Evolution Vs Creation

Evolution Vs Creation

Author
Discussion

g3org3y

20,606 posts

190 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
Agreed. Rational arguments don't cut it among atheists.


IainT

10,040 posts

237 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
IainT said:
mattmurdock said:
You aren't using an essentially 2,400 year old argument, because if you were you would reach the same conclusion as Aristotle, and you don't. His prime mover is a unintelligent, uncaring group of entities, effectively the underlying fabric or laws of the universe, and they guide nothing (as if they had a plan, or took any action, they would have potency and would not be the prime mover). So to keep associating yourself with Aristotle is nonsense, you are a pure thomist, and Aquinas was clearly trying to find a justification for God rather than coming to him from first principles.
I think this is a reasoned point Chris. Do you care to comment on how you draw a line from Aristotlean Deism to your Theist view?
By not assuming that any development of an argument is a step backwards. I think this would apply to science too.
I am happy to "admit" I came to Aristotle as a reader in the 1990's, so his arguments already then had a long history of interpretation.
If anyone cares to unpack Aristotle's version we can test how far it has been improved.

To make the claim that this affects the argument I gave would however require showing that developments are wrong.

Presumably on the basis of the above you and Matt at least accept Aristotle's version, wherever he left it, as true.
No Chris,

I do not accept Aristotle's version - it was plausible in its time given lack of knowledge. Much of the supposition would be re-framed with the scientific understanding of the nature of reality we now have.

If by 'development of an argument' you mean extending it to meet your Theist assumptions then I feel we'll struggle to reach accord on it being a step forwards. smile Of course, development of an argument applies to science because it leads to testable theories. Repeatably testable. When the testing fails to replicate the expected result the theory is re-visited. Discarded or developed.

What is testable, repeatably testable, from your Theist theory?

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

202 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
Then just show me where you refuted the prime mover arguments I've given, or any premise, and I'll shut up.
This is a classic tactic of theists. Try and flip the burden of proof.

You assert something to be true - then challenge those who disagree to disprove your assertion - without ever having to prove your assertion to begin with.

Discussions like this always end up with statements like "you cant prove x doesn't exist" or "disprove y" knowing full well that's its virtually impossible to prove a negative.
But discussions like these don't usually include a logical demonstration of something purely actual, which I've given. Matt and Iain accept the argument but disagree about what the prime mover is, but that's as close to a refutation we have.

What is the difference between assertion and logical demonstration? You are still just calling the argument names.

No need to prove a negative, just refute the argument. Or accept the irrationality of atheism.

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

202 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
IainT said:
mattmurdock said:
You aren't using an essentially 2,400 year old argument, because if you were you would reach the same conclusion as Aristotle, and you don't. His prime mover is a unintelligent, uncaring group of entities, effectively the underlying fabric or laws of the universe, and they guide nothing (as if they had a plan, or took any action, they would have potency and would not be the prime mover). So to keep associating yourself with Aristotle is nonsense, you are a pure thomist, and Aquinas was clearly trying to find a justification for God rather than coming to him from first principles.
I think this is a reasoned point Chris. Do you care to comment on how you draw a line from Aristotlean Deism to your Theist view?
By not assuming that any development of an argument is a step backwards. I think this would apply to science too.
I am happy to "admit" I came to Aristotle as a reader in the 1990's, so his arguments already then had a long history of interpretation.
If anyone cares to unpack Aristotle's version we can test how far it has been improved.

To make the claim that this affects the argument I gave would however require showing that developments are wrong.

Presumably on the basis of the above you and Matt at least accept Aristotle's version, wherever he left it, as true.
No Chris,

I do not accept Aristotle's version - it was plausible in its time given lack of knowledge. Much of the supposition would be re-framed with the scientific understanding of the nature of reality we now have.

If by 'development of an argument' you mean extending it to meet your Theist assumptions then I feel we'll struggle to reach accord on it being a step forwards. smile Of course, development of an argument applies to science because it leads to testable theories. Repeatably testable. When the testing fails to replicate the expected result the theory is re-visited. Discarded or developed.

What is testable, repeatably testable, from your Theist theory?
Category mistake - logic must look like science.
Assume Matt's version of Aristotle - his prime mover is like basic laws of universe, except they are entities. Ok. They are potentials or unformed matter, take your pick. So you have proved something with potentials. This needs an actualiser still. So hardly what the argument demonstrates, even in Aristotle's terms. When Aquinas deduces attributes of what has been proved, this is logical development of argument, prompted by his theology which differed from Aristotle's, yes, but nevertheless a logical demonstration.
What is understandably hard for you to swallow is that there is a purely logical demonstration of God's existence. This isn't some fringe view, it is a dogma of the church. Happy Easter!

And what about Aristotle's science - outdated, but irrelevant. The only premises that science could comment on are that some things change, and that no change brings itself about. What does science say about these? For the second you would have to demonstrate that something comes from absolute nothingness, and this is not going to happen.

So where is that refutation?

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

202 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
rxtx said:
The amusing thing about these discussions is you can just change one word to 'make' the opposite true smile

ChrisGB modified by rxtx said:
Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like theism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence.
ChrisGB said:
Glad I copy pasted that!
smile
So to sum up: thoughts being about something and final causality in general disprove materialism, the ideology most non-mystical atheists accept a version of. Yet people cling to materialism despite the evidence against it.

A logical demonstration of the existence of God is given, and I'm repeatedly told to give testable evidence of the non-material.

Which side is the loony fringe here?

Now that I'm beginning to "get" classical theism, its just amazing not how wrong atheists are, but how far they don't even suspect they could be wrong. It's no exaggeration to call it the mother of all superstitions, such is the grip it has on the masses.

Still if it gives you comfort that its all meaningless, irrationality and death in the end, go for it.

burwoodman

18,709 posts

245 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
Agreed. Rational arguments don't cut it among atheists.
evidence man!lol

Gaspode

4,167 posts

195 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
So to sum up: thoughts being about something and final causality in general disprove materialism, the ideology most non-mystical atheists accept a version of. Yet people cling to materialism despite the evidence against it.

A logical demonstration of the existence of God is given, and I'm repeatedly told to give testable evidence of the non-material.

Which side is the loony fringe here?

Now that I'm beginning to "get" classical theism, its just amazing not how wrong atheists are, but how far they don't even suspect they could be wrong. It's no exaggeration to call it the mother of all superstitions, such is the grip it has on the masses.

Still if it gives you comfort that its all meaningless, irrationality and death in the end, go for it.
The fact that our thoughts are 'about' something does not disprove materialism, all it does is demonstrate that there are some aspects of consciousness that we do not yet understand.

The concept of final cause is an assumption based on the belief that 'there must be something' causing everything. As we learn more and more about the nature of reality, we find that our concepts of what is material need to be modified. Things that we we thought of as being physical particles now appear to be best modelled as regions of probability and energy density. Science has no problem with this.

Basing an argument on final cause is like basing an argument on the reality of an image in a mirror. Both appear to be present, but neither actually exist.

You seem to have a belief that logic is an impregnable system of thinking, that any conclusion based on true premises must be unassailably true. Here's a vey simple deminstration that logic is imperfect:

1. An object that travels from point A to point C must take a finite and exact amount of time to make the journey
2. A point B can be observed to lie exactly equidistant between points A and C
3. In order to arrive at point C, the object must first arrive at point B
4. The distance between A and B can be divided in half again
5. This process can be repeated indefinitely, giving an infinite number of halfway points
6. This means the object must pass through an infinite number of points in a finite time, which is impossible

The logic is sound, but the conclusion is invalid. We know this through observation of the real world.

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
But discussions like these don't usually include a logical demonstration of something purely actual, which I've given. Matt and Iain accept the argument but disagree about what the prime mover is, but that's as close to a refutation we have.

What is the difference between assertion and logical demonstration? You are still just calling the argument names.

No need to prove a negative, just refute the argument. Or accept the irrationality of atheism.
Your "logical demonstration" includes many assumptions/assertions though which have to be taken as true for the argument to give you the outcome it has.

Your assertions aren't logical demonstrations - they are merely statements of 'fact' that may not, in fact, be factual.

As for refuting the argument, what evidence would you accept to do so? I have pointed out the assumptions. If these assumptions are not taken to be true - the argument falls down, however many points in your argument can neither be proven nor disproven by their nature.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 20th April 11:30

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
A logical demonstration of the existence of God is given, and I'm repeatedly told to give testable evidence of the non-material.
But you only assert the conclusion to the argument is non material in order to not provide evidence - not because the conclusion actually is non material. Do non material things even exist - again it is another assumption of your argument that they must.

Even if we take the prime mover argument conclusion. You state that the prime mover is unchangeable - but we know that for something to have an effect on something else (i.e. to kick off a causal chain) - the thing initiating the change must itself change. We have no precedent for something causing a change in something else - whilst itself remaining unchanged.

How do you reconcile this? How can the prime mover be simultaneously changed and unchanged. Simply invoking a magical supernatural "thing" that can mysteriously violate such rules is hardly logical.

Also if we go one further and say the prime mover is god - the bible contains many references to god changing (via his thoughts and actions). Therefore god cannot be a prime mover based on your definition of what a prime mover is.



Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 20th April 10:34

Juanco20

3,212 posts

192 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Some of the guff written on facebook this morning, including people in my extended family, really is mind boggling

iwantagta

1,323 posts

144 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Chris.
What is your view on the standard question of "if god is all powerful and loving why is there suffering in the world?

If you would like any inspiration (although certainly you will not need it) there are a selection of answers on the below link:

http://carm.org/if-god-all-powerful-and-loving-why...

Some of these are really, really unpleasant. Number 9 is especially delightful - sounds like the sort of guy I wish to worship.

Juanco20

3,212 posts

192 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
iwantagta said:
Chris.
What is your view on the standard question of "if god is all powerful and loving why is there suffering in the world?

If you would like any inspiration (although certainly you will not need it) there are a selection of answers on the below link:

http://carm.org/if-god-all-powerful-and-loving-why...

Some of these are really, really unpleasant. Number 9 is especially delightful - sounds like the sort of guy I wish to worship.
Brain washed from a young age to believe this rubbish, it really is wrong. I can't wait for this judgement day, sounds like good fun

Justayellowbadge

37,057 posts

241 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Juanco20 said:
I can't wait for this judgement day, sounds like good fun
Better than Salvation.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
We've had the rapture...sort of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Disappoint...

Juanco20 said:
Some of the guff written on facebook this morning, including people in my extended family, really is mind boggling
Go on, share. biggrin


Juanco20

3,212 posts

192 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
Halb said:
We've had the rapture...sort of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Disappoint...

Juanco20 said:
Some of the guff written on facebook this morning, including people in my extended family, really is mind boggling
Go on, share. biggrin
This is a particular highlight:

"Happy Easter smile as you eat your eggs today remember the new, eternal life offered in Jesus Christ for He has risen again to save every one of us!! Alleluia!"

All I could remember was how good the last mouthful tasted

Nick M

3,624 posts

222 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
You know how in a rational discussion you might actually SHOW how someone is mistaken, not just keep on saying they must be?. If its impossible to show that, you should reconsider the argument. What is circular? What is built on theism?

Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like materialism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence.
And to turn the mirror back at you...

You know how in a rational discussion you might actually SHOW some evidence to support your argument, not just keep on saying they must be? If its impossible to show that, you should reconsider the argument. What is circular? What is built on theism?

Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like theism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence...

The more rational position is atheism, on the basis that there is no evidence to suggest gods, and despite all your bluster about the fact that this is a purely materialistic view, you haven't demonstrated any way in which the immaterial can influence the material, hence making it measurable, testable and believable...

So, if you work on the basis the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, by the same token you must allow (in a rational discussion) that the absence of evidence could equally suggest absence. And if you take things a step further and are unable to suggest any tests which could be conducted to gather evidence to support a claim then, logically, your hypothesis falls into the same category as the flying spaghetti monster.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
Then just show me where you refuted the prime mover arguments I've given, or any premise, and I'll shut up.
In my world, the prime mover is the tractor unit that tows the trailer. But that's the haulage business.

You've given no proof of prime mover; saying you have doesn't make it so.

DickyC

49,549 posts

197 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
In my teens I was very ill. It started with a disastrous appendix operation that was repeated after a week or so to unkink my bowel twisted during the first operation. Unknown to anyone a mess was left behind inside me. Six months later I was readmitted to hospital. "Well, we know it's not appendicitis!!" Oh, how we laughed. I was taken in on a Friday and given tests and x-rays while I became more and more ill. Specialists were called. More tests, more x-rays. Nothing. The hospital called their most senior surgeon on Sunday evening. He felt there was one chance; they should operate, find out what it was and try to fix it. My parents were called back to the hospital to give their permission. The operation started at 1am and went on for several hours. Afterwards the team were exhausted but spoke to my parents. The surgeon was even-handed in his assessment but the anaesthetist drew my father to one side and was blunt with him. Cardiac arrest. My heart had stopped for many minutes. In his view I wouldn't live until the morning and if I did I would be a vegetable. Dad didn't tell my mother and had to bear it for hours on his own.

I, meanwhile, was having a fascinating time. After I was anaesthetised, there a very long period of nothing. Then I was walking along a tunnel. It was successive rings of black and white, each ring several paces long. It was dead straight and disappeared in a dot in the far distance. I wondered if it went on for ever. I walked and walked and walked for the longest time imaginable. I wasn't scared; my feelings were perfectly neutral. And then I was at the end. No real surprise, I'd just reached the end. There were huge old, wooden doors. Double doors. Huge. Unpainted. Oak, I guessed. Iron fittings. Like the doors of a castle. One was shut and the other very slightly open, the narrow gap revealing a rich blackness inside. I pushed on the slightly open door. It was incredibly heavy. I leant against it and pushed as hard as I could. The door moved very slowly. When the gap was just big enough I slipped through and stood just inside until my eyes became accustomed to the darkness. After a little while I could make out a long, narrow table around which sat twenty old men, maybe more. They were all nodding a silent welcome. They weren't happy, they wore expressions of concern, but they were welcoming me. I knew this was very serious. Very, very, serious. I turned back towards the door and the dream ended.

I woke up in Intensive Care without a care in the world. Morphine had turned my world into amusing shades of grey where every grey thing I looked at had its own distinct buzzing sound. I parents came in briefly and I asked what the hell the were doing there so early and I saw my grandparents pop their heads round the door and I thought how hilarious they all looked in green surgical coveralls, hats and masks. Why were they in disguise? I knew who they were.

After a couple of days I went back to the ward and the surgeon came to see me. He had an entourage of trainee doctors. I learned later he was held in the highest regard. He had operated during the Blitz in London with the hospital falling down around him. He asked how I was getting on and then said, "You had a great honour bestowed on you, young man." "Oh, yes, sir? What was that?" "When we opened you up, Theatre Sister passed out. She doesn't do that very often."

The mess left behind six months earlier had turned to gangrene.

There is no God. There is no after life. We beat all the other animals in the evolutionary race. That's it. We are animals that evolved and made stories to comfort ourselves as we gained our collective consciousness and began to wonder - as no other species is capable of wondering. Some strong speakers and story tellers exploited weaknesses to give themselves power, some to create order, some to ease the burden of what until recently was, for most people, a hard life.

There is no God. The black and white tunnel was my pupils hunting. The wooden doors were my dream version of the Pearly Gates. The old men were a mix of the Last Supper and the Board of Directors in Mary Poppins. My dream was my brain making me comfortable as I faded after cardiac arrest.

When they opened me up I was st and pus and gangrene. I was an intelligent animal that was sick being treated by intelligent animals with skills.

There is no Creator.

Edited by DickyC on Sunday 20th April 12:28

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
Agreed. Rational arguments don't cut it among atheists.
Atheism is proof of a rational mind.

I've been dead, didn't meet God. There is no God and until you've also been dead you can't refute my proof.

I'm feeling better now...

IainT

10,040 posts

237 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
Category mistake - logic must look like science.
Logic is a fundamental part of the scientific process. You cannot draw illogical inferences and call it good science. Science looks like logic looks like science.

Are you disagreeing with that or is your point just shockingly vaguely worded? You're also missing the point quite drastically - Aristotle based his thinking on the axioms he held to be true at the time. Much of which is fundamentally wrong.


ChrisGB said:
Assume Matt's version of Aristotle - his prime mover is like basic laws of universe, except they are entities. Ok. They are potentials or unformed matter, take your pick. So you have proved something with potentials. This needs an actualiser still. So hardly what the argument demonstrates, even in Aristotle's terms.
You might as well say "assuming things are as we're going to argue they are... thus our argument proves they are so."

The assumption that the basic laws (which can be demonstrated to be so) are entities is just that. An assumption with no factual basis. The only 'actualiser' (and, my god, you like your magical terminology and woo - must be a church thing) that is required are the fundamental laws that the universe operates under.


ChrisGB said:
When Aquinas deduces attributes of what has been proved, this is logical development of argument, prompted by his theology which differed from Aristotle's, yes, but nevertheless a logical demonstration.
What is understandably hard for you to swallow is that there is a purely logical demonstration of God's existence. This isn't some fringe view, it is a dogma of the church. Happy Easter!
Actually it's the dogma of one pretty arbitrary branch of Christianity and holds no authority by dint of being dogma of that rapidly shrinking cult.


ChrisGB said:
And what about Aristotle's science - outdated, but irrelevant. The only premises that science could comment on are that some things change, and that no change brings itself about. What does science say about these? For the second you would have to demonstrate that something comes from absolute nothingness, and this is not going to happen.
'Absolute nothingness' cannot exist. It cannot exist for either reality or your twisted view of the world to hold true.


ChrisGB said:
So where is that refutation?
Have you actually read many of the responses to your posts rather than just spend time trying to come up with pseudo-intellectual put-downs and condescension?