Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
k. We're back to page one again...ChrisGB said:
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.
Although I agree that it is possible to consider such causal series, this does not mean that I accept the necessity for an unmoved mover in the Thomist sense. It seems to me that one could trace the causal series back to fluctuating quantum states, with no need for a super-natural explanation.The other thing that bugs me about the Thomist argument is that even if one postulates a super-natural unmoved mover, I fail to see how this could be conceived as a god of any kidney, least of all a theist Christian type. An unmoved mover by definition can have no intelligence and no freedom of choice, and would therefore not be able to perform any of the functions required, least of all revealing itself.
Gandahar said:
The fact of the matter is you cannot prove it is not God.
We cannot prove its not the flying spaghetti monster, the six foot invisible three toed sloth, the great green arkleseizure etc etc etc etc.........If we lead our lives according to the things we cannot prove.........life would be rather complicated, not least because many of these "unprovable" things tend to contradict one another.
We tend to rely on knowledge based on things we can prove/demonstrate because it makes life so much simpler
Vizsla said:
Engineer1 said:
I personally love my invisible pink heatless fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage. And the teapot floating in space
And try as I might, I can't prove they don't exist. Yer bugga. so that is absolute proof.Engineer1 said:
Vizsla said:
Engineer1 said:
I personally love my invisible pink heatless fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage. And the teapot floating in space
And try as I might, I can't prove they don't exist. Yer bugga. so that is absolute proof.Gaspode said:
ChrisGB said:
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.
Although I agree that it is possible to consider such causal series, this does not mean that I accept the necessity for an unmoved mover in the Thomist sense. It seems to me that one could trace the causal series back to fluctuating quantum states, with no need for a super-natural explanation.The other thing that bugs me about the Thomist argument is that even if one postulates a super-natural unmoved mover, I fail to see how this could be conceived as a god of any kidney, least of all a theist Christian type. An unmoved mover by definition can have no intelligence and no freedom of choice, and would therefore not be able to perform any of the functions required, least of all revealing itself.
Unmoved mover is just one name of this argument, but what it proves is that there is "pure act" / pure actuality, and it is from this that the divine attributes can be deduced.
ChrisGB said:
But fluctuating quantum states would need a cause or need to be a brute fact, so are not an unmoved mover explaining every cause or themselves uncaused.
Unmoved mover is just one name of this argument, but what it proves is that there is "pure act" / pure actuality, and it is from this that the divine attributes can be deduced.
Unmoved mover is just one name of this argument, but what it proves is that there is "pure act" / pure actuality, and it is from this that the divine attributes can be deduced.
What do you mean by 'brute fact'?
Gaspode said:
ChrisGB said:
But fluctuating quantum states would need a cause or need to be a brute fact, so are not an unmoved mover explaining every cause or themselves uncaused.
Unmoved mover is just one name of this argument, but what it proves is that there is "pure act" / pure actuality, and it is from this that the divine attributes can be deduced.
Unmoved mover is just one name of this argument, but what it proves is that there is "pure act" / pure actuality, and it is from this that the divine attributes can be deduced.
What do you mean by 'brute fact'?
Gandahar said:
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.
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.
Classic!!!
This truly is the thread that keeps on giving.
Gandahar said:
If evolution is so good how come things seem to get bigger and more colourful in the animal word?
(snip more rubbish)Just in case you are actually interested in the answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
Nimby said:
Gandahar said:
If evolution is so good how come things seem to get bigger and more colourful in the animal word?
(snip more rubbish)Just in case you are actually interested in the answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Gandahar said:
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.
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.
Classic!!!
This truly is the thread that keeps on giving.
Christ on a bike, our education system really has a lot to answer for these days.
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.
Gaspode said:
ChrisGB said:
But fluctuating quantum states would need a cause or need to be a brute fact, so are not an unmoved mover explaining every cause or themselves uncaused.
Unmoved mover is just one name of this argument, but what it proves is that there is "pure act" / pure actuality, and it is from this that the divine attributes can be deduced.
Unmoved mover is just one name of this argument, but what it proves is that there is "pure act" / pure actuality, and it is from this that the divine attributes can be deduced.
What do you mean by 'brute fact'?
ChrisGB said:
If you just mean we need more empirical data, I disagree - we only need one single counterexample and the premise 2. is dead. But there just isn't one. We can assume the proof is sound until the day we find one, presumably?
But the whole prime mover argument depends on causality being broken - so you are saying there is no proof of causality being broken - but then depend upon that very fact to invoke a prime mover.What is special about the prime mover than makes it immune from causality - and more to the point, what evidence have you got to support the assertion that it is.
If you say there are no examples of broken causality - then you can't use broken causality to support either side of the argument.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff