Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
ChrisGB said:
1. It would be a much shorter discussion if you could just show me I was wrong. One little counterexample out of all the billions and billions of cause and effect we see? It means nothing that there is no such counterexample? So I have a claim backed up by every example that can be thought of, yet you insist I need to prove what I've asserted? You are demanding much higher standards than you do of your own beliefs.
I'm not trying to show you are wrong - i'm trying to show that you are arbitrarily drawing lines in the sand to suit your argument. Your argument may be bang on the money or may be the complete opposite of what you are proposing......we simply do not have enough information to demonstrate it either way.On the one hand you seem to be of the opinion that causality must be upheld (hence your insistance that I provide an example whereby causality is broken) - yet the very premise of the first mover argument you are trying to promote relies on the fact that the first mover has no cause.
I have no idea whether or not causality is a given - all i'm doing is leaving the discussion open until we have further information. You are making assertions based on things we dont yet know.
ChrisGB said:
2. You mean something might come from nothing? Can you explain?
Nope - because I didn't state that. ChrisGB said:
Of course background conditions have a cause - there is on my view no such thing as a brute fact.
I think the problem you have here is your assumption that everything has a cause and yet not everything has a cause. On the one hand you say prime mover must have a cause, on the other hand things might arise spontaneously without a cause.
I'm not assuming anything - like I said above i'm simply not choosing which of those is the valid proposition based on unknown facts. I haven't stated the prime mover must have a cause - what I have stated it must if causality is a given. If causality is not a given - then the prime mover doesn't need a cause - but then again, a lack of causality may actually remove the need to invoke a prime mover at all.I think the problem you have here is your assumption that everything has a cause and yet not everything has a cause. On the one hand you say prime mover must have a cause, on the other hand things might arise spontaneously without a cause.
My argument is internally consisted - whereas yours invokes causality/or lack of it based on a whim.
ChrisGB said:
Don't you need to decide what your argument is? Prime mover is the conclusion of studying essentially ordered causal series - there must be something purely actual, which THEREFORE means uncaused. It is not an arbitrary exception, but a logical conclusion forced by the premises.
Hang on a sec. The first paragraph of your reply to me - you challenged me to provide an example of broken causality - implying that because I haven't/cant - this therefore invalidates my argument. You have now stated categorically that there must be things that are uncaused.
It appears it is your argument that is confused.
ChrisGB said:
3. People can come to accept God through these arguments, like Anthony Flew or Ed Feser or D Guller, or they can be Christians and find the rational basis for their belief is muc stronger than any opposing view, it makes little difference to the validity of the argument.
If the argument were derived from first principles I would agree - but it hasn't been. The whole argument is weighted to give the desired outcome (that there is a first mover and therefore a god).ChrisGB said:
4. No designer God on my view, and nothing to do with origins of universe, but I agree we can't imagine the origin of causal power in every current event, but as I say, the argument conceptualises, to make thinking of such things possible, rather than imagining.
You have stated that the first mover can be shown to have the attributes of the christian god. The christian god is defined as the designer of the universe. You appear to be contradicting yourself here.ChrisGB said:
5. I meant Gaspode's explanation of essentially ordered causal series.
I'm not talking of origins of universe, but of what makes every cause and effect here and now possible, because of what it depends on in the moment, not in a long chain back to the Big Bang and/or beyond. I may have said that in every post on this argument over the last hundred pages, and only Gaspode seems to have got it.
I see - people not agreeing with your argument is because they "dont get it".I'm not talking of origins of universe, but of what makes every cause and effect here and now possible, because of what it depends on in the moment, not in a long chain back to the Big Bang and/or beyond. I may have said that in every post on this argument over the last hundred pages, and only Gaspode seems to have got it.
ChrisGB said:
6. I'm not trying to patronize but mention of regression, Big Bang, etc suggest you haven't understood difference between accidentally ordered causal series and essentially ordered causal series? It's a minor but essential point in the argument, so it needs addressing I think.
This difference is only relevant to the argument if you have demonstrated that such a difference actually exists (outside a thought experiment). If your argument depends on one of those being true - surely you have to prove which is true in order to prove your argument.ChrisGB said:
7. I've explained briefly a couple of times how pure actuality must be one, immaterial, inchangeable, outside time, etc. this is what a physisict's background conditions are?
But this is just an opinion. It isn't based on any evidence.A few pages back I suggested this very thing - that the universe (or its precursor) may have always existed - that "nothing" may be an invalid concept and the background conditions may have always existed, however this isn't proof, its just a hypothesis. We have no idea what properties this background may have, whether causality is an fundamental property of this background - or whether its just an emergent property of this universe, whether time itself actually has any meaning.
To state what something "must be" implies you have such information.
ChrisGB said:
You are assuming bad intentions on my part instead of that the premises force the conclusions I am drawing. Show that something purely actual could be material - this is a contradiction.
First - have you defined what "purely actual" means? Second - where have I stated that whatever this "purely actual" thing is - must be material in nature. I haven't stated your intentions are bad - but your intentions are perfectly clear. You want to demonstrate that the first mover and god are one and the same. Even if we accept the premise that there are underlying background conditions that gave rise to the universe - conditions that have always existed and which have no cause (a universal energetic ground state if you will) - implying this is a conscious, feeling, supernatural entity is a huge leap and is (at this time) completely without foundation.
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 13th April 12:36
xRIEx said:
Everything is dependent on a first cause. I think I'm beginning to understand it: the big bang was the first cause.
Anything happening because of the Big Bang is part of an accidentally ordered causal series, that can in theory be regressed infinitely. This is not the sort of series in the prime mover argument.Engineer1 said:
Chris we keep trying to show you
1. The big bang happened - cause unknown, - science knows it happened as we are here.
2. Life came about by chance - again we know because we are here.
3. Quantum physics has lots of uncaused events.
1. Agreed but not relevant to prime mover.1. The big bang happened - cause unknown, - science knows it happened as we are here.
2. Life came about by chance - again we know because we are here.
3. Quantum physics has lots of uncaused events.
2. Agreed except we don't know how it came about - saying chance is just a "chance of the gaps" explanation.
3. Explain a quantum uncaused event. Random isn't uncaused, arising spontaneously isn't uncaused, so please give examples.
ChrisGB said:
xRIEx said:
Everything is dependent on a first cause. I think I'm beginning to understand it: the big bang was the first cause.
Anything happening because of the Big Bang is part of an accidentally ordered causal series, that can in theory be regressed infinitely. This is not the sort of series in the prime mover argument.Can you explain how you're not trying to fit the argument to your conclusion?
The Big Bang surely meets the criteria for an unmoved mover - nothing came before, it was the source and cause of all motion.
Moonhawk said:
1. I'm not assuming anything - like I said above i'm simply not choosing which of those is the valid proposition based on unknown facts. I haven't stated the prime mover must have a cause - what I have stated it must if causality is a given. If causality is not a given - then the prime mover doesn't need a cause - but then again, a lack of causality may actually remove the need to invoke a prime mover at all.
My argument is internally consisted - whereas yours invokes causality/or lack of it based on a whim.
Ok, thanks for saying you are not trying to prove me wrong, and thanks too for acknowledging that you can't have it both ways (ie. saying that everything has a cause therefore prime mover is arbitrary, and saying there are uncaused events therefore no prime mover).My argument is internally consisted - whereas yours invokes causality/or lack of it based on a whim.
In reply to this above:
Your argument starts from: everything must have a cause or nothing needs a cause. To do more than assert this as the only option, you need to show what grounds causality or that events are uncaused.
My argument starts from another place: We observe some things change, yet no change brings itself about.
I think your starting point doesn't work, because it needs to prove one or the other, not assume one negates the other.
What you wrote later above is just more of the same idea- that prime mover is an arbitrary exception to the law of change, when in fact it is the logical deduction about how change is possible.
"You have now stated categorically that there must be things that are uncaused"
No, having looked at how change is possible, the conclusion is there must be something unchanged causing change, not any variety of things.
I take it for granted that we don't need to define what a premise and what a conclusion are. If the premises are correct and the conclusion follows, then the argument works.
"The whole argument is weighted to give the desired outcome (that there is a first mover and therefore a god).
Sorry but this is historically untrue - Aristotle was a pagan trying to rid then current thinking of appeal to gods.
And in our days this is also wrong in the cases of people who come to accept theism because of these arguments - you may not want to believe they are telling the truth about their development, but that would be in no way scientific.
"You have stated that the first mover can be shown to have the attributes of the christian god. The christian god is defined as the designer of the universe. You appear to be contradicting yourself here."
Prime mover has nothing to do with origins of universe or with "design". (Saved to clipboard!
) Defined by whom? On what basis?Gaspode got essentially ordered causal series, no one else did. They need getting to understand prime mover, so yes, nobody got it. Oh, Matt did, but when his objections were all answered he left.
"This difference [between accidentally and essentially ordered causal series] is only relevant to the argument if you have demonstrated that such a difference actually exists (outside a thought experiment). If your argument depends on one of those being true - surely you have to prove which is true in order to prove your argument."
Ah, ok. Then we are further back in this discussion that I thought.
If I have failed to show essentially ordered exists, please look it up.
Hand-stick-stone - essentially ordered, ie. last happening now in series depends on first happening now. No first cause, no change.
Great grandpa begets grandpa begets pa begets you - accidentally ordered backwards in time from you - none of the others further back need to exist at the moment the next in the series is made.
You want to say that this is not a real distinction?
As to attributes of prime mover, I don't intend to show pm is god, the attributes are logical deductions of the argument's conclusion. You think I mean by "pure act" the underlying background conditions of the universe, but this is not it at all, they are explainable or they are brute fact and nothing is explainable.
If the pm argument proves "pure act" is the origin of what we see changing, we can deduce from this that pure act is not changeable, and anything not changeable must be outside time, immaterial, etc - and these things just are attributes of the Christian god, before we go further in the deductions and get the rest.
Your problem here may again be one of imagination versus conceptualisation.
IainT said:
Engineer1 said:
3. Quantum physics has lots of uncaused events.
The counter assertion here is that they have a cause we/science doesn't know about. The only reasonable upshot from arguing that there are no uncaused events are that there is utterly no freedom of will.xRIEx said:
ChrisGB said:
xRIEx said:
Everything is dependent on a first cause. I think I'm beginning to understand it: the big bang was the first cause.
Anything happening because of the Big Bang is part of an accidentally ordered causal series, that can in theory be regressed infinitely. This is not the sort of series in the prime mover argument.Can you explain how you're not trying to fit the argument to your conclusion?
The Big Bang surely meets the criteria for an unmoved mover - nothing came before, it was the source and cause of all motion.
And no, not "therefore God", just that this isn't what the prime mover argument is about. Of course we can change the subject, but it would be better to have a refutation than this argument still there proving God and no-one dealing with it!
Edited by ChrisGB on Sunday 13th April 14:07
ChrisGB said:
xRIEx said:
ChrisGB said:
xRIEx said:
Everything is dependent on a first cause. I think I'm beginning to understand it: the big bang was the first cause.
Anything happening because of the Big Bang is part of an accidentally ordered causal series, that can in theory be regressed infinitely. This is not the sort of series in the prime mover argument.Can you explain how you're not trying to fit the argument to your conclusion?
The Big Bang surely meets the criteria for an unmoved mover - nothing came before, it was the source and cause of all motion.
And no, not "therefore God", just that this isn't what the prime mover argument is about. Of course we can change the subject, but it would be better to have a refutation than this argument still there proving God and no-one dealing with it!
Edited by ChrisGB on Sunday 13th April 14:07
"...this argument still there proving God..." - sorry, where is this proof? None has been presented so far.
ChrisGB said:
Your argument starts from: everything must have a cause or nothing needs a cause. To do more than assert this as the only option, you need to show what grounds causality or that events are uncaused.
Nope - and this is where you are going wrong.My argument begins on the basis that we dont have enough information to say one way or the other (or in fact - if either proposition is valid). The rest of the argument is simply a mix of opinion and philosophical thought exercises.
ChrisGB said:
IainT said:
Engineer1 said:
3. Quantum physics has lots of uncaused events.
The counter assertion here is that they have a cause we/science doesn't know about. The only reasonable upshot from arguing that there are no uncaused events are that there is utterly no freedom of will.If evolution is so good how come things seem to get bigger and more colourful in the animal word?
How come a peacock got so far in the greater scheme of things if God was not giving it a bit of a nudge? how can anything without a tail so big get to the 21st without some ethereal help?
Surely by now, if God wasn't there to lend a hand, most birds and mammals would be very small, very quick, very brown/kharki/camoflaged to sort it out. But they are not.
Basically after all these posts on here nobody has put God in a corner still, never knocked him out with the killer punch.
The fact of the matter is you cannot prove it is not God.
How come a peacock got so far in the greater scheme of things if God was not giving it a bit of a nudge? how can anything without a tail so big get to the 21st without some ethereal help?
Surely by now, if God wasn't there to lend a hand, most birds and mammals would be very small, very quick, very brown/kharki/camoflaged to sort it out. But they are not.
Basically after all these posts on here nobody has put God in a corner still, never knocked him out with the killer punch.
The fact of the matter is you cannot prove it is not God.
k. We're back to page one again...Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
Your argument starts from: everything must have a cause or nothing needs a cause. To do more than assert this as the only option, you need to show what grounds causality or that events are uncaused.
Nope - and this is where you are going wrong.My argument begins on the basis that we dont have enough information to say one way or the other (or in fact - if either proposition is valid). The rest of the argument is simply a mix of opinion and philosophical thought exercises.
The mere fact that things are changing in such a way so quickly means that few people on this thread actually have enough mental capacity to understand it all.
So arguing against God v Science is people arguing against Science 400 years ago.
In the old days religion was wrong, science was right.
Now it seems science is right, religion is wrong.
This is more a thread about the layman trying to understand the gritty truths, rather than anything knew coming out of it.
Gandahar said:
Surely by now, if God wasn't there to lend a hand, most birds and mammals would be very small, very quick, very brown/kharki/camoflaged to sort it out. But they are not.
I'm not sure that even trolls would post something so mind-numbingly stupid.You know nothing about the competing pressures that cause the evolution of species do you? You've read nothing nor applied even the slightest critical thought to your post have you?
Your example above argues for evolution not against it.
You've described a Peacock now describe the peahen to me...
There's no 'r' in "khaki", a 'u' in "camouflaged" and no 'god' in "evolution".
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff