Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
Even if we accept that the arguments for a prime mover existing are valid.........there is absolutely no evidence or argument that can be used to show categorically it is a god (i.e. a thinking, feeling, omnipotent, all powerful entity)....let alone something as specific as the god of Christianity.
Even if we demonstrate or accept that god exists - it doesn't necessarily follow that god is the prime mover either. Whatever 'god' exists may simply be one more link in the causal chain.
Spot on.Even if we demonstrate or accept that god exists - it doesn't necessarily follow that god is the prime mover either. Whatever 'god' exists may simply be one more link in the causal chain.
I have no problem with crazy theories about the origins of the Universe because we're a long way, maybe thousands of years off finding any answers.
But it's a gigantic leap to take those ponderings as justification for the religion we know. There isn't a lot in between. If somebody wants to believe some incomprehensible creature lit the match that set off the big bang then that's fine with me, but that forms no evidence that the Bible and other such stories have their roots in anything but fiction.
The thing that I find baffling is that we now understand pretty damn well how easily manipulated human beings are. Even if you exclude religion there are countless examples of people - groups or individuals - being duped, misled, manipulated and forced to do strange things. We're undoubtedly a gullible animal (and necessarily so).
These examples all make it quite obvious to me how religion thrived in times of poor education and understanding, but in this day and age there's really no excuse.
durbster said:
I have no problem with crazy theories about the origins of the Universe because we're a long way, maybe thousands of years off finding any answers.
Me either. I'm open to any answer being correct (even god) - if that is what the evidence points to.It's one of the pitfalls these threads always fall into. Theists seem to assume that the people arguing against them are trying to disprove their position or disprove god.
In a lot of cases - nothing could be further from the truth. Many people are simply asking for supporting evidence of the theists hypothesis. People want to claim god did it......fine, but in doing so they shouldn't expect to circumvent the burden of proof or expect others to accept lesser evidence just because they claim 'god doesn't work like that'.
Pixel Pusher said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can you give me an example of something that doesn't change?
The monotony of this thread?Am I doing this right?
Complete absence of sneering arrogance, belittling condescension and trotting out 23 different BS '-isms'.
Must try harder.
I'm at uni doing an engineering degree and we have a lot of Malaysians on the course who are Muslim. I honestly cant't grasp how these smart and educated people believe in a God and creationism.
Do most religious people, in this case Christians, believe in all that Adam and Eve, virgin birth bulls
t? Or do they pick and choose to believe what suits them?
Do most religious people, in this case Christians, believe in all that Adam and Eve, virgin birth bulls
t? Or do they pick and choose to believe what suits them?ChrisGB said:
Well that the materialist definition of matter changes or the materialist abandons his definition for a more Aristotelian one amounts to the same thing, and as you say more accurately then comes to reflect reality. Either way the current ideology is refuted.
On logic, true premises and a conclusion that follows give is truth.
What is wrong in your example in point 6?
What is the first number after 0?
I think you need to reformulate. If I move my finger across a ruler from 1 to 2, it has moved over an infinite number of infinitely small spaces, or?
You have made my point for me. The thing that is wrong is that there are two true premises which appear to lead to a true conclusion. We can demonstrate that the conclusion is wrong only through material demonstration. On logic, true premises and a conclusion that follows give is truth.
What is wrong in your example in point 6?
What is the first number after 0?
I think you need to reformulate. If I move my finger across a ruler from 1 to 2, it has moved over an infinite number of infinitely small spaces, or?
Thus we see that logical truth and material truth are not always aligned. Logical truth is argument, not evidence.
There are an infinite number of possible numbers that follow 0. Why do you ask?
WinstonWolf said:
Hey Chris, why are you ignoring me? 
I've been dead and there was no god. I have proof you are wrong and it's much more convincing than any book.
If there is a god why is he such an asshole?
Well done on surviving. Without belittling what you went through, from a purely philosophical point of view, do near death experiences prove anything one way or another? And how would I know you are telling the truth about your NDE?I've been dead and there was no god. I have proof you are wrong and it's much more convincing than any book.
If there is a god why is he such an asshole?
How would you know if the next 1,000 NDE's all said they met the FSM in a vision that they were right or wrong?
Engineer1 said:
ChrisGB said:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about, otherwise we would have to show that something comes from absolute nothingness, which isn't going to happen.
3. An essentially ordered causal series of concurrent causes can't be infinitely regressed.
These are fleshed out in the longer versions given by Aquinas and his commentators and lead to the conclusion that there must therefore be a first changer at the origin of every series of concurrent changes that is the same and itself unchanging.
Snip...
The bible gives us human experience of God, in anecdotal, poetic, didactic etc. texts. There is little cold dry philosophy. But when there is it is of God as something completely unlike us - he who is existence itself, he who is unchanging, he who has always existed, etc. There are many sorts of discourse about God, and nothing more than superficial difference.
I keep pointing out 1-3 are all logical but are we certain they hold for something that we only know of happening once? Science can't run the universe back that far2. No change brings itself about, otherwise we would have to show that something comes from absolute nothingness, which isn't going to happen.
3. An essentially ordered causal series of concurrent causes can't be infinitely regressed.
These are fleshed out in the longer versions given by Aquinas and his commentators and lead to the conclusion that there must therefore be a first changer at the origin of every series of concurrent changes that is the same and itself unchanging.
Snip...
The bible gives us human experience of God, in anecdotal, poetic, didactic etc. texts. There is little cold dry philosophy. But when there is it is of God as something completely unlike us - he who is existence itself, he who is unchanging, he who has always existed, etc. There are many sorts of discourse about God, and nothing more than superficial difference.
1 only requires any old cause and effect, 2 only requires that nothing come from absolute nothingness, and 3 is demonstrated in any concurrent series of causes.
ChrisGB said:
Well done on surviving. Without belittling what you went through, from a purely philosophical point of view, do near death experiences prove anything one way or another? And how would I know you are telling the truth about your NDE?
How would you know if the next 1,000 NDE's all said they met the FSM in a vision that they were right or wrong?
Except it wasn't a near death experience. He actually died.How would you know if the next 1,000 NDE's all said they met the FSM in a vision that they were right or wrong?
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
Can you show this assertion?
The conclusion is that something actual, with no potentials, exists. To be completely or singularly actual must by definition mean unchanging, unchangeable, immaterial etc. - these are simply deductions from the logical conclusion of the argument, namely that if there is change, there is something that is just actuality. None of this is assertion, it follows from the 3 premises of the short version of the argument.
A.. Only if you assume points 2 and 3 of your argument hold. What if things can change themselves (or can change spontaneously)? What if a causal series can be infinite? What if time itself does not hold, or is not linear under all circumstances (surely infinite regression of a causal series is only meaningful within the context of linear time).The conclusion is that something actual, with no potentials, exists. To be completely or singularly actual must by definition mean unchanging, unchangeable, immaterial etc. - these are simply deductions from the logical conclusion of the argument, namely that if there is change, there is something that is just actuality. None of this is assertion, it follows from the 3 premises of the short version of the argument.
ChrisGB said:
These premises are not rationally refutable:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about, otherwise we would have to show that something comes from absolute nothingness, which isn't going to happen.
3. An essentially ordered causal series of concurrent causes can't be infinitely regressed.
These are fleshed out in the longer versions given by Aquinas and his commentators and lead to the conclusion that there must therefore be a first changer at the origin of every series of concurrent changes that is the same and itself unchanging.
Again - points 2 and 3 whilst they may sound reasonable - are still assumptions (and are based on more assumptions). They have not been demonstrated to be true under all conditions.1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about, otherwise we would have to show that something comes from absolute nothingness, which isn't going to happen.
3. An essentially ordered causal series of concurrent causes can't be infinitely regressed.
These are fleshed out in the longer versions given by Aquinas and his commentators and lead to the conclusion that there must therefore be a first changer at the origin of every series of concurrent changes that is the same and itself unchanging.
Even if we take them to be true - they throw up more questions/assumptions.
Like:
4. Nothing can induce a change in something else without itself having been changed.
This has masses of observable evidence to back it up - and yet to accept your prime mover argument - we have to essentially reject all of this evidence and make the assertion that "something must exist which does not conform to this rule".
ChrisGB said:
Does the non-material exist? Final causes are non material and thoughts are about something, ie. an example of final causality. How do you refute this?
C. Can you define what you mean by "final cause" and perhaps give an example. The examples of final causes I have found are very much material in nature (i.e. "health is the end of walking").http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causal...
D. As for thoughts - they can be very much shown to be material. Their presence and the changes they induce in the brain can be measured using instruments like MRI scanners.
ChrisGB said:
How does something initiate change without itself changing?
Two of the four types of causation I am talking about are non-material, so would bring about change without directly moving matter, and if the unchanged changer is the goal or object of these causes, would not change itself. In other words, final and formal causality are how the unmoved mover moves without being moved.
See for example: http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808...
E. You dont have to move matter for something to be considered "material". Anything that has an observable effect on matter or the universe (and can therefore be measured/observed) would also fall within this remit IMO. Energy, fundamental forces etc would all fall under the "material" remit.Two of the four types of causation I am talking about are non-material, so would bring about change without directly moving matter, and if the unchanged changer is the goal or object of these causes, would not change itself. In other words, final and formal causality are how the unmoved mover moves without being moved.
See for example: http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808...
ChrisGB said:
The bible gives us human experience of God, in anecdotal, poetic, didactic etc. texts. There is little cold dry philosophy. But when there is it is of God as something completely unlike us - he who is existence itself, he who is unchanging, he who has always existed, etc. There are many sorts of discourse about God, and nothing more than superficial difference.
F. I'm sure the proponents of each religion feels very much the same about their sacred texts.Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 24th April 12:33
Of course a causal series could in theory be infinite, but this is not any old series - it is the per se or essentially ordered series of concurrent causes requiring a present first mover. This series could not even in theory be infinite, because only the first in the series has any real causal power.
If time doesn't hold, then how exactly does it affect 1-3 when properly understood? I don't know without a lot more detail.
B. But to accept 2 and 3 only if they could be shown to be true under every possible circumstance is to require a higher burden of proof than you would set for maths, science, life. Why should that be so? And isn't it a category mistake to say that we can only really assert that Socrates is mortal because he is a man, rather than show it, unless we have studied every single man of history and all future?
At the very least, no counterexample to 2. should mean that the argument holds at least until there IS a counterexample.
The category mistake here creates a double standard compared to the level of certainty a scientific hypothesis requires.
The unmoved mover can move others without being itself moved through being the first cause of formal and final causes and by being the goal of all that is created. These will not bring about change in it. See link in my previous post on that.
C. Final cause is the goal or end of a thing, or its disposition to act in a certain way, or its being about or for something, or any other variation on "telos". Eg. The final cause of a thought is what that thought is about.
D. Yes of course thought has these material aspects, but no scan will give the content of the thought, or the inferences (further thoughts) based on the first, etc.
E. an example of causation without effect in the causer: if you are physically attracted to someone, they have affected you and of itself the attraction has changed you, not the attractive person. God as the origin and goal of all that is would have this ability as the ultimate final cause of everything. Whether or not you accept final causality, you accept this example of causation not affecting causer?
F. The claim was that bible and classical theism are irreconcilable, but this is completely groundless unless one is a naive literalist.
Moonhawk said:
98elise said:
Could I ask if you believe in all gods, or just the one of your chosen religion? Are other religions even counted as religion by yours? The RC church doesn't recognise the Anglican Church for example. If you don't believe in the others, then is that not irrational by your definition?
1. Chris has already made the point that the argument he is using not only proves the "prime mover" exists - but that the prime mover can be demonstrated to be the god of Christianity and Judaism (but interestingly - cannot be used to get to Islam - which is odd since it's the same god - i.e. one based on the Abrahamic texts).http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&a...
2. Even if we accept that the arguments for a prime mover existing are valid.........there is absolutely no evidence or argument that can be used to show categorically it is a god (i.e. a thinking, feeling, omnipotent, all powerful entity)....let alone something as specific as the god of Christianity.
3. Even if we demonstrate or accept that god exists - it doesn't necessarily follow that god is the prime mover either. Whatever 'god' exists may simply be one more link in the causal chain.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 24th April 12:43
2. There is much that can be deduced about God from being prime mover - immateriality, eternity, unique, unchanging, all powerful, etc. Not every attribute can be easily deduced, and some rely on revelation, but you get an easy rough idea of the monotheistic god.
3. I don't follow this - if prime mover exists, as it must from the argument, then causality is explained. We don't demonstrate God exists then wonder if he is first cause. We demonstrate the first cause exists and is what we call God.
Thanks for engaging seriously with the arguments.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ChrisGB,
When you say "some things change", that implies that other things don't change. Can you give me an example of something that doesn't change?
The point is that observing any old thing changing is enough for the argument to work. When you say "some things change", that implies that other things don't change. Can you give me an example of something that doesn't change?
But there is something that doesn't change - namely the unmoved mover proved by the argument.
durbster said:
Moonhawk said:
Even if we accept that the arguments for a prime mover existing are valid.........there is absolutely no evidence or argument that can be used to show categorically it is a god (i.e. a thinking, feeling, omnipotent, all powerful entity)....let alone something as specific as the god of Christianity.
Even if we demonstrate or accept that god exists - it doesn't necessarily follow that god is the prime mover either. Whatever 'god' exists may simply be one more link in the causal chain.
Spot on.Even if we demonstrate or accept that god exists - it doesn't necessarily follow that god is the prime mover either. Whatever 'god' exists may simply be one more link in the causal chain.
I have no problem with crazy theories about the origins of the Universe because we're a long way, maybe thousands of years off finding any answers.
But it's a gigantic leap to take those ponderings as justification for the religion we know. There isn't a lot in between. If somebody wants to believe some incomprehensible creature lit the match that set off the big bang then that's fine with me, but that forms no evidence that the Bible and other such stories have their roots in anything but fiction.
The thing that I find baffling is that we now understand pretty damn well how easily manipulated human beings are. Even if you exclude religion there are countless examples of people - groups or individuals - being duped, misled, manipulated and forced to do strange things. We're undoubtedly a gullible animal (and necessarily so).
These examples all make it quite obvious to me how religion thrived in times of poor education and understanding, but in this day and age there's really no excuse.
(And please excuse the capitals)
PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ORIGIN OF UNIVERSE !!!!!!!!
Moonhawk said:
durbster said:
I have no problem with crazy theories about the origins of the Universe because we're a long way, maybe thousands of years off finding any answers.
Me either. I'm open to any answer being correct (even god) - if that is what the evidence points to.It's one of the pitfalls these threads always fall into. Theists seem to assume that the people arguing against them are trying to disprove their position or disprove god.
In a lot of cases - nothing could be further from the truth. Many people are simply asking for supporting evidence of the theists hypothesis. People want to claim god did it......fine, but in doing so they shouldn't expect to circumvent the burden of proof or expect others to accept lesser evidence just because they claim 'god doesn't work like that'.
Are we talking about proof for a logical demonstration or proof sufficient for a hypothesis?
What sort of proof do you need in order to accept premise 2 - no change changes itself?
Gaspode said:
ChrisGB said:
Well that the materialist definition of matter changes or the materialist abandons his definition for a more Aristotelian one amounts to the same thing, and as you say more accurately then comes to reflect reality. Either way the current ideology is refuted.
On logic, true premises and a conclusion that follows give is truth.
What is wrong in your example in point 6?
What is the first number after 0?
I think you need to reformulate. If I move my finger across a ruler from 1 to 2, it has moved over an infinite number of infinitely small spaces, or?
You have made my point for me. The thing that is wrong is that there are two true premises which appear to lead to a true conclusion. We can demonstrate that the conclusion is wrong only through material demonstration. On logic, true premises and a conclusion that follows give is truth.
What is wrong in your example in point 6?
What is the first number after 0?
I think you need to reformulate. If I move my finger across a ruler from 1 to 2, it has moved over an infinite number of infinitely small spaces, or?
Thus we see that logical truth and material truth are not always aligned. Logical truth is argument, not evidence.
There are an infinite number of possible numbers that follow 0. Why do you ask?
Timsta said:
ChrisGB said:
Well done on surviving. Without belittling what you went through, from a purely philosophical point of view, do near death experiences prove anything one way or another? And how would I know you are telling the truth about your NDE?
How would you know if the next 1,000 NDE's all said they met the FSM in a vision that they were right or wrong?
Except it wasn't a near death experience. He actually died.How would you know if the next 1,000 NDE's all said they met the FSM in a vision that they were right or wrong?
ChrisGB said:
There are an infinite number of infinitely small steps between 1 and 2, we agree. How is that different from the conclusion of your example?
I am demonstrating that logical truth sometimes has got little or nothing to do with physical truth.The propositions presented were:
1. to move from one point to another takes a finite and measurable amount of time
2. there are an infinite number of pairs of such points that can be identified
and the conclusion that "to traverse an infinite number of pairs of points must take an infinite amount of time" is logically true, but can be demonstrated by reference to the material world, to be false. It is the material world that provides the final demonstration of truth, because the very definition of truth is correspondence between internal mental models and external observable reality.
The prime mover argument takes some assertions and claim them to be true. The conclusions follow if one accepts the validity of the assertions. The weakness is that there's an appeal to perception here. If one removes that appeal by making it explicit in the premises, the whole thing starts to look a great deal shakier:
1. "It appears to us that things change"
2. "It appears to us that no thing can change itself"
3. "It appears to us that it is impossible to have an infinite chain of causality"
We can only qualify the actual validity of the propositions by reference to objective exterior reality. And as we all agree, the proposition must be falsifiable - it must be possible to design a test to disprove them If we don't, we are left in the position of the subjectivist who claims that truth is what one believes to be true.
ChrisGB said:
Timsta said:
ChrisGB said:
Well done on surviving. Without belittling what you went through, from a purely philosophical point of view, do near death experiences prove anything one way or another? And how would I know you are telling the truth about your NDE?
How would you know if the next 1,000 NDE's all said they met the FSM in a vision that they were right or wrong?
Except it wasn't a near death experience. He actually died.How would you know if the next 1,000 NDE's all said they met the FSM in a vision that they were right or wrong?
ChrisGB said:
Well done on surviving. Without belittling what you went through, from a purely philosophical point of view, do near death experiences prove anything one way or another? And how would I know you are telling the truth about your NDE?
How do you know he's telling the truth? Because if he died and had a fantastic religious experience in which he went to heaven, met God, jammed with Jimi Hendrix and was reunited with his childhood guinea pig, you might think he'd be on your side right about now 
ChrisGB said:
Mmm. For the 23rd time on this thread alone:
(And please excuse the capitals)
PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ORIGIN OF UNIVERSE !!!!!!!!
Sorry I forgot with this being a thread about creation and all.(And please excuse the capitals)
PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ORIGIN OF UNIVERSE !!!!!!!!
So as I understand it; your God didn't create the universe, has no effect on our lives, evidently doesn't show up when we die, wrote the Bible but didn't really mean what was in it, is obviously a Christian God despite not being anything like the Christian God, decided not to reveal himself to non-European cultures such as the Australian Aboriginals, and isn't detectable or proveable through any method other than imagination.
I think I'm starting to believe!
ChrisGB said:
WinstonWolf said:
Hey Chris, why are you ignoring me?
I've been dead and there was no god. I have proof you are wrong and it's much more convincing than any book.
If there is a god why is he such an asshole?
Well done on surviving. Without belittling what you went through, from a purely philosophical point of view, do near death experiences prove anything one way or another? And how would I know you are telling the truth about your NDE?I've been dead and there was no god. I have proof you are wrong and it's much more convincing than any book.
If there is a god why is he such an asshole?
How would you know if the next 1,000 NDE's all said they met the FSM in a vision that they were right or wrong?
Unfortunately the tunnel thing is just the brain starting to shut down. It's science, that's how we work...
There is an amazing sense of peace and tranquility, it's not too dissimilar to the feeling you get when you go under with anaesthetic, but without the whooshing sound.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff