Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You claimed evolution was life flying the nest and being master of its own destiny. I'm trying to understand if you think god knows the future outcome of evolution or not. If he does, then is hardly master of its own destiny because god has pre ordained it. If god doesn't know and life really is master of its own destiny, then why call him god?Just trying to follow your thought process, although I'll admit it's hard work.
Gaspode said:
ChrisGB said:
You are claiming that formal cause, final cause and the attraction of a thing itself to the prime mover introduces / creates where there was nothing. How does an immaterial cause do this?
First cause an illusion? But it's a logical argument that appears to be valid, calling it names isn't a refutation.
Or do you mean final cause? The meaning or aboutness of thoughts are an illusion? IainT was calling them a thing, but I'll accept that your words are meaningless.
Typing too fast. I meant Final cause. I'm really at a loss to see how you can not see the problem here. I don't think that anyone seriously contests that conscious thoughts can be directed, ie that they exhibit the apparent characteristics of possessing final cause. Thoughts of this type, however, are not the only type of thought that can be identified, and neither are they typical of other observable phenomena. It is simply not valid to say First cause an illusion? But it's a logical argument that appears to be valid, calling it names isn't a refutation.
Or do you mean final cause? The meaning or aboutness of thoughts are an illusion? IainT was calling them a thing, but I'll accept that your words are meaningless.
1. Some categories of thought exhibit Final Cause (ie they are directed)
2. Thoughts have a material origin
3. Other phenomena have a material origin
4. Therefore other phenomena also possess Final Cause
So whenever we deny Final Cause in something like a seed or an eye, it simply isn't an adequate response for you to keep parroting "Are your thoughts about anything?" it's just gibberish and makes you look very silly.
You said it yourself the argument might appear to be valid, but that's all. There appears to be another me when I look in the mirror. I can see it, I can predict what it's going to do, other people can see it too, and observe that my predictions about its behaviour are testable and true. But the fact remains that my image, real as it appears, is just virtual appearance with no actual existence.
Your 1,2,3,4 are not at all what's going on. The thesis about final causality is much more fundamental than a hunch given that thought is about something.
Directedness is a feature of every substance - it just acts in a way consistent with its nature, rather than randomly or against its nature, in the general case.
I don't think this can be plausibly denied, it just is likely to be treated as non-scientific just because it was arbitrarily decided in the 17th century that we would only content what is measurable in "science".
Thought is only explicable materially though IF you accept the original unrefuted view of matter, ie. possessing inherent directedness. Then of course thought is material.
But on the post-17th century arbitrarily adopted view, there is no possible material explanation of thought, because there is no possible explanation of directedness.
So if you can say on your mechanistic view of nature that "some thoughts exhibit the apparent characteristics of" final causality, you are in fact just saying it is a mere appearance of directedness, not directedness, and thoughts still don't actually then get to mean anything on this view, as-if intentionality as it is.
On a side note, when I said a logical argument appears to be valid, I didn't mean as opposed to actually being invalid, I meant something like "we can see no obvious fault with it", it is prima facie, at the very least, valid - stress on the valid, not on the appears...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ChrisGB said:
Claiming he murdered because he followed Christianity is a complete lie Twig, another complete fabrication.
We know already you are a liar, so why would we believe a word you say?
Considering I never claimed such a thing, you're the liar. Have another read, you buffoon.We know already you are a liar, so why would we believe a word you say?
You claimed Stalin's atheism is connected to his mass murder. A scrap of evidence to back this up?
Communism is thoroughly atheistic, Stalin persecuted the religious: he murdered millions of religious and political opponents following which obligation of church teaching? More than a scrap.
So back to your lies on evil - "almost every" one, "directly attributable".
Mao a closet Christian striving to be a saint? This not a lie too?
Stop the lies Twig.
A simple: "I have a total and irrational hatred of religious people, but religion isn't directly responsible for nearly every evil there is" will do. Feel free to amend as you wish of course, you will probably want to tone down that first bit...
Edited by ChrisGB on Wednesday 14th May 21:02
WinstonWolf said:
Does John 8:44 not teach us that Satan is the father of lies?
How is this relevant to building a coherent non-naturalistic atheism, which is what you are trying to do to show my argument that atheism cannot possibly be true is wrong?Non-naturalistic- doesn't accept that everything can be explained by nature, yet atheistic - accepts no super/extra/supra/non-natural things as existing.
How does a devil fit into this coherently?
ChrisGB said:
WinstonWolf said:
Does John 8:44 not teach us that Satan is the father of lies?
How is this relevant to building a coherent non-naturalistic atheism, which is what you are trying to do to show my argument that atheism cannot possibly be true is wrong?Non-naturalistic- doesn't accept that everything can be explained by nature, yet atheistic - accepts no super/extra/supra/non-natural things as existing.
How does a devil for into this coherently?
ChrisGB said:
How is this relevant to building a coherent non-naturalistic atheism?
That is after all what you are trying to do, if you are to show my argument is wrong that atheism cannot possibly be true.
Non-naturalistic- ( meaning: doesn't accept that everything can be explained by nature),
yet atheistic - ( meaning: accepts no gods, no God)
How does a devil fit into this COHERENTLY? Eg. What is a devil, from where, purpose, composition, goal, etc ?
There you go, now even the pedantickest reader will be satisfied.That is after all what you are trying to do, if you are to show my argument is wrong that atheism cannot possibly be true.
Non-naturalistic- ( meaning: doesn't accept that everything can be explained by nature),
yet atheistic - ( meaning: accepts no gods, no God)
How does a devil fit into this COHERENTLY? Eg. What is a devil, from where, purpose, composition, goal, etc ?
Edited by ChrisGB on Wednesday 14th May 22:14
WinstonWolf said:
ChrisGB said:
Gaz. said:
ChrisGB said:
We know already you are a liar, so why would we believe a word you say?
Grow up and raise the bar Chris.Twig doesn't have the same standards.
k up.ChrisGB said:
Playground tactics, Twig.
Communism is thoroughly atheistic, Stalin persecuted the religious: he murdered millions of religious and political opponents following which obligation of church teaching?
Mao a closet Christian striving to be a saint? This not a lie too?
A kibbutz is the best example of communism. How atheist is that? You're a liar to say communism is atheistic. Just because some communist regimes were atheist. And did the atheism inform their murder? How many atheists did Stalin murder? Mao was an atheist. He was also a good swimmer. Maybe good swimmers become murderers.Communism is thoroughly atheistic, Stalin persecuted the religious: he murdered millions of religious and political opponents following which obligation of church teaching?
Mao a closet Christian striving to be a saint? This not a lie too?
Wasn't Hitler a catholic. Didn't Vatican City come into existence following a deal with Mussolini?
You really are a complete moron.
The fact, as most right thinking people know, is that good people do good things and bad people do bad things. Sometimes bad people do good things. But for good people to do bad things, that's where religion comes in.
Far from withdrawing my statement, I'll say it again. There is hardly a problem in the world today that can't trace its roots back to a lack of decent mental healthcare in the Middle East over the last 2000 yrs. And by problems, just to clear it up for you, I don't mean volcanoes!!!
Moron.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff