Science and Faith in Dialogue

[The Pixie]

I might have been wrong about the disproving a negative part. I just knew that there was a fallacy in there some place. I mean the guy was shifting the burden proof to us.

No, Cisco, the burden of proof is on you if you make the claim. You said "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path" and it is up to you to support that.

Or not, and pretend you never said it in the first place, as you now seem to be doing.

The logical fallacy is actually "shifting the burden of proof".

And it is one you are hell-bent on committing it seems.

For example, "I saw the real Santa Claus flying overhead with his sled and raindeer last night." And if you can't disprove that claim then it must be true. In our case we propose that parallel pathways can lead to IC's and although there is no evidence for it, you need to prove that they don't work. This is "shifting the burden of proof" and is listed as a fallacy. The term that I used was "proving a negative" which has commonly been mistaken for a fallacy. Thanks for the correction.

Your analogy is clever, I will give you that. However, you are arguing against the mainstream view here. And, of course, you made the claim: "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path", so you are analogous to the guy claiming in saw Santa Claus. The person who made the claim is expected to support it.

A more apt analogy would be a man claiming there are never buses on this road, despite it being a bus route. The mainstream view is that buses pass every thirty minutes. If he wants to claim there are never any buses, then the onus is on him to support that claim, not me to refute it.

Proving a negative is impossible, and so this will be a problem for the guy, but no one but an idiot is going to say that that is good reason to just accept what he claims is true.

And while he cannot prove it, he could support it by videoing the road for 24 hours, and then showing no buses during that time.

In the wider context of an argument for ID, how does this work exactly?

• We think there are systems that cannot be reached by evolution because they are IC but cannot show that that is the case
• Therefore evolution might be wrong

Is that the state of ID now? Why bother with IC at all? Just say you do not think evolution is true, and therefore creationism must be. All IC is, by now, is fancy mumbo-jumbo that gives the argument the façade of science. But it is just a façade.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I might have been wrong about the disproving a negative part. I just knew that there was a fallacy in there some place. I mean the guy was shifting the burden proof to us. Or that we had to prove parallel pathways didn't work rather than the proponents of the theory providing their own evidence. The logical fallacy is actually "shifting the burden of proof". For example, "I saw the real Santa Claus flying overhead with his sled and raindeer last night." And if you can't disprove that claim then it must be true. In our case we propose that parallel pathways can lead to IC's and although there is no evidence for it, you need to prove that they don't work. This is "shifting the burden of proof" and is listed as a fallacy. The term that I used was "proving a negative" which has commonly been mistaken for a fallacy. Thanks for the correction.

No problem, thank you for acknowledging the slip-up. As I said, it was only a part of your overall argument, but it’s still important to tidy things up like that. And, now, you have stated what your actual point is, and it can now be discussed properly.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Actually, I note that you did claim exactly that. You, post #86: "Both definitions cover the bacterial flagellum. Removing any part will disable the motor and it can't be reached by any evolutionary path." And I also note that you want to rewrite history to revise your position. You are aware that your old posts are saved, right? Anyone can go back and check what you said previously. What are you trying pull here? And why did you think you could get away with it?


If you are making the claim that "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path" then there is need to support that claim - you need to produce the evidence.

If you have now abandoned that position and are merely claiming there is no evidence for indirect routes, then fair enough. But where does that leave the IC argument?

• There is no direct evolutionary route and we do not know if whether or not there are indirect evolutionary routes.
• Therefore evolution may or may not be true

All a bit pathetic now.

Furthermore, what would you accept as evidence for an indirect route?

Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors | Sci.News

Using 3D images, biologists at Imperial College London, UK, have shown how bacteria have evolved their ‘flagellar’ motors of different powers to optimize their swimming.

www.sci.news

So why the sudden need to abandon your early position to the much weaker claim that there is no evidence yet of any indirect route?

 

[Cisco Qid]

No, Cisco, the burden of proof is on you if you make the claim. You said "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path" and it is up to you to support that.

Or not, and pretend you never said it in the first place, as you now seem to be doing.


And it is one you are hell-bent on committing it seems.


Your analogy is clever, I will give you that. However, you are arguing against the mainstream view here. And, of course, you made the claim: "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path", so you are analogous to the guy claiming in saw Santa Claus. The person who made the claim is expected to support it.

A more apt analogy would be a man claiming there are never buses on this road, despite it being a bus route. The mainstream view is that buses pass every thirty minutes. If he wants to claim there are never any buses, then the onus is on him to support that claim, not me to refute it.

Proving a negative is impossible, and so this will be a problem for the guy, but no one but an idiot is going to say that that is good reason to just accept what he claims is true.

And while he cannot prove it, he could support it by videoing the road for 24 hours, and then showing no buses during that time.

In the wider context of an argument for ID, how does this work exactly?

• We think there are systems that cannot be reached by evolution because they are IC but cannot show that that is the case
• Therefore evolution might be wrong

Is that the state of ID now? Why bother with IC at all? Just say you do not think evolution is true, and therefore creationism must be. All IC is, by now, is fancy mumbo-jumbo that gives the argument the façade of science. But it is just a façade.

Actually, I note that you did claim exactly that. You, post #86: "Both definitions cover the bacterial flagellum. Removing any part will disable the motor and it can't be reached by any evolutionary path." And I also note that you want to rewrite history to revise your position. You are aware that your old posts are saved, right? Anyone can go back and check what you said previously. What are you trying pull here? And why did you think you could get away with it?

What you were given are the definitions for an IC and they have worked very well in eliminating the direct pathways of evolution. Darwinists have put together parallel pathways in order to get around IC's through direct pathways but with no evidence, they can't be taken seriously. Science is based on evidence and our evidence are the IC structures them selves in plain sight while your evidence is no where in sight. So let's stop with the jargon that IC has been debunked.

If you are making the claim that "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path" then there is need to support that claim - you need to produce the evidence.

We need to produce evidence for what? That would mean that we take your position given without evidence seriously.

If you have now abandoned that position and are merely claiming there is no evidence for indirect routes, then fair enough. But where does that leave the IC argument?

• There is no direct evolutionary route and we do not know if whether or not there are indirect evolutionary routes.
• Therefore evolution may or may not be true

All a bit pathetic now.

You are playing a little lousy-gousey with your wording.
A more precise rendition would be:

• There is no direct evolutionary route and proposed indirect routes have not been validated with any evidence.
• Therefore evolution in its materialistic form has another obstacle with which to contend.

Furthermore, what would you accept as evidence for an indirect route?

Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors | Sci.News

Using 3D images, biologists at Imperial College London, UK, have shown how bacteria have evolved their ‘flagellar’ motors of different powers to optimize their swimming.

www.sci.news

Any evidence would be better than what you now have. And I hope that you aren't trying to pass off your link as evidence. Your link deals with changes to the flagellum motor after it has arrived. which is perfectly fine with our POV and might even be expected, and it does not deal with its arrival. There is no discussion on parallel pathways. I did, however, notice the use of the word scaffold but it was proceeding in the wrong direction from 14 stators to 17 with successive increases in torque which is more in line with successive mutations.

So why the sudden need to abandon your early position to the much weaker claim that there is no evidence yet of any indirect route?

Darwinists have shot their own theory to pieces with parallel pathways given without evidence while abandoning their own criteria for falsification in order to deal with IC's. That's good enough for this poor old country boy.

 

[The Pixie]

What you were given are the definitions for an IC and they have worked very well in eliminating the direct pathways of evolution.

Right. But you cannot conclude evolution did not happen on that basis, because it is plausible there are indirect routes.

Darwinists have put together parallel pathways in order to get around IC's through direct pathways but with no evidence, they can't be taken seriously.

Why not?

Science is based on evidence and our evidence are the IC structures them selves in plain sight while your evidence is no where in sight. So let's stop with the jargon that IC has been debunked.

The evidence IDists have relate only to direct routes. You just said "they have worked very well in eliminating the direct pathways of evolution". We do not know one way or the other about indirect routes.

We need to produce evidence for what? That would mean that we take your position given without evidence seriously.

If you want to claim "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path" then you need to produce evidence for that, and not just for direct routes.

If you have now abandoned that position, then you need for evidence. But then your IC argument fails.

Have you abandoned that position? Last time you were pretending you had not said that at all. I see nothing here about why you were doing that, which does seem to confirm this was an attempt at deliberate deceit on your part.

You are playing a little lousy-gousey with your wording.
A more precise rendition would be:

• There is no direct evolutionary route and proposed indirect routes have not been validated with any evidence.
• Therefore evolution in its materialistic form has another obstacle with which to contend.

Okay. So evolution is not disproved, and science is underway to investigate how it has contended with that obstacle. Did you read the paper I linked to last time? Here is another.

Evolution: Reducible Complexity — The Case for Bacterial Flagella

A recent paper, which will surely figure centrally in the debate between evolutionists and Intelligent Design creationists, proposes a (perhaps too si…

www.sciencedirect.com

Your IC argument has failed.

Any evidence would be better than what you now have. And I hope that you aren't trying to pass off your link as evidence.

But it is. It tracks the evolution from a 12 part system to a 17 part system. Clearly the 17 part system is not IC!

This is where you shift the goalposts, but we both know it is just a matter of time before the 12-part system is also explained.

Your link deals with changes to the flagellum motor after it has arrived. which is perfectly fine with our POV and might even be expected, and it does not deal with its arrival. There is no discussion on parallel pathways. I did, however, notice the use of the word scaffold but it was proceeding in the wrong direction from 14 stators to 17 with successive increases in torque which is more in line with successive mutations.

Which version was Behe talking about? Can you find an article where he states the IC system is the one with 12 parts? Or did he keep it deliberately clear so he could revise the number later?

Darwinists have shot their own theory to pieces with parallel pathways given without evidence while abandoning their own criteria for falsification in order to deal with IC's. That's good enough for this poor old country boy.

Of course it is good enough for you, and for millions of other country boys and country girls. This is what the Discovery Institute relies on to sell their BS.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Right. But you cannot conclude evolution did not happen on that basis, because it is plausible there are indirect routes.

We can conclude that the evidence is more in line with Intelligence Design. And no, indirect paths are not plausible because, first they go against everything that evolution has been preaching all along, small successive changes that are selectable by natural selection and, second they have no evidence.

Why not?


The evidence IDists have relate only to direct routes. You just said "they have worked very well in eliminating the direct pathways of evolution". We do not know one way or the other about indirect routes.


If you want to claim "it can't be reached by any evolutionary path" then you need to produce evidence for that, and not just for direct routes.

If you have now abandoned that position, then you need for evidence. But then your IC argument fails.

Have you abandoned that position? Last time you were pretending you had not said that at all. I see nothing here about why you were doing that, which does seem to confirm this was an attempt at deliberate deceit on your part.

I do stand by that argument, IC's have no evolutionary path direct or otherwise. Indirect paths have been put together as an after thought in order to deal with IC's but with no evidence to back them up, this definition still stands.

Okay. So evolution is not disproved, and science is underway to investigate how it has contended with that obstacle. Did you read the paper I linked to last time? Here is another.

Evolution: Reducible Complexity — The Case for Bacterial Flagella

A recent paper, which will surely figure centrally in the debate between evolutionists and Intelligent Design creationists, proposes a (perhaps too si…

www.sciencedirect.com

Your IC argument has failed.

Why do you keep linking to these useless links. Knowing where the genes came from or how they were used is in no way a counter to the IC argument. It's like knowing where the metal came from in a mouse trap which does not explain how the mouse trap was put together.

But it is. It tracks the evolution from a 12 part system to a 17 part system. Clearly the 17 part system is not IC!

This is where you shift the goalposts, but we both know it is just a matter of time before the 12-part system is also explained.

Explain why you arrived at the notion that a 17 part system in not IC. It don't believe it states that in the article. Everything is subject to change even IC's.

You say that about everything and, no, we don't both know that it will be explained by evolution.

 

[The Pixie]

We can conclude that the evidence is more in line with Intelligence Design.

We can, but that would be foolhardy indeed. We know evolution is happens - there is overwhelming evidence for that. In contrast there is precious little evidence of an intelligent designer. You cannot use IC as evidence for your intelligent designer here - that would be circular reasoning.

It is far more likely that evolution took an indirect route, which we both agree cannot currently be decided either way, than an unknown and unsupported intelligent designer did it.

And no, indirect paths are not plausible because, first they go against everything that evolution has been preaching all along, small successive changes that are selectable by natural selection and, second they have no evidence.

Can you talk me through this?

Firstly, why is an indirect pathway impossible given small successive changes that are selectable by natural selection? All the proposed indirect routes assume small successive changes that are selectable by natural selection, so this seems an odd - or desperate - claim to make.

Secondly, why is it impossible if there is no evidence? What evidence would you expect to see if there was an indirect route? Bear in mind here that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can point out that we would expect evidence to be here, then fair enough, but otherwise you have nothing.

I do stand by that argument, IC's have no evolutionary path direct or otherwise. Indirect paths have been put together as an after thought in order to deal with IC's but with no evidence to back them up, this definition still stands.

You seem to be flip-flopping on this. Tuesday you said:

"You will note that I did not claim that IC cannot evolve by indirect routes but rather that there is no evidence for indirect routes."​

We will see how long it takes for you to flip back...

Why do you keep linking to these useless links. Knowing where the genes came from or how they were used is in no way a counter to the IC argument. It's like knowing where the metal came from in a mouse trap which does not explain how the mouse trap was put together.

Explain why you arrived at the notion that a 17 part system in not IC. It don't believe it states that in the article. Everything is subject to change even IC's.

The first article I linked to describes the evolution from a 12-part system to a 17-part system. Therefore the 17-part system cannot be IC.

You say that about everything and, no, we don't both know that it will be explained by evolution.

And we do not it it cannot.

And that is all we need to destroy the IC argument.

 

[Cisco Qid]

We can, but that would be foolhardy indeed. We know evolution is happens - there is overwhelming evidence for that. In contrast there is precious little evidence of an intelligent designer. You cannot use IC as evidence for your intelligent designer here - that would be circular reasoning.

It is far more likely that evolution took an indirect route, which we both agree cannot currently be decided either way, than an unknown and unsupported intelligent designer did it.

What you call overwhelming evidence for evolution, I call overwhelming evidence for designed adaptation. You just took that evidence and added no intelligence required.

Can you talk me through this?

Firstly, why is an indirect pathway impossible given small successive changes that are selectable by natural selection? All the proposed indirect routes assume small successive changes that are selectable by natural selection, so this seems an odd - or desperate - claim to make.

Secondly, why is it impossible if there is no evidence? What evidence would you expect to see if there was an indirect route? Bear in mind here that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can point out that we would expect evidence to be here, then fair enough, but otherwise you have nothing.

The straw man it hard at work again. I didn't say parallel pathways were impossible I said implausible and secondly I didn't say it was impossible that there is no evidence, I said there was no evidence.

You seem to be flip-flopping on this. Tuesday you said:

"You will note that I did not claim that IC cannot evolve by indirect routes but rather that there is no evidence for indirect routes."​

We will see how long it takes for you to flip back...

Seem pretty straight forward to me, "IC's can not evolve through direct routes and there is no evidence for indirect routes" vs. "IC's can not evolve by any route direct or otherwise". They both say the same thing and depend on how strong of a stand one wants to make.

The first article I linked to describes the evolution from a 12-part system to a 17-part system. Therefore the 17-part system cannot be IC.

Evolution must get to the 12-part system before it can get to the 17-part system which makes it IC or rather unreachable by standard evolutionary pathways.

And we do not it it cannot.

And that is all we need to destroy the IC argument.

Sorry, I can make no sense from this whatsoever, "And we do not it it cannot." And IC argument is destroyed? This sounds like "bing bing watta watta bing bang" and your argument is gone.

 

[The Pixie]

What you call overwhelming evidence for evolution, I call overwhelming evidence for designed adaptation. You just took that evidence and added no intelligence required.

How is the nested hierarchy evidence for designed adaptation?

How is the distribution of the vitamin C pseudogene evidence for designed adaptation?

The straw man it hard at work again. I didn't say parallel pathways were impossible I said implausible and secondly I didn't say it was impossible that there is no evidence, I said there was no evidence.

What do you see as the practical difference between "impossible" and "implausible"?

To me this looks like a semantic dodge. You want it seem to be impossible, whilst avoiding the burden of having to show that.

Is an indirect evolutionary route possible?

Seem pretty straight forward to me, "IC's can not evolve through direct routes and there is no evidence for indirect routes" vs. "IC's can not evolve by any route direct or otherwise". They both say the same thing and depend on how strong of a stand one wants to make.

No they do not. If the former is true, then evolution is still possible. If the latter is true, then evolution is not.

If you do not understand that, then, with all due respect, I am not sure you have the ability to debate this seriously.

Evolution must get to the 12-part system before it can get to the 17-part system which makes it IC or rather unreachable by standard evolutionary pathways.

Was Behe claiming the 12-part system is IC or the 17-part one? Or did he not specify so he can chop and change later?

The researchers have only being doing this a couple of years. We will have to see where they are in ten years.

Sorry, I can make no sense from this whatsoever, "And we do not it it cannot." And IC argument is destroyed? This sounds like "bing bing watta watta bing bang" and your argument is gone.

Sorry, I meant "And we do not know it cannot." That is, we do not know if there are indirect routes or not. And that is enough to destroy the IC argument.

 

[Cisco Qid]

How is the nested hierarchy evidence for designed adaptation?

The nested hierarchy is a man made contrivance attempting to convince of common descent when the real issue is common design. Your like links then here are a couple.
link

"This new discovery is highly interesting and by no means junk science. It confirms that the fossil evidence supports neither an unambiguous phylogenetic tree of fossil humans nor a smooth directional evolutionary trajectory from ape-like to human-like forms. Furthermore, the fossils occur at the wrong place and the wrong time. Therefore, we see three core predictions of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory again refuted by empirical data. That’s how good science is supposed to work according to the late great philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper (1963): Conjectures and Refutations! If a theory and its proponents stubbornly refuse falsification by an ever increasing body of substantial conflicting evidence, the theory degenerates into a textbook example of dogmatic pseudo-science. The neo-Darwinian theory of macroevolution has failed on all fronts, from mathematical feasibility, to theoretical plausibility and explanatory power, to empirical support."

link

...the phylogenetic trees for the gene families discussed in this paper often don’t fit a nested hierarchy predicted by common descent. To explain away all the data that doesn’t fit with the expectations of common descent, the authors cite gene loss and rediploidization as occurring between and after two widely spaced whole-genome-duplication events across many millions of years. Isn’t that convenient: when the data fits the expected tree, we infer common descent; when it doesn’t, we can invoke gene loss and other factors to explain away the contrary data.

How is the distribution of the vitamin C pseudogene evidence for designed adaptation?

Very simple, humans and primates get their vitamin C from plants such as plants and vegetables therefore their GULO gene has been disabled.

What do you see as the practical difference between "impossible" and "implausible"?

For one, they're spelled differently and have different meanings. The former means it can't be done and the latter means it is not reasonable or probable for it to be done.

To me this looks like a semantic dodge. You want it seem to be impossible, whilst avoiding the burden of having to show that.

It's a semantic dodge only if you don't have a dictionary available.

Is an indirect evolutionary route possible?

It is implausible.

No they do not. If the former is true, then evolution is still possible. If the latter is true, then evolution is not.

If you do not understand that, then, with all due respect, I am not sure you have the ability to debate this seriously.

I can use either or both as long as there is no evidence to show otherwise.

Was Behe claiming the 12-part system is IC or the 17-part one? Or did he not specify so he can chop and change later?

I don't know. Does it really matter, they are both IC.

The researchers have only being doing this a couple of years. We will have to see where they are in ten years.

So we can pick up where we left off in ten years but don't hold your breath.

Sorry, I meant "And we do not know it cannot." That is, we do not know if there are indirect routes or not. And that is enough to destroy the IC argument.

Seems a little harsh to me, you can make up any statement and present it without evidence and that's enough to destroy an argument that does have evidence.

 

[Cisco Qid]

The nested hierarchy is a man made contrivance attempting to convince of common descent when the real issue is common design. Your like links then here are a couple.
link


link



Very simple, humans and primates get their vitamin C from plants such as plants and vegetables therefore their GULO gene has been disabled.

For one, they're spelled differently and have different meanings. The former means it can't be done and the latter means it is not reasonable or probable for it to be done.

It's a semantic dodge only if you don't have a dictionary available.

It is implausible.

I can use either or both as long as there is no evidence to show otherwise.

I don't know. Does it really matter, they are both IC.

So we can pick up where we left off in ten years but don't hold your breath.

Seems a little harsh to me, you can make up any statement and present it without evidence and that's enough to destroy an argument that does have evidence.

I probably won't be responding to this thread anymore unless there are some significant points brought forth.

 

[The Pixie]

The nested hierarchy is a man made contrivance attempting to convince of common descent when the real issue is common design. Your like links then here are a couple.

From your first link "...confirms that the fossil evidence supports neither an unambiguous phylogenetic tree...". The weasel word here is unambiguous. We do not have an unambiguous phylogenetic tree, There are nearly 9 million species around today, and far more as we go back in history. The details of how a few of them are related are still being established. So the article is right that there is no unambiguous phylogenetic tree.

But to conclude there is no tree at all is just plain wrong. This is just deceit of the part of the Discovery Institute frankly. They are deliberately misleading people and, sorry to say, you have fallen for it.

The idea of the nested hierarchy pre-dates Darwin and dates back to Carl Linnaeus. In broad outline it is very well established from morphology, and confirmed by genetics.

Very simple, humans and primates get their vitamin C from plants such as plants and vegetables therefore their GULO gene has been disabled.

That is not an explanation. The first part is just a well established observation. The second part tells us nothing.

Why would an intelligent designer choose to do that? Why would he go to the trouble to give them the gene in the first place? Why would he then choose to disable it? In what sense is this intelligent?

This is why ID is not science. Its "explanation" for everything is "that is what the designer did".

For one, they're spelled differently and have different meanings. The former means it can't be done and the latter means it is not reasonable or probable for it to be done.

It's a semantic dodge only if you don't have a dictionary available.

It is implausible.

Okay, so prove it is implausible.

Or we will have to say we cannot decide if it is plausible or not, and hence evolution is not disproved.

I can use either or both as long as there is no evidence to show otherwise.

But if you only have the first, then we do not know if an indirect route is plausible or not.

I really do not get how you cannot see the difference.

I don't know. Does it really matter, they are both IC.

Yes it does matter. If, hypothetically, the second were to be true it would refute evolution. The first does not. That is a huge difference.

So we can pick up where we left off in ten years but don't hold your breath.

Given the last twenty or so years, I feel pretty confident evolutionary science will have progressed, and ID will still be pushing the same IC nonsense it was back in 1996.

Seems a little harsh to me, you can make up any statement and present it without evidence and that's enough to destroy an argument that does have evidence.

Just as Behe made up a statement and presented it without evidence, thinking that was enough to destroy an argument that does have evidence? It is not. It falls woefully short.

I probably won't be responding to this thread anymore unless there are some significant points brought forth.

Wise move. If you are having to deny the nested hierarchy, it is time to quit.

 

[docphin5]

Is your memory part of you? You (teens) cannot remember your twentieth birthday, while you(thirties) can. That is a difference. I agree with Heraclitus, you can never step in the same river twice, because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.


You are a chain of entities. Each link in the chain connects to the previous and the next entities. It is a view of the world that emphasises change.


My apologies for not making myself clearer. The initial cause of the first life cannot itself be alive. A living deity can only create the second, third etc. life, not the very first. Only a non-living deity, or equivalent, could do that.


I am just taking a different approach. Rather than seeing the world as fundamentally unchanging, with a veneer of change, I see it as fundamentally changing, with a veneer of stasis. Hence my seeing you(teen) and you(thirties) as different.

I need your help understanding something. I was reading Baur’s analysis of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and I thought of you, that you may know what Baur is talking about because it sounds like something you would say.

Baur says,

“this expresses accurately the Gnostic view of the universe, no becoming or originating, but everything that becomes and originates simply begins to exist for consciousness, for everything that is, is absolutely. Nothing acquires essential existence; all becoming and originating is true only for the sphere of consciousness. The whole process of the world’s becoming is just the process of the development of consciousness. If then such be the true sense of the supposed Pauline propositions, who does not perceive that …the moral purport here given to it can only be properly understood if it be explained by the metaphysical meaning which underlies it?” (Paul, the Apostle of Jc…, vol. 2, Baur, pg 21)​

I consider myself well read and I have to admit this analysis came out of nowhere. Can you add any insight? I know your expertise is Buddhism, not christianity, but this sounds like something you might be familiar with. Baur is considered an expert scholar on Pauline thought.

 

[docphin5]

@rossum

I may have an explanation of Baur’s statement above, “the whole process of the world’s becoming is just the process of the development of consciousness.”

It is through the development of a moral consciousness that we perceive the perfect idea or thing upon which substance takes shape. The substance is always changing but the perfect idea is eternal, changeless. Therefore, if the christian “spirit of Jesus” be the blueprint of perfection with regards to virtues: truth, love, knowledge, etc., then it is not until we have consciously perceived that which is perfect (via our individual moral consciousness) and replicate it in our actions/choices/beliefs do we actually begin to live and exist according to what is changeless and eternal. Otherwise, we are living according to substance alone that continuously changes. Simply, real existence is what never changes found in the perfect idea perceived only by a moral consciousness. Anything that is ignorant of the perfect, eg., the material world, is nothing, dead, temporary, darkness. In that sense whatever changes does not really exist.

Therefore, Paul’s statement that began this enquiry says that,

“But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light.” (Ephesians 5:13)

To which Baur interpreted, “that light is the principle [blueprint of perfection] through which everything that is and has existence for consciousness, is mediated. All becoming takes place just by that which existed already in its essence [perfect idea] becoming manifest to consciousness.” (Ibid, pg 20)

In the context of Paul’s letter to the disciples at Ephesus, when the human consciousness perceives the blueprint of perfection, aka, spirit of jesus, or “light”and lives accordingly, then real existence begins and the christian soul is made alive to the absolute versus merely changing with substance over time.

Anyways, that is my best guess to what real existence means in association with consciousness and light.

 

[rossum]

It is through the development of a moral consciousness that we perceive the perfect idea or thing upon which substance takes shape. The substance is always changing but the perfect idea is eternal, changeless.

This is very far from Buddhism. In Buddhism, the "perfect idea" that is "eternal, changeless" is a mirage. It has as much reality as the 'water' in a mirage. It is a reification of the idea, trying to make some mental construct have its own reality in the external world.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.​

​

-- Jay Garfield, "Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation." OUP 2002.​

Baur is assuming ontological depth where there is none.

 

[docphin5]

This is very far from Buddhism. In Buddhism, the "perfect idea" that is "eternal, changeless" is a mirage. It has as much reality as the 'water' in a mirage. It is a reification of the idea, trying to make some mental construct have its own reality in the external world.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.​

​

-- Jay Garfield, "Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation." OUP 2002.​

Baur is assuming ontological depth where there is none.

Yet, Buddhism seeks Nirvana or Buddhism’s happy place where suffering does not exist. Sounds like Buddhism holds to their own idea of perfection. Is Nirvana just a mirage too? A reified idea? Trying to make some mental construct have its own reality?

 

[rossum]

Yet, Buddhism seeks Nirvana or Buddhism’s happy place where suffering does not exist. Sounds like Buddhism holds to their own idea of perfection. Is Nirvana just a mirage too? A reified idea? Trying to make some mental construct have its own reality?

The Buddha attained enlightenment at age 35. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living on earth while at the same time in nirvana. Nirvana is not elsewhere and elsewhen, it is here and now.

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from nirvana.​

Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from samsara.​

​

Whatever is the end of nirvana, that is the end of samsara.​

There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.​

​

-- Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20​