12 February 2009

Creationists insist on god as a science

Creationists insist on god as a science and as a physically real entity. They fail to be honest. They will not leave god as a social matter of a common faith in fellow humanity. They cannot be honestly argued. The skeptics also need to be informed of the limits to mere faith in science. It is a matter of honesty, being honest, of knowledge, of what is known, and of what is knowable.

1) “It’s the epistemology, stupid!” as the saying goes. This goes for creationists, intelligent designers, atheists, skeptics, scientists, neurotics, psychotics, and everyone else.

2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics or entropy cannot apply to the universe as the universe is not a closed system, by definition. Otherwise, the universe would not be all containing and not all inclusive and indeed would have an outside and/or an other and would not be the universe. Then the new version of the universe would have the other plus the rest and then there would be the all in one universe and then we could go back to the start and argue it all over again. If there was a big bang it did not and could not be the universe. By definition. And what other definition would and could there be?

3) Further, and more important, or more relevant, is that the human mind is the fundamental, ultimate, raw natural resource of human kind. Such is so that it is part of the human environment as well. Whose environment means anything without the human being there to know of it or have a meaning for it or know of a meaning for it or for anything?

3)a) The human mind and its ability to solve problems entailing the human ability to do so, similarly.

3)b) The human ability, similarly, to create the new and the never before, that is, realize or make real the ideas the mind creates, de novo. This is in complete disregard to the Physical / Material nature of the beast, I mean the human, the human mind..

4) Similarly, no laws of anything can apply to the universe, nor the universe as a whole, by definition, and what other definition would or could there be: see above. The universe is not a “thing” nor is it a “mere thing” nor, to put it simply, is the universe any thing. It is a thing in the same sense that an idea is.

5) Just as the sidewalk is more than the vibrations of itty bitty bits of matter that keep us on the top as we walk on it so is the universe more than the many big and otherwise commensurable pieces that make it up.

6) IF, and there is the rub, IF the all that is were to end in an entropic blah as the end of time and space and mind then we might as well jump off a high place. Or IF, to rub it again, IF the universe contained an entropic engine then I ask what if on back. To “what if ... ?” all the time and anytime and in any way at all is what might be called childish and with older ones we might call it neurotic. After a number of times we eventually learn enough to wonder “why are you asking in the first place”. We ask what is to be known from the asking and from what knowledge is the question even asked. Asking what if the universe were to be nothing but an entropy machine is to ask what if we have no being other than to not be.

As an example, let us assume there was an end to the all. Coming to the end of the universe, bypassing everything and reaching the furthest of all, what would and what could there be there? Would there be a wall? A wall of, say, gasp, nothingness? IF the answer is nothing then there is nothing to know and therefore, cough, nothing to say about nothing, there would be nothing to talk about, nothing to know, and as it would be the same as nothing being there then there would be a definite case of no there there. IF the answer is something then you would not have reached the end. What IF, ouch, that rub again, the world ended in a blah, entropy style? What if we watched it happen? IF the answer is nothing then there is nothing to know and therefore, cough, nothing to say about nothing, there would be nothing to talk about, nothing to know, and as it would be the same as nothing being there then there would be a definite case of no there there. IF the answer is something then you would not have reached the end. I am not repeating myself. That is the only logical answer to that what if.

As I mentioned before: this is part of an OLD-OLD-OLD, by this year 900 years and more, argument for the incommensurability of god. GIVE IT UP ALREADY.

For creation versus evolution, it is not a matter of one or the other. The creationists and intelligent designers are not seeking to know nor desirous of knowledge nor coming from a knowledge so there is nothing to know and there is therefore no good strategy to debate them: they are dishonest at the get go by denying all possibility of knowledge.

It is a peculiar thing to demand the supremacy of god and god’s creation of life and humankind over science. God is not the processes of creation and development in nature. The god issues and the creationist’s issues and the intelligent designer’s issues are a matter of power... and the need to fill their plate: they have a living to make. If I do not believe then they will pass the plate or the hat anyway and demand I place in it what they want and if they had the power they’d force me to do so.

THEREFORE: it is NOT a matter of delusion nor belief nor faith nor honesty but it is a matter of power.

Theory of Evolution is just a Theory ?

1) Creationists/Intelligent Designers insist that the Theory of Evolution is "just a Theory" but have no problem with the Theory of Relativity being a "just" a "Theory". DUH! There is no use arguing with them as they insist and do not think about "it" any.
2) As for anything "outside" the universe creating the universe: that is a VERY OLD bit of nonsense. The “all” includes all and has no outside and contains all times and all spaces by definition. That includes all causes of any and all things by definition. The universe or the “all” includes all creations and creativity by definition. There is nothing “left over” to “cause” the universe, no space “left over” for the universe to be in, and no “time” for the universe either. This is an old-old-old argument for the incommensurability of god developed in the 1100’s by monastery monks and need not be debated anymore. [The very same monks also developed the notion of uncountable infinite numbers by the contemplation of the number of possible incommensurate angels dancing, as angels do not “stand around”, on an infinitely small space.] As god could have no precursor, god being the creator, so the universe, the “all” that everyone said god created, cannot have any other either, and thus could have no.... UH OH! They had to stop the talk. They adjourned the discussion to FAITH as the absolute limit of the necessary use of reason, a gift from god not to be despised nor unused, and left reason right there as able to go no further. They were at least honest as well as religious monks.