like intelligence that come from our observation of the functional behavioral abilities of complex beings with complex nervous systems and then treat the notion as if it were a reified ghostlike something possessing material things or inhering is deeply misguided and confused. Modern cognitive science displaces this kind of thinking.

Thinking things have parts and it is by virtue of the interaction of those parts that it can think and be intelligent. Anything else I have ever seen is just muddled mysticism bore of paying to much attention to our prescientific intuitions and not enough attention to details, mechanisms, biological realities and clear definitions. Intelligence is an aspect of the action of a brain or brainlike structure. It isn't a "stuff" and neither is consciousness.

[Honorentheos]

Hi Tarski,

It's interesting how much Kleon Skousen's notion of "intelligences" has permeated the arm-chair philosophy that infuses much of non-chapel LDS theology. Not sure if you ever heard or read his treatise on the atonement, but I see some of that thinking in MFB's theories. Otherwise, I continue to question how MFB can believe in a physical, resurrected God as part of the remainder of his various theories. The physicality of God is, to my mind, one of the big issues with LDS theology and it's ties to 19th century views of the universe and science. It requires ignoring many, many aspects of modern physics to make it work in some way.

I'm curious how he answers you.

[wenglund]

Already I smell immanent meaninglessness.

I can see how it may be meaningless to you given your more narrow-minded paradigm. Others reasonably view it differently. To each their own.

Natural selection it the only evolutionary theory that I know of that proposes a comprehensible mechanism and thereby has explanatory power.

That is because you unavoidably lack comprehension beyond your more narrow-minded paradigm. And that is okay. To each their own.

This would be fine except that I think you are about to abuse the word intelligence and treat it like a fundamental force rather than as a manifestation of biological complexity -- a loosely related set of abilities found especially in humans.

I can see how it may appear to abuse the word "intelligence" given your more narrow-minded paradigm. (Notice a pattern that MfB alluded to earlier?) But it isn't an abuse within other more broad-minded paradigms.

First we must determine if it makes sense. For this we must clarify meanings. The usual way to do this is operationally. If we did that then we could in principle expect to make connection with experiment and evidence.

As alluded to above, the problem here is an unavoidable clash of paradigms. Given your more narrow-minded paradigm, the meanings that MfB may clarify will likely not be comprehensible to you, let alone acceptible. And that is okay. To each their own.

A very bad situation that not only calls into question the truth of the assertion but also its very meaning.

See above.

Unless you can provide something like a mechanism that makes connection with simpler understood entities and notions already in play in science (such as atoms, energy, selection, probability, etc.) then I don't think we will end up with anything i would call an explanation.

See above.

As for the rest (not much there) all I can say is this: I can make no sense of number (3). As far as I can see to "command intelligence in matter" is meaningless. No non-silly understanding of intelligence allows simple matter to have intelligence especially if you are going to imagine that an electron can understand a command.

See above.

It also looks like an abuse of language to "command intelligence". One can command an intelligent being but not intelligence itself (whatever that might be).

To isolate and hypostatize notions like intelligence that come from our observation of the functional behavioral abilities of complex beings with complex nervous systems and then treat the notion as if it were a reified ghostlike something possessing material things or inhering is deeply misguided and confused. Modern cognitive science displaces this kind of thinking.

Thinking things have parts and it is by virtue of the interaction of those parts that it can think and be intelligent. Anything else I have ever seen is just muddled mysticism bore of paying to much attention to our prescientific intuitions and not enough attention to details, mechanisms, biological realities and clear definitions. Intelligence is an aspect of the action of a brain or brainlike structure. It isn't a "stuff" and neither is consciousness.

See above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hi Tarski,

It's interesting how much Kleon Skousen's notion of "intelligences" has permeated the arm-chair philosophy that infuses much of non-chapel LDS theology.

That is interesting given that I, as a certified "chapel LDS" and arm-chair philosopher, share MfB's notion of "intelligences", and this without having read a single work of Kleon Skousen (though I lived for nearly a decade in the same general neighborhood), and have relied only for my understanding of the term, on the LDS scriptures and the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

That is interesting given that I, as a certified "chapel LDS" and arm-chair philosopher, share MfB's notion of "intelligences", and this without having read a single work of Kleon Skousen (though I lived for nearly a decade in the same general neighborhood), and have relied only for my understanding of the term, on the LDS scriptures and the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree. I haven't read Skousen either. What I find very intersting is that this is also the essence of Whitehead's view- he essentially is working out Mormon metaphysics in some detail.

A verse from one of my favorite hymns, Be Still My Soul:

Be still, my soul; thy God doth undertake

To guide the future as He has the past.

Thy hope, thy confidence, let nothing shake;

All now mysterious shall be bright at last.

Be still, my soul; the waves and winds still know

His voice who ruled them while He dwelt below.

I don't think Skousen wrote that. In fact a Mormon did not even write it.