Evolution Vs Creation

[ChrisGB]

Engineer1 said:

ChrisGB said:

You agree about the double standards then in your "you should have studied every religion"?

In any case, the proofs of God in classical theism only leave you 3 serious options: a sort of cold philosophical theism of the sort Anthony Flew came to accept, or traditional Judaism or Christianity. So not like you need to go off looking at Mormonism and every other religion to know what's true.

Still double standards on your part though, unless you have those refutations.

No I'm happy to risk the small chance there is a God, you on the other hand have signed up to their being a God and picked one.

It's not a matter of odds, God is rationally demonstrable via arguments like prime mover.

[ChrisGB]

Captain Muppet said:

ChrisGB said:

rxtx said:

Didn't think so. It's not your fault you were indoctrinated Chris.

(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)

On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God, so would have a ready refutation of prime mover, final causality, immateriality of mind? Those exact things conspicuous by their absence in this thread and anywhere else.
Sounds like double standards to me.

You make a very valid point. Athiest also beleive based on a total lack of evidence. The only logical standpoint is to admit that there may or may not be a god, given that it is possible to imagine a god that can exist while leaving no evidence that exclusively proves it exists.

The problem comes from either side beleiving they are right and thinking the other side is wrong.

I've written a new version of the Lord's prayer to end this silly misunderstanding, obviously something similar will have to be rolled out to the rest of the religions:

Dear God, if you exist, you're ace.
Nice trick with the creation and lack of proof.
Given that we don't know the rules we made some up and hope we got them right.
But lets face it, you'd have to be pretty cruel and arbitrary to judge us either way.
Thanks for all the cancer,
Amen.

If you call evidence only what is empirical, you are assuming what you can't prove.
If you allow logic as a way of knowing, if rational argument can give you the truth, then God can be proven to exist.
You don't need to allow logic or reason.

[Moonhawk]

ChrisGB said:

1. Is clearly a diversion from addressing the argument, whic you haven't done anywhere in this post, which is disappointing.

You jumped on my post and accused me of intentionally attributing a quote to you for the purposes of misrepresentation. If you feel its a diversion - why pursue it. It wasn't clear from your post that you were quoting others (as later posts have also demonstrated). If you dont want others words being interpreted as your own - make the quotes/citations clear.

ChrisGB said:

2. This is more accusation without back up. There is no fitting of conclusions to god or vice versa. By correct premises a conclusion is found to be that there is something that is just actuality, with no potentiality at all.

Sorry I just dont see it. All of your arguments and reasoning seem to be designed to get you to a predefined end point. Even the terminology you are using (e.g. pure act) are deliberately biased towards the position that god does exist.

ChrisGB said:

Deduction from the existence of such gives you eg. Immateriality. God is nowhere assumed, its just that what the argument has proved is that something pretty much identical to the God of monotheism must exist. Show otherwise.

Yet again - you fail to see where the burden of proof lies. You are asserting that a prime mover exists and that prime mover is in fact god. It's up to you to prove your assertion - not be to demonstrate otherwise.

ChrisGB said:

4. If you mean logic or maths don't give you the truth about reality, as much as observation, indeed more than observation, then we should probably not bother discussing anything.

Unless you can clearly define what "reality" is - you can't possibly hope to get to the truth about it. Even "truth" is an ill defined concept.

ChrisGB said:

5. What is indoctrination except a biased way of saying convincing by argument?

Hardly.

ChrisGB said:

All atheists must also be indoctrinated?

Really? Have you been indoctrinated to lack belief in flying spaghetti monsters, teapots in orbit around jupiter etc. I presume you lack belief in such things - what indoctrination did you undergo to in order to lack belief in these things?

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 17:47

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

There is no difference in terms of explanation to say "god created life" and to say "god created the conditions that spontaneously led to life". God is the sustainer of every change, the creator of everything there is, so how can life's beginning in that view not be explained by God?

I don't hold that god intervened miraculously to turn non-life into life. Like all scientists I have no idea how that happened. I know from arguments for gods existence that it happened because god creates and sustains everything.

You are fudging the thought put into my mouth, so to speak:

So the question arises - why wasn't this explanation offered in the first instance. Why a biblical creation story that was patently incorrect?

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 09:42

Why is a story written to convey certain truths about man and about God not the same as an account that tells you some of the latest accepted science?
Is that a serious question?

[xRIEx]

ChrisGB said:

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

There is no difference in terms of explanation to say "god created life" and to say "god created the conditions that spontaneously led to life". God is the sustainer of every change, the creator of everything there is, so how can life's beginning in that view not be explained by God?

I don't hold that god intervened miraculously to turn non-life into life. Like all scientists I have no idea how that happened. I know from arguments for gods existence that it happened because god creates and sustains everything.

You are fudging the thought put into my mouth, so to speak:

So the question arises - why wasn't this explanation offered in the first instance. Why a biblical creation story that was patently incorrect?

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 09:42

Why is a story written to convey certain truths about man and about God not the same as an account that tells you some of the latest accepted science?
Is that a serious question?

Is yours a serious question?

A scientific journal requires studies to be peer-reviewed before publication to ensure that the work is factually correct.

Your 'truths' about creation are not checked, self-contradictory:

Genesis 1:11-12
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”


Genesis 2:5-7
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So vegetation came before mankind; no, wait! Mankind came before vegetation!

They can't both be true, so which 'truth' is the truth?

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

mattmurdock said:

What if we show that the God of classical theism is not pure act? As the only 'evidence' for the God of classical theism is the Torah and subsequent 'revelations' of Christianity and Islam, and between the Torah and the New Testament/Quran God clearly undergoes change from a 'sexist, racist, murderous ' (thanks Tim Minchin) obsessed with his chosen people, to a forgiving multi-part entity now obsessed with all of humanity, then logically God is not pure actuality as it has undergone a change.

If no change, then the revelations are wrong and everyone should be Jewish or tough luck. If change, then not pure act.

Ah, you say, but the revelations themselves (including the Torah) were imperfect because humans were unable to capture the attributes of God correctly (being imperfect themselves). God is unknowable.

In which case, who are you to provide a list of 'correct' attributes of God? Attributes that remarkably allow God to fit your metaphysical theory.

Aristotle (as pointed out several times) was not describing attributes of God, but attributes of the several entities he rationally believed were responsible for inducing change in the observed universe of the time. You are then 'back-porting' your belief in God into those attributes.

Actually - I have just researched the term "pure act" - and it seems the term was coined to express the perfection of god. Which kinda takes me back to the point I made earlier - people are defining things based on a predisposed belief.

Belief in god came before the term pure act was coined to describe the perfection of that god. Therefore to say god is proven to be a pure act is circular. It is true because the term "pure act" has been defined specifically to make it true.

It's a bit like saying "the bible is true - because it says so in the bible". God is a pure act because the term pure act was defined to specifically describe the properties of a god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus

Its rather disingenuous of Chris to try and make out that he has arrived at the conclusion that god is "pure act" by independent logical argument when the term "pure act" only has meaning within the context of a god that is assumed to already exist and is defined on that very basis.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 10:38

Wikipedia? 1913? That's your research? At least your generous with that.
But this bit is simply false, completely untrue: "coined to describe the perfection of that god".

Pure act was around 1500 years before Aquinas worked out that it applied as much to the God of the Bible as it did to Aristotle's unmoving mover. This won't stop you making it up though.

Oh, I almost forgot there was an argument here proving God that you haven't even begun to address....

[Moonhawk]

ChrisGB said:

Why is a story written to convey certain truths about man and about God not the same as an account that tells you some of the latest accepted science?
Is that a serious question?

Yes - if god was simply a prime mover - a first cause if you will - why didn't the bible simply state this supposed truth - "and ye - god set the universe in motion - and allowed nature to take its course".

I don't expect it to go into great details about modern scientific endeavour - but a reasonably accurate abridged "penguin books" version can't too much to ask - surely? Why all the BS in the genesis story about 7 days, separating the heavens and earth, creating Eve from Adam's rib etc. All superfluous and incorrect information.

If some of the "truths" in the bible turn out to be not that truthful after all........doesn't that potentially call into question all of them. How do we tell the truthful truths from the not so truthful?

[ChrisGB]

xRIEx said:

ChrisGB said:

xRIEx said:

ChrisGB said:

xRIEx said:

ChrisGB said:

durbster said:

ChrisGB said:

blissful ignorance of the fact that this scientism is blatantly and obviously not possibly true, because scientific method is just a method, not some idea or meta-method that can prove itself. To justify believing in scientism, you need to engage in rational thought and get into philosophy and metaphysics to work out how it could be that this method gives all truth.

Or you could merely look at the computer you're typing this guff on, and the internet which allows people from all corners of the globe to join together and develop RSI from relentlessly facepalming while reading this thread.

Science has proved itself over and over and over. The scientific method has done more for mankind than any religion ever has.

Book a flight on your smartphone, get on the plane, fly to Australia and then explain to me how science is "just a method".

But this is ridiculous! Of course science has given us technological advances, of course. There is nothing anti-science in anything I have written.

But there is plenty against this brain-dead silliness insisting without any possibility of demonstrating it, logically or empirically, that scientific method is the ONLY way of knowing (scientism) or that matter is the ONLY thing that exists, or that nature is ALL there is, or that EVERYTHING is reducible to atoms or strings etc. These are all patently false yet believed in blindly as the default cultural positions of many Westerners.

The fundamentalist error is to then say : therefore this method is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING, which is easily refuted - prove it using scientific method! Whoops!

Know. Knowledge.

Can you show me one single thing that can only be known by a method other than the scientific method, and cannot be shown by the scientific method?

Err:
1.exactly the quality of my feeling when I read your post and the private associations it has for me, reminding me of the taste of bad apple juice from the 80s, or whatever it might be. Unavailable to scentific method, and to any ideology piggy backing on that third person method (scientism, materialism, naturalism, eliminativism, reductionism), available to first person perspective only.
2. Scientific method can't show that thoughts are about something, final causality can.
3. Scientific method can't show that formal thinking is purely material, hylemorphism can show it isn't.
4. Scientific method can't show that there is no other type of knowledge, philosophy can show there is.
5. Scientific method can't show that there is the God of monotheism, logic and philosophy, eg. In prime mover argument, can.

You have demonstrated absolutely nothing. Again.

Come back when you have proof.

Demonstrated nothing? I've given you five examples of knowledge you can have that scientific method can't give you. Please show me how (4 above) scientific method gives you knowledge that there is no other sort of knowledge?
Show me how you know what something feels like from scientific method, the way you do if you experience it first -person.

No, you've demonstrated nothing. What you have done is typed some words on your keyboard and clicked the 'Submit' button.

All you can actually say in the cases of your 5 examples is that scientific methods haven't yet proven or disproven any statement. Anything that can be known must be demonstrable. Anything else is conjecture.

In terms of number 5, if a monotheistic god had actually been shown, demonstrated, categorically, why is there even doubt left? Your 'arguments' prove nothing.

Anything that can be known must be demonstrable, you say.
Prove it.
Obvious counterexample: I know what it feels like when I get up too early, but I can't demonstrate that feeling, nor can you, I can just feel it or remember feeling it.

These are not things science will catch up with, this is just a category mistake. A method can't do the work of a metaphysic in describing the whole of reality unless you twist it into a very poor metaphysic.

[Moonhawk]

ChrisGB said:

Wikipedia? 1913? That's your research? At least your generous with that.
But this bit is simply false, completely untrue: "coined to describe the perfection of that god".

Pure act was around 1500 years before Aquinas worked out that it applied as much to the God of the Bible as it did to Aristotle's unmoving mover. This won't stop you making it up though.

Oh, I almost forgot there was an argument here proving God that you haven't even begun to address....

At least i'm not afraid to cite my sources - and give others the ability to scrutinise them (and criticize them)

If you dont like wikipedia - how about an alternative source - perhaps a little closer to your own heart

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm

If we are to be completely transparent - how about providing the sources and definitions for all of the terms you have been using in this thread - perhaps starting with "pure act". In all of the sources I have found so far (dictionaries, online encyclopedias etc) the term Actus Purus is always attributed to Thomas Aquinus.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 19:13

[Moonhawk]

ChrisGB said:

Anything that can be known must be demonstrable, you say.
Prove it.
Obvious counterexample: I know what it feels like when I get up too early, but I can't demonstrate that feeling, nor can you, I can just feel it or remember feeling it.

These are not things science will catch up with, this is just a category mistake. A method can't do the work of a metaphysic in describing the whole of reality unless you twist it into a very poor metaphysic.

But that feeling can potentially be measured. It is the result of various chemical and electrical signals throughout your brain and body. If the brain and body dont exist - neither does the feeling. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the feeling is causally linked to the physical processes.

Given arbitrarily accurate instrumentation that allows us to measure these signals - we may have the ability to accurately interpret and possibly (via brain stimulation) reproduce those feelings exactly.

Science may not be there yet - but there are already signs that this kind of thing may be possible.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/13080...

Even if the processes cannot be reproduced exactly (due to limitations in quantum mechanics for example - e.g. the uncertainty principle) - it still doesn't automatically lead to a supernatural or non physical explanation.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 20:15

[Engineer1]

Chris you keep asserting no change can cause its self. How many universes has humanity observed coming into existence? Hint the answer is none we only know the universe came into existence as we are in it, current scientific knowledge allows us to run the universe back to what looks like the big bang. Science can't get further back than that currently but it is possible the universe sprang out of quantum foam.

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

Anything that can be known must be demonstrable, you say.
Prove it.
Obvious counterexample: I know what it feels like when I get up too early, but I can't demonstrate that feeling, nor can you, I can just feel it or remember feeling it.

These are not things science will catch up with, this is just a category mistake. A method can't do the work of a metaphysic in describing the whole of reality unless you twist it into a very poor metaphysic.

1. But that feeling can potentially be measured. It is the result of various chemical and electrical signals throughout your brain and body. If the brain and body dont exist - neither does the feeling. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the feeling is causally linked to the physical processes.

Given arbitrarily accurate instrumentation that allows us to measure these signals - we may have the ability to accurately interpret and possibly (via brain stimulation) reproduce those feelings exactly.

Science may not be there yet - but there are already signs that this kind of thing may be possible.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/13080...

2. Even if the processes cannot be reproduced exactly (due to limitations in quantum mechanics for example - e.g. the uncertainty principle) - it still doesn't automatically lead to a supernatural or non physical explanation.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 20:15

1. What does it mean to measure a feeling? The scientific method is based on the arbitrary decision by Descartes and so on to exclude the subjective from their work, or only work with the third person objective. The feeling of a personal experience / memory is entirely first person / subjective, the quality is not available to a third person. I don't think you've for the gulf here, its not just a matter of "science catching up", its that science began by excluding this from its account of reality - it can't suddenly keep its tools and reintegrate what it was designed to exclude.

"Feeling is causally linked to physical process" you say, and I say, undoubtedly, but you are fudging it here by not saying whether the physical process is the whole explanation, which you need to, or not. And the fact that there are physical aspects tells you nothing about whether the whole thing is physical. I think it is just physical, but again that it is first person means science is never going to look at it and convey to a third party what it felt like.

Non-theists accept this too, it's only those with a prior commitment to an ideology attached to science that can't.

2. So what? Recognizing that first person experiences are unavailable to science means science based ideologies and the ludicrous "scientific knowledge is all there is" are refuted and we can return to a saner idea world.

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

Wikipedia? 1913? That's your research? At least your generous with that.
But this bit is simply false, completely untrue: "coined to describe the perfection of that god".

Pure act was around 1500 years before Aquinas worked out that it applied as much to the God of the Bible as it did to Aristotle's unmoving mover. This won't stop you making it up though.

Oh, I almost forgot there was an argument here proving God that you haven't even begun to address....

At least i'm not afraid to cite my sources - and give others the ability to scrutinise them (and criticize them)

If you dont like wikipedia - how about an alternative source - perhaps a little closer to your own heart

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm

If we are to be completely transparent - how about providing the sources and definitions for all of the terms you have been using in this thread - perhaps starting with "pure act". In all of the sources I have found so far (dictionaries, online encyclopedias etc) the term Actus Purus is always attributed to Thomas Aquinus.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 19:13

Mmm, nice to see a careful addressing of the argument again.
What did you google?

I found this after about 5 seconds' "research":
Aristotle was the first to formulate a proof for the existence of the Absolute in the context of an analysis of motion, and he drew upon his theory of act and potency. Motion, or more specifically change, is an actualization of potency (the actualization may be instantaneous or in succession). A being that is composed of matter and form is found in an actual-potential state, i.e., in motion. The being’s structure and mode of existence manifest its non-necessity and its derivative nature. Everything that is such, that is, everything that changes, passes from potency to act because of an external agent of motion which is in act. The existence of potency without act is impossible. Every change therefore requires an actual moving cause. Since an infinite series of agents that cause motion is impossible, therefore a first mover exists, but that first mover is free of all potentiality—Pure Act as the absolute beginning of all motion. In Aristotle’s philosophy, the Absolute—Pure Act— is a pure form, the most perfect being who is necessary, unchanging, eternal, alive, who is intellect and the self-thinking thought.
From : http://peenef2.republika.pl/angielski/hasla/a/actp...

[ChrisGB]

Engineer1 said:

Chris you keep asserting no change can cause its self. How many universes has humanity observed coming into existence? Hint the answer is none we only know the universe came into existence as we are in it, current scientific knowledge allows us to run the universe back to what looks like the big bang. Science can't get further back than that currently but it is possible the universe sprang out of quantum foam.

So what?

[ChrisGB]

mattmurdock said:

ChrisGB said:

Of course you would have to plead Flew was somehow not thinking straight, otherwise having the most famous of atheists who knew something about philosophy converting to theism would be a huge blow to the credibility (?) of thinking man's atheism.
But I guess you haven't read Flew's own annoyance at people making exactly the suggestion you're making?
On what basis except prejudice can you claim to know his motivations better than he states?

On what basis except prejudice can you claim to know Searle's opinions or thoughts better than he states? Hasn't stopped you expressing he is saying one thing when his own words manifestly show you to be wrong.

I'm glad you're conceding the point about Flew on Iain's behalf then.

What exactly did I get wrong about Searle? He accepts the fundamental distinction between physical and mental which is all there is to property dualism. He calls it by another name to avoid its easy collapsing into substance dualism, and no dualist buys it. What have I got wrong here?

What Iain gets wrong about Flew is that he knew what he was doing enough to defend it in writing, when the charge is he wasn't fully aware. So charge refuted. Matters of interpreting Searle are not about claiming he is mentally unstable because he holds a certain view, are they?

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

In fact any interaction god has with the universe after the initial kick start would necessarily involve a change on behalf of the god.

You also said, and I can't undelete, "pure act, so we are told, can't change".

First, you mistakenly assume all causation is efficient causation.
Second, if you don't see that pure act can't change you haven't understood what pure act means.
How can I help?

[ChrisGB]

mattmurdock said:

ChrisGB said:

As I say, you get to a choice of accepting the argument and rejecting the possibility of revelation, or choose between Judaism and Christianity. I think there are rational grounds for any one of those three, some better than others, but all of them a lot more rational than atheism.

Chris, I am starting to feel a little sad that you are ignoring me - I can only assume it is because you can't actually answer my points?

Then again, I suppose you could have dropped your mean spirited act and decided not to respond so that I can keep to my promise of not debating with you any more due to your delusions. In which case I thank you for your kindness.

Matt posting on names, then Matt posting on name-calling. I saved that one post of yours about a hundred pages ago where you addressed an argument, shall I repost it for you?

[mattmurdock]

ChrisGB said:

I'm glad you're conceding the point about Flew on Iain's behalf then.

What exactly did I get wrong about Searle? He accepts the fundamental distinction between physical and mental which is all there is to property dualism. He calls it by another name to avoid its easy collapsing into substance dualism, and no dualist buys it. What have I got wrong here?

What Iain gets wrong about Flew is that he knew what he was doing enough to defend it in writing, when the charge is he wasn't fully aware. So charge refuted. Matters of interpreting Searle are not about claiming he is mentally unstable because he holds a certain view, are they?

Firstly, I have not conceded any points on behalf of anybody - I was just pointing out the conceit of you suggesting no-one else could interpret what Flew said but Flew, whilst simultaneously doing the same yourself for Searle.

If you can't see that, you are either more stupid or more delusional than I gave you credit for - or you are as close minded as I have been illustrating.

[mattmurdock]

ChrisGB said:

Matt posting on names, then Matt posting on name-calling. I saved that one post of yours about a hundred pages ago where you addressed an argument, shall I repost it for you?

I have posted a number of points addressing your so-called 'argument' over the last few pages, all of which you are failing to address because you don't actually have an answer. This is because your answers to anything are fed to you by other people, and until you can find something to copy and paste you will continue to ignore me.

You have never addressed why Aquinas' interpretation of Aristotle is any better than Aristotle's own interpretation (which does not have the attributes of the Abrahamic God in any real sense), you have failed to address how God can only sustain essentially ordered causal chains and not accidentally ordered causal chains (I'll give you a hint, it is because the distinction between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered is, in my opinion, an arbitrary distinction created by Aquinas purely to match his pre-conceived faith to Aristotle's philosophy) and you have failed to address how an entity as changeable as the Abrahamic God can be considered to be purely actual in the Aristotle sense in the first place, given the numerous changes it undergoes in the various books which claim to document its powers, nature and intent.

Instead you keep parroting the same cut and paste efforts from Feser, Ross and Briggs as if they somehow provide irrefutable 'evidence' that your position is correct.

[ChrisGB]

NISMOgtr said:

I agree with you about atheism being irrational given the argument. However, Judaism and Christianity are not the only choices. I can't work out how you (as a christian) can accept christianity (the trinity version!) whilst pushing the argument you are presenting. Does not make sense.

Islam rules itself out by thinking secondary causality is blasphemous. This is why science never took off in the house of submission.
Naked theism, Judaism or Christianity are left. One gets to whether one has grounds for accepting the biblical revelation or not.
If you can't reconcile pure act to trinitarianism, you have just two options I guess.
That hylemorphism suggests the survival of the human soul is plausible, and Christianity heavily relies on that for its foundation, that might make you favour it over the other two.
But one God, three persons, one divine nature, this doesn't come from reason alone but from revelation. I'm reading Garrigou-Lagrange on Thomas and the trinity, at : https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/TRINITY.HTM if that could be of interest.
I think in brief that the argument goes that the distinctions in God - the three persons in one divine essence - are real but not metaphysical.
I'll come back with more on how Thomas deals with it.