Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
ChrisGB said:
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.
Edited by VinceFox on Thursday 17th April 23:36
VinceFox said:
Now, i'm no fancy big city lawyer, but usually when someone uses this many big words their actual argument is weak. I put this sort of delivery in the same category as "mistakes were made", "momentary error in judement" and "all in it together".
The best thing about his post you quoted was that he says Islam is wrong because it "rules itself out". Chris has the right one though, and he has logical proof that his god exists (but no others?). If it wasn't so sad, well, it'd still be sad.I wonder if Chris's parents are/were catholics, or are/were of another denomination and he discovered catholicism on his own? Or, if he's always been a catholic, has he, over the years, just found others to quote that affirm his own beliefs?
I'd ask him but he wouldn't give me or anyone else a direct answer again. It always amuses me how people of a certain religion are adamant that theirs is the right one, but never before have I seen someone so affected as Chris.
mattmurdock said:
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.
1. Of course my arguments are not original, I am using an essentially 2,400 year old argument. That no one is anywhere near refuting, but that is a side issue. Let's call names, discuss names, discuss names' intents, anything to avoid the argument proving God.
2. Biblical god appears to change? Yes indeed, if you are a fundamentalist. I'm not.
3. Show essentially ordered doesn't exist, or is that too much like addressing the argument for comfort?
4. Philosophy, like science, is not allowed to develop or improve. No wait! Aristotle solved permanence and change problem with act and potency, Aquinas solved one and many problem with existence and essence. The latter built on the former. To claim otherwise, show essence -existence in Aristotle. Or alternatively show development in knowledge is a bad thing.
Did I miss the bit where you refute the prime mover argument?
rxtx said:
VinceFox said:
Now, i'm no fancy big city lawyer, but usually when someone uses this many big words their actual argument is weak. I put this sort of delivery in the same category as "mistakes were made", "momentary error in judement" and "all in it together".
The best thing about his post you quoted was that he says Islam is wrong because it "rules itself out". Chris has the right one though, and he has logical proof that his god exists (but no others?). If it wasn't so sad, well, it'd still be sad.I wonder if Chris's parents are/were catholics, or are/were of another denomination and he discovered catholicism on his own? Or, if he's always been a catholic, has he, over the years, just found others to quote that affirm his own beliefs?
I'd ask him but he wouldn't give me or anyone else a direct answer again. It always amuses me how people of a certain religion are adamant that theirs is the right one, but never before have I seen someone so affected as Chris.
Vince, would you rather talk about me or address the argument proving God? I'm guessing you're trying the former because you can't refute the latter? Sorry if I'm wrong.
ChrisGB said:
rxtx said:
VinceFox said:
Now, i'm no fancy big city lawyer, but usually when someone uses this many big words their actual argument is weak. I put this sort of delivery in the same category as "mistakes were made", "momentary error in judement" and "all in it together".
The best thing about his post you quoted was that he says Islam is wrong because it "rules itself out". Chris has the right one though, and he has logical proof that his god exists (but no others?). If it wasn't so sad, well, it'd still be sad.I wonder if Chris's parents are/were catholics, or are/were of another denomination and he discovered catholicism on his own? Or, if he's always been a catholic, has he, over the years, just found others to quote that affirm his own beliefs?
I'd ask him but he wouldn't give me or anyone else a direct answer again. It always amuses me how people of a certain religion are adamant that theirs is the right one, but never before have I seen someone so affected as Chris.
Vince, would you rather talk about me or address the argument proving God? I'm guessing you're trying the former because you can't refute the latter? Sorry if I'm wrong.
VinceFox said:
To paraphrase a much wiser and more eloquent man than i, he has every right to his beliefs, but they are his toys. Don't bring them into my house or force me to play with them and i have no problem. Enjoy the delusion if it serves to cushion you.
Which atheist was he talking about? Referring to scientism, materialism, naturalism, physicalism, reductionism? Which one specifically as the delusion?ChrisGB said:
Rxtx, if you tell me what the big words you found hard were, I'll try to help.
You don't seem to be able to read, I never mentioned "big words", and nobody said they had any problem with them. Let me know which posts you're having trouble with and I'll try to help.ChrisGB said:
Vince, would you rather talk about me or address the argument proving God? I'm guessing you're trying the former because you can't refute the latter? Sorry if I'm wrong.
I think you have us both confused. There's no point in asking you a direct question because you never give a direct answer.Learn to read quotes Chris, it makes things so much easier.
ChrisGB said:
You kissed out the bit where you refute the argument then. Where is it?
Mere deflection from your miscomprehension. I'm not going to spend my time trying to refute your game of words. How about you answer the myriad direct questions that are put to you? It's ok to say you don't want to, better than constantly avoiding them.ChrisGB said:
VinceFox said:
ChrisGB said:
rxtx said:
VinceFox said:
Now, i'm no fancy big city lawyer, but usually when someone uses this many big words their actual argument is weak. I put this sort of delivery in the same category as "mistakes were made", "momentary error in judement" and "all in it together".
The best thing about his post you quoted was that he says Islam is wrong because it "rules itself out". Chris has the right one though, and he has logical proof that his god exists (but no others?). If it wasn't so sad, well, it'd still be sad.I wonder if Chris's parents are/were catholics, or are/were of another denomination and he discovered catholicism on his own? Or, if he's always been a catholic, has he, over the years, just found others to quote that affirm his own beliefs?
I'd ask him but he wouldn't give me or anyone else a direct answer again. It always amuses me how people of a certain religion are adamant that theirs is the right one, but never before have I seen someone so affected as Chris.
Vince, would you rather talk about me or address the argument proving God? I'm guessing you're trying the former because you can't refute the latter? Sorry if I'm wrong.
If you want to believe in god, fine. Just leave me out of it.
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
Short version - premise 2. Show me.
I dont have to provide an example where this is false - its still an assumption.ChrisGB said:
I explained it is logically impossible. Refute that. Give a counterexample. Otherwise this is just bluster.
You have stated it is - you have demonstrated nothing. Again - I dont have to give a counter example - the burden of proof is on you. ChrisGB said:
Premise 3. No. A series of instrumental causes needs a start. If you don't get that, ok, but it is the case. If I can't explain it better than I have, and I'm your only source for essentially ordered or per se causal series, then I suggest you look up better explanations if this is really about getting to the truth of the argument.
Possibly - although we have no precedent for the start of a causal chain. Every causal chain we observe can be ultimately regressed right back to the big bang - at which point our theories break down and so we can't see any further back (if further back actually has meaning).ChrisGB said:
Conclusion 4. How does it not follow?
It does not follow because you haven't proven 2 and 3.ChrisGB said:
On the longer argument, I must have missed it in the rules that I need to give a source every time I quote it.
I said its good form - not that it was a rule. If you want to plagiarise others work without quoting sources - then so be it - but you can hardly complain when people attribute those quotations to you as being your words.ChrisGB said:
As the source was Feser, your quoting a guy who attended Feser's talk and got the handout does what exactly?
I sense you are drifting from the arguments you see can't be refuted into more personal stuff. I hope this isn't so, as I've found it interesting so far. Up to you.
Who have I quoted?I sense you are drifting from the arguments you see can't be refuted into more personal stuff. I hope this isn't so, as I've found it interesting so far. Up to you.
So what would prove premise 2? A written confession from every effect that has ever happened that each one had a cause? Even that wouldn't be good enough for you. You are violating the principles of science then. Let's turn to the technical version: no potential can actualise itself. From the meaning of the words the truth of the premise follows.
Burden of proof on what? I have to prove a logical impossibility is impossible? Can you tell me how this could be proved to you?
Regressed right back to the Big Bang? Can you set out what a per se causal series is and if you think they exist? ( there are non-believers here too, when they know where it leads)
Can we be clear: are you saying when I set out the 2,400 year old prime mover argument, in short form or in long form, in words that are not my own nor those of the person you link to who published it on his site, I am plagiarizing? As in wrongful appropriation and stealing for publication? I should fear a lawsuit from Aristotle? This is puerile, and yet another diversion to avoid dealing with the argument.
So what started as an interesting exchange now has you name-calling and setting a standard of proof you would never apply to your own beliefs. Nice. Any chance of a refutation?
Moonhawk said:
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.
1. 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?
2. 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
2. Atheism is just a lack of belief? I wish you'd said that at the start of our exchanges and I needn't have bothered. So you don't believe in scientism, materialism, physicalism, naturalism or reductionism? Then you're either not a science fan, or you're an Aristotelian, and neither of those is true, so which belief entailed by rejecting theism do you hold? Lack of belief!? Oh dear.
rxtx said:
ChrisGB said:
So what started as an interesting exchange now has you name-calling
I am sick of your double-standards. You are guilty of exactly the same, and your responses are often condescending.Moonhawk says I'm plagiarizing when I use a 2,400 year old argument that may, I say hesitantly, be in the public domain, and I call it name calling and this is double standards?
The ONLY strength of most atheism is the strength of the insult. If there were no insults, I wouldn't insult, but the fact is insulting convinces some that the shouter has a point, so it needs to be met equally, and then with argument.
I don't see much argument coming back though, just diversion.
I'm happy to keep it civil and have asked for that several times, so why did you reenter just to mock?
ChrisGB said:
2. Atheism is just a lack of belief? I wish you'd said that at the start of our exchanges and I needn't have bothered. So you don't believe in scientism, materialism, physicalism, naturalism or reductionism? Then you're either not a science fan, or you're an Aristotelian, and neither of those is true, so which belief entailed by rejecting theism do you hold? Lack of belief!? Oh dear.
You still don't understand what atheism is? Good grief man, what on earth is wrong with you?I honestly believe you are the biggest troll this site has ever seen. It's either that or you're just here for someone to talk to in your old age. Since you've only contributed to threads about religion for the past three years or so, I think you'd be better off on a forum where you can have these senseless discussions with people that think the same way as you.
ChrisGB said:
You reentered this by mocking my reply to Nismo.
Moonhawk says I'm plagiarizing when I use a 2,400 year old argument that may, I say hesitantly, be in the public domain, and I call it name calling and this is double standards?
The ONLY strength of most atheism is the strength of the insult. If there were no insults, I wouldn't insult, but the fact is insulting convinces some that the shouter has a point, so it needs to be met equally, and then with argument.
I don't see much argument coming back though, just diversion.
I'm happy to keep it civil and have asked for that several times, so why did you reenter just to mock?
You may see it as mocking, all I did was condense your verbiage.Moonhawk says I'm plagiarizing when I use a 2,400 year old argument that may, I say hesitantly, be in the public domain, and I call it name calling and this is double standards?
The ONLY strength of most atheism is the strength of the insult. If there were no insults, I wouldn't insult, but the fact is insulting convinces some that the shouter has a point, so it needs to be met equally, and then with argument.
I don't see much argument coming back though, just diversion.
I'm happy to keep it civil and have asked for that several times, so why did you reenter just to mock?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff