Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
I was going to go off on one about your real name being Jesus but it reminded of a story from a woman at work which is much better. She's in her early forties and lives on her own in a house she inherited from her parents. It's quite a big old house and the upkeep is a bit of a challenge for her. Her neighbour, a South American who rejoices in the name of Jesus, tries his best to help as far as his spare time and DIY skills will allow. The house suffered in the storms and he did a lot of work. The last note he left her concluded. "I need come back with bit 2" x 1" for window. I will buy at B&Q later. You have great boobs."
Moonhawk said:
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.
Prime mover explains premise 2 as no potentiality being able to actualise itself.
The conclusion deduced by the argument, an unmoved mover, is in these terms "purely actual", or pure act.
So there is no exception or rule breaking here - the rule is that change is change of potentiality to act, and the argument proves there is something that is pure act, therefore no potentiality, therefore no change.
Nothing broken then, once these concepts are used, as they are to get us over the problem of imagining any of this.
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
Something posited as an ultimate explanation that is itself unintelligible or without explanation.
But why do you assume the prime mover has to be a "brute fact"Why does the prime mover have to be unintelligible or without explanation. There is no reason to make this assumption.
Again - it's almost like you are arbitrarily assigning attributes to the prime mover that meet the definition of god (i.e. that god is unknowable, unexplainable etc).
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 14th April 17:01
On the other hand, prime mover is NOT a brute fact, because we can, as I've said, talk about the attributes of it, etc.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Chim said:
Christ on a bike, our education system really has a lot to answer for these days.
I can't help wondering if Evolution shouldn't be a stand alone subject on the national curriculum. Separate from biology. Darwin was British, and he came up with the single greatest advancement in our understanding of the natural world, explaining where we came from. Evolution is our greatest achievement as a nation, the most important thing we gave to the rest of humanity. There should be a statue of Darwin in every town in the UK.And what have we got instead. If some of the utter crap posted on this thread is anything to go by, a population that doesn't understand it, has never read it, and only knows that some moronic t
t at their particular holy house has told them that it's not to be trusted.So they attack something they don't even know what they are attacking, and they talk complete nonsense about self assembly watches and how peacocks should be 50 shades of grey.
It's a national disgrace.
t comes to the school looking for recruits. Engineer1 said:
I've decided the best solution is that people who don't believe scientific facts should be forced to live without the science they don't believe in... So goodbye Chris you can come back when catholic science and philosophy catches up,good luck with that given most cutting edge scientists aren't religious.
Religion as not-so-good-version-of-science red herring!Well cheers anyway E1, your brand of fundamentalism is an essential part of threads like this!
leglessAlex said:
I can't believe people are still replying to that fanatic, it's obvious he will never change his views at all. Probably too afraid. The only threads he has posted on in the last three years(couldn't be bothered to go back further) are to do with religion, I can't help but feel he would be more suited to a religious forum and not a motoring one.
Stalker?ChrisGB said:
Engineer1 said:
I've decided the best solution is that people who don't believe scientific facts should be forced to live without the science they don't believe in... So goodbye Chris you can come back when catholic science and philosophy catches up,good luck with that given most cutting edge scientists aren't religious.
Religion as not-so-good-version-of-science red herring!Well cheers anyway E1, your brand of fundamentalism is an essential part of threads like this!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff