A well-formed system aligns all variables so that anything outside an acceptable result fails loudly, so noticeably that it becomes painfully obvious something unexpected occurred outside the tolerances of the designed system. There is gravity in a well-formed system that keeps everything operating in a well-tuned manner; so much so that if something resists that gravity, it becomes obvious. When it operates correctly, it all flows as expected, and each variable answers a need or asks for a need to be met to maintain the system’s harmony. What happens in a well-designed system: inconsistencies emerge naturally when viewed holistically.
If we apply this to life, do we see it as something that speaks loudly as something carried forward by a bottom-up design without any purpose, a totally undirected series of occurrences that molded itself without any outside involvement at all, or something so well designed that we can spot something anomalous at a glance?
If we were not well designed in a finely tuned operating systems why would a doctor expect to see specific numbers on various tests? What possible reason would there be for blood work, checking a pulse, and listening to a heart? We are fearfully and wonderfully made, not the product of pond scum over millions of years.
@KellyJay saidSeeking truth in reality has fewer degrees of freedom because reality is constrained. Our definitions are ever mutable; they are always in flux. The greater our understanding, the more we lose sight of what is wrong as we get closer to the truth. As our grasp of truth becomes clearer, all of the logical paths collapse, the edges disappear, and the anomalies become obvious, as truth simplifies things by doing away with all of the extra things we add to what we think, where we try to make what we think is true that doesn’t fit in our worldviews. If we miss the truth, we invent false flags, exceptions, heuristics, and excuses to cover up contradictions rather than eliminate them.
A well-formed system aligns all variables so that anything outside an acceptable result fails loudly, so noticeably that it becomes painfully obvious something unexpected occurred outside the tolerances of the designed system. There is gravity in a well-formed system that keeps everything operating in a well-tuned manner; so much so that if something resists that gravity, it ...[text shortened]... a heart? We are fearfully and wonderfully made, not the product of pond scum over millions of years.
By defining truth our way, we can tweak it whenever we want; it is not a solid scale for truth, as it can shift to making our biases seem reasonable until we learn enough to know what we added to our calculations should never have been there.
@KellyJay saidThoughts:
Seeking truth in reality has fewer degrees of freedom because reality is constrained. Our definitions are ever mutable; they are always in flux. The greater our understanding, the more we lose sight of what is wrong as we get closer to the truth. As our grasp of truth becomes clearer, all of the logical paths collapse, the edges disappear, and the anomalies become obvious ...[text shortened]... onable until we learn enough to know what we added to our calculations should never have been there.
Is it easy to miss evidence for God if our search is more about rejecting Him than finding Him. An honest search for truth requires standards and methods that do not bend to our preferences.
If we are seeking truth, which has fewer degrees of freedom than errors, because truth is constrained by reality. We need to be aware that if we create or follow our own or someone else’s definitions, what we create is mutable; it will always be in flux. The greater our understanding of what is real, the more we reject error as we get closer to the truth.
As our grasp of truth becomes clearer, all the logical paths collapse and point to reality as it is, the edges disappear, and the anomalies become obvious, because truth simplifies things. What will disappear is all the extra things we add to what we see, our invented false flags, exceptions, heuristics, and excuses to cover up contradictions rather than eliminate them.
By defining truth to fit our bias, we can tweak it however we want; nothing will be eliminated because it doesn’t belong, and we risk denying true things because they are inconvenient and oppose our worldviews. Instead, we create more excuses. Without a solid scale for truth, we build a universe in our minds that can shift to making our biases seem reasonable. The only hope for change, then, is if we are forced to admit that something we trusted to be true isn’t, and to acknowledge what we added to our calculations should never have been there.
It can also be about a reluctance to acknowledge what is there. Many people look at the universe and see a created world marked by order rather than chaos, yet they favor the idea that it emerged from chaos because it eliminates the need for God. The fact that the universe is predictable and understandable, and that many conditions are finely tuned and balanced, with extremely tight tolerances for success, suggests that something is sustaining and organizing reality.
Searching for truth has fewer “degrees of freedom” than chasing opinions, because reality does not change to fit our preferences. Our personal definitions and theories can shift from day to day, but truth stays put. As we learn more, the range of plausible explanations narrows, and the more accurate path becomes clearer. Errors tend to show up at the edges as contradictions and anomalies. Truth often simplifies what we see, but only when we remove false assumptions. If we keep bad assumptions in the mix, we end up patching over problems with ad hoc exceptions, rules of thumb, and excuses instead of correcting the underlying mistake.
If we define “truth” as whatever matches our existing beliefs, we can always redefine it until we feel justified. Anything that does not fit can be dismissed with endless rationalizations. In that mode, the goal quietly shifts from finding what is true to proving that we are right. But a standard that moves with our preferences cannot reliably test our beliefs. Over time, if we do get a deeper understanding of what is true, we can see that some “inputs” that we added, such as some assumptions, definitions, or priorities, never belonged in the calculation in the first place.
A fair test, then, is not whether an idea can be made to fit what we already want to believe, but whether it best explains the world as it is. That kind of search asks for humility: a willingness to let evidence correct us, to name our assumptions, and to follow the conclusion even when it is inconvenient. Without that, we can be endlessly “reasonable” on the surface while never truly being open to what is true.
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” — 2 Timothy 3:7 (KJV)
1 edit
@KellyJay saidOur predictions are based on applying what we think while considering variables and their responses. That has nothing to do with the Theory’s name we are giving credit to, but only with the consistency of variable reactions, given which variables are in play under which condition. Rather than focusing on what we call the theory, because that is meaningless to observation and our ability to test.
Thoughts:
Is it easy to miss evidence for God if our search is more about rejecting Him than finding Him. An honest search for truth requires standards and methods that do not bend to our preferences.
If we are seeking truth, which has fewer degrees of freedom than errors, because truth is constrained by reality. We need to be aware that if we create or follow our o ...[text shortened]... rue.
“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” — 2 Timothy 3:7 (KJV)
Why we look at what we test doesn’t alter its results; that has nothing to do with the outcomes we find. We can look at something for one reason and get an output, because, and “only because” what we are doing will always give the results reality will give us. Do you believe that if we are seeking evolutionary answers, a test result would be different if we were looking for design answers while performing the same test under the same conditions?
The same variable under the same conditions for a Theist does not alter the reactions if an Atheist did it, so the output would be no different. The only thing going on is people put parts of the material world under tests, looking for results, and when they get them, they make predictions that may or may not come true. Why they do it, what the fundamental state of their worldviews is, does not matter one way or the other; reality doesn’t change because of what we believe or disbelieve.
@KellyJay saidSo, if we look at evolution, it is a process; it speaks to change. No one disagrees with that, but the conflict arises over how much change for how long, and what from what, to produce what we see in the here and now. We can use science, but science always changes; it has to, because it does not produce ‘truth’, it suggests probabilities. Even Darwin looked at activities and suggested that, going backward, what we see today, like our breeding, could cause changes that would produce what he thought his theory needed. He had no clue about the complex nature of living cells, let alone how much is required to do the very basics of life.
Our predictions are based on applying what we think while considering variables and their responses. That has nothing to do with the Theory’s name we are giving credit to, but only with the consistency of variable reactions, given which variables are in play under which condition. Rather than focusing on what we call the theory, because that is meaningless to observation and ...[text shortened]... es not matter one way or the other; reality doesn’t change because of what we believe or disbelieve.
Some claim 4 billion years, roughly speaking, take more if you like, the human body alone has 30 to 40 trillion cells in it, and when you look at how many parts an individual living cell has in it, billions to trillions of molecules in each one, does 4 billion years sound like enough time to you for an unguided, uncontrolled process to direct all of the chemical reactions to make a cell, let alone a human body?
@KellyJay saidStaying on topic about life’s beginning:
So, if we look at evolution, it is a process; it speaks to change. No one disagrees with that, but the conflict arises over how much change for how long, and what from what, to produce what we see in the here and now. We can use science, but science always changes; it has to, because it does not produce ‘truth’, it suggests probabilities. Even Darwin looked at activities and ...[text shortened]... uncontrolled process to direct all of the chemical reactions to make a cell, let alone a human body?
There are no givens here. If any required piece of the puzzle is missing, the process breaks down and fails. These requirements do not work in isolation; they must converge. If even one is missing or corrupted, the system fails.
Timing is everything; the length of time will not help if everything that must be true at the same time is not. What is supposed to be there either is or is not. The necessary connections are either made correctly, at the right time and in the right way, or the whole thing falls apart or never connects as it must for life to begin.
For evolution to even get off the ground, many factual realities have to converge at the same time: the placement of our galaxy in the universe, our solar system within that galaxy, the right kind of star, Earth’s position in relation to that star and to the moon, and the makeup of the Earth itself, from its core to the materials found on it. You cannot do anything at all if the necessary parts are not in the same place at the same time, and nothing is present that would hinder or damage the process.
And all that comes before we even begin addressing the necessity of the information contained in the genetic code. Information is, without question, the most important piece of the process. You can have rocks lying on the ground, but if their arrangement spells out “Welcome to Hoopeston,” the information conveyed by that arrangement rises far above the mere makeup of the rocks themselves.