If so, that is in my opinion a pathetic reason to therefore assume the something supernatural was responsible. Science progresses by addressing unknowns, assuming an answer, particularly one you can't see or test for is no better than guessing and no more assured to be right.As to what started the chain of events that resulted in the universe as we know it today. The answer is not known yet. [LJ]
I rest my case. [L]
Nature, in the broadest sense is equivalent to the natural world, physical reality the physical, material, observable universe. Fundamentally, nature is governed by physics, which in turn gives rise to chemistry which is what underlies biology.What is nature, who/what makes nature do what it does?
So nothing makes nature do anything. Your question presupposes purpose and is assuming something outside of nature (understood in the broadest sense) ie the supernatural (lit: above nature) that could make nature do what it does without explaining how.
That's understandable and I don't intend that as a personal slight . Science has progressed in the last few centuries from explaining the intuitive to exploring the unintuitive, 2nd and 3rd order questions such as not just what makes the apple fall down, but how does gravity work, and how is gravity operative at the plank scale of quantum physics? This has entailed a complexifying of mathematical description. A victim of it's own success in many respects: science has become a subject for specialists - and that's good - it means we're getting better at conquering our own ignorance, but the downside is that fewer people in the general public understand the relevance of scientific discoveries and inquiries to them and are therefore all too easily dazzled and bewildered by the falsehoods of faith masquerading as science, e.g intelligent design.Scientific theories hurt my brain
I don't claim to be a specialist, I am however interested and have tried to understand the science, and just because the answer isn't available to me yet. I don't give up and assume that therefore absence implies god.
I've long suspected that faith and logic have departed each other's company for some time, or to take the analogy further: have arranged separate single beds, which they occupy in frigid silence, and don't talk to each other at breakfast. So permit me to break the ice with the suggestive wink and sexy negligee of reason.What science can show is that natural processes alone are sufficient explanations.[LJ]
Sufficient for some people, yes, but not all. [L]
Necessary and sufficient conditions are elements of formal logic.
A necessary condition of a statement must be satisfied for the statement to be true.
A sufficient condition is one that, if satisfied, assures the statement's truth.
To say that P is sufficient for Q is to say that in and of itself, knowing P to be true is adequate grounds to conclude that Q is true.
The logical relation is expressed "P implies Q."
Couple of things to note about that:
Firstly recall my argument that empirical evidence is the only means we know of to arrive at the truth.
Lurker, you seem to think that anything anyone can dream up by virtue of "subjective truth" - which is a contradiction in terms - is also adequate evidence for believing it to be true. That's a version of the transcendental argument that because I conceive of an all -powerful crating deity one must exist. I can also conceive of The big Friendly Giant and Santa Clause. Merely thinking somethign exists doesn;t make it exist.
I put it to you before that that is sufficient grounds for also believing in alien abductions and out-of-body experiences but you declined to take me up on that point. By the definition of what a sufficient condition is in formal logical, it should be clear that subjective opinions (P) about anything, including the existence and activities of gods are not an adequate ground to conclude that the belief (Q) is true. Now you can argue that it is, but you'll look extremely silly doing so.
Secondly recall, if you will, my attempt to explain how falsification operates in science and how it now fits into our defintion of sufficiency.
1. P implies Q. <--- sufficient conditionality
2. If Q is false
3. Therefore P must also be false.
I tried to show then how observations that contradict theory are either anmalous or potentially show that theory is not sufficient to explain all the observed phenomena, so theory must be adapted, updated or replaced. That is the power of science to compare and predict theories in accordance with empirically gathered observations and evidence and become less bad or conversely: better.
If god does not submit to empirical study as a sufficient condition of Q, it cannot be falsified, so it has no place in a truly scientific understanding of the world. Now that might not bother you. But realise this, if you are going to insist upon a god-directed version of evolution or intelligent design, recognise what you are adhering to is no longer science but a theology that misapplies genuine science to it's own ends.
Um...where to start? The definition of God: You go first - I insist - you believe in one after all.How can supernatural gods manipulate and influence the natural world? [Lithium Joe]
Why can they not - we won't go into the definition of God at this point, that's for another thread [Lurker]
Save it for another thread: If not in a thread called "religious philosophy" then where?
Why can they not? Well I asked first. Why should they be able to? I suppose it all depends if your "definition" places them in the universe or outside of it; imagines them as a deistic creator or a theistic meddler; are they natural or supernatural? Quibbling about my question won't get you very far - I've asked very straight forwardly how is something supernatural (assuming that is according to your definition) supposed to effect something natural (i.e the world) - you see the problem I assume? And shrugging your shoulders and saying 'why not' isn't even approaching an answer. Why not? Well,reaching for my philosophy background here, see Descartes ran up against this problem when he defined as two separate and distinct substances which shared no properties in his famous dialogues that culimate in the cogito ergo sum, moment. He envisioned 'mind' as 'sum res cogitans' 'that which thinks' and pretty much everything else, including the body as 'sum res extensa' (that which is extended (in time, space, dimensions etc)
So the problem was, I see my friend and am happy to see them and wave. How did my non physical, non physical, non exisiting (in time, space, dimension etc) mind make my arm go up? at what point do the two meet and interact?
The point I'm making to you is science cannot prove ('test') the 'controlling influence but which you claim is real, and my question, now as before is that if supernatural forces are acting on natural processes - HOW?
If you answers ascends above 'magic' - I'll be amazed.
As I hope I just demonstrated, answering my question with a question - particularly a rhetorical one - is a meaningless gesture.Why have a god behind it at all? [Lithium Joe]
Why not? [Lurker]
See I can answer my question: It's isn't necessary(see above definition) to postulate the existence of a god controlling the weather when all that is required to understand how the weather functions is a knowledge of the system and processes involved. Such an advanced knowledge is sufficient. Indeed so advanced is our understanding that the we recognise the limits of prediction in complex systems and the operation of chaos upon such systems. The God of Weather doesn't have to be true, in order for the weather to work.
I'm also glad you find my argument amusing - it was intended to be so - but it belied a serious point: you saying that god controls evolution has for me the same standing in logic and proof and necessity as saying Poseidon controls the weather. How can you deny that Poseidon doesn't control the weather and argue simultaneously that your god controls evolution? How can you tell the difference. Doesn't it offend your logic for me to argue Poseidon makes it rain, as it offends my logic to have you argue that god controls evolution?
Poseidon is from Greek mythology, later Neptune in Roman legend. The Celts, insofar as what is known about them in pre-christian times is a little but a lot, had a polytheistic religion with gods numbering in the hundreds ( a literal case of Terry Pratchett's - Small Gods: a god for everything and in everything.) Until they were eventually conquered by Roman and Germanic expansionism had quiet a nice thing going. Shame.Early Celtic take on things
I'll deal with the most egregious error first. Which is the how .Why insist that lying behind this amazing system of biology is a god carefully re-coating the protein shells of each and every flu virus every single winter? [Lithium Joe]
Because it is such a wonderfully intricate and perfect process - why a new flu virus every year - I don't know [Lurker]
Viruses cannot replicate outside of a host, they need to bind to cells in a body. Certainly in our cases we have a very efficient killing machine inside of us called the immune system, so the poor old virus really up up against it, but they have a further problem, the evolutionary pressure involved means their target hosts would soon evolve resistance to them (as a static and unchanging virus would kill or at least prevent from reproducing whatever proportion of a population were susceptible) but those who remained and survived would have some beneficial adaptation that allowed them to resist, this would be promulgated in the gene pool and eventually the poor old virus would become as effective, as well - the common cold; which is exactly what happened to the common cold. Which is why it's so common and weak compared to other viruses.
You only have to see what happens to emigrating missionaries and imperial discoveries in centuries past, when what killed the locals tended not only to be wholesale slaughter or pious domination but the importing of strains of infection to which the locals had no natural (evolved) defence.
There is an arms race between cells, and viruses over the receptor proteins which allow virus to 'dock' and infect the cells. Cells change their surface receptors so viruses cannot attach; the viruses change their surface proteins so they can attach to the changed cell surface receptors. The viruses must always stay ahead of the evolution game. They are very, very good at this because viruses have such high mutation and reproductive rates - the perfect recipe for an annually resurgent virus outbreak like flu'.
As for being perfect and intricate: I find myself wondering 'perfect for who?', but regarding that - the process is one of mutation: how is this in your conception an an example of 'perfection'? Secondly, the 'intricacy' is well accounted for micro-evolution (indeed micro-cellular evolution) the mere fact of it's intricacy is no argument or evidence that 'god did it'.