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.

Well you've made the charge, back it up. Show I've picked one rather than following the argument.

[Moonhawk]

ChrisGB said:

Well you've made the charge, back it up. Show I've picked one rather than following the argument.

Have you always been a christian - or did you lack belief and only came to christianity after working through this argument?

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

Would it be fair to say that in every post you have written on my ideas you at some point have to say that my "belief forces" me to do this or that.

1. That would not be fair - I haven't done that in every reply, nor have I consistently used words as strong as "forces". Why put words into my mouth.

2.

ChrisGB said:

Can you actually back that up instead of just making the accusation? What foundation do you have for such an accusation?

3. 4. Why did you assert that science cannot prove god exists then. The christian faith tells us that god is ultimately unknowable - but we dont know whether that is true. Science may well be able to prove they exist if they have measurable, detectable attributes.

You appear to be making such assertions because you already hold the belief that god is unknowable - and therefore have to make the argument fit that belief. If you have arrived at the conclusion that god is unknowable (and therefore undetectable by any aspect of scientific method) - then please show us this proof.

ChrisGB said:

As I usually reply, if my belief forces me to adopt this argument, then a) how come many Christians wouldn't take this line, b) many people come to faith because of the arguments, not the other way round.

5. a) maybe some christians aren't as strongly held in their beliefs.
6. b) arguments made by whom - people who already believe? Indoctrination, evangelism etc.

ChrisGB said:

Now to your point above:
It is the conclusion to an enquiry about causality that tells you there is something that is purely actual, I.e. that has no potentialities and therefore isn't going to change in any way. This thing therefore couldn't have any physical properties, because these would make it complex and subject to change.

Again - it isnt "the" conclusion. It is one conclusion that can be drawn based on a set line of enquiry and many assumptions. Using a different line of enquiry or a different set of assumptions could lead you to an entirely different conclusion.

You are drawing the argument to a conclusion that has absolutely no precedent. When I offered a possible alternative proposition (i.e. broken causality) - you claimed there was no precedent for it and asked me for examples/proof.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 09:10

1. You invented a position about science and attributed it to me, you misread another author's quote as mine, so if I am guilty of putting words in your mouth I am in good company, no? If there is not an effort at interpretation going on in answers to posts, there is little point replying. (There may indeed be little point replying). I happy to let that drop so that we can carry on what has for me been so far interesting.
2. Can you actually back up your accusation?
3. In what sense is God unknowable? There is also analogy, which allows us to know what god is like. So not unknowable in the sense of our not having a clue. Nothing I have said to you suggests God is unknowable, on the contrary.
4. An argument like prime mover proves something of pure actuality exists; further simple deduction shows that this is not material or subject to change. How is science going to measure attributes of the immaterial?
5. I don't understand this sentence.
6. You fail to account for atheists who become theists on the basis of the argument s like prime mover that I have given. If your reply here means that someone accepting the argument must have been indoctrinated, then this is double standards / prejudice - why wouldn't someone accepting the arguments of scientism, say, not rather be the indoctrinated one?

[NISMOgtr]

Moonhawk said:

Have you always been a christian - or did you lack belief and only came to christianity after working through this argument?

You can't work through the 'arguments' he has presented and come to christianity. That is impossible! a 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 diety - yeah ok then.

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

Now to your point above:
It is the conclusion to an enquiry about causality that tells you there is something that is purely actual, I.e. that has no potentialities and therefore isn't going to change in any way. This thing therefore couldn't have any physical properties, because these would make it complex and subject to change.

1. Again - it isnt "the" conclusion. It is one conclusion that can be drawn based on a set line of enquiry and many assumptions. Using a different line of enquiry or a different set of assumptions could lead you to an entirely different conclusion.

2. You are drawing the argument to a conclusion that has absolutely no precedent. When I offered a possible alternative proposition (i.e. broken causality) - you claimed there was no precedent for it and asked me for examples/proof.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 09:10

1. First of all, pure act is the only valid conclusion to the prime mover argument, which I will set out slightly more formally below in a sec.
Second, of course changing the assumption that we observe things that change or changing the assumption that no change brings itself about would change the outcome if the argument. But denying either of these is not rationally possible, because it would mean there is no such thing as causality. To prove that no change brings itself about, I just need to show that logically nothing exists before it exists. There is no way to show that something exists before it exists, this would be a contradiction, so the premise is sound. One example of some change bringing itself about would refute this, but logically it is sound.
2. What do you mean no "precedent"?
The conclusion follows from the premises, the premises are true, what else matters?
Does prime mover "break causality"? I think this was your charge. I think that would mean haven to assume "everything has a cause", which can't be true. Only what is capable of change has a cause, by definition, no? If something unchangeable had a cause, it would have changed. So your assumption that everything must have a cause is wrong until you have rules out the possibility of something unchangeable.

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

If you can show Thor, or any other except the god of classical theism, is pure act, then I'll convert.

But you haven't shown that the god of classical theism is "pure act" either. You have claimed it is - but have presented no proof.

Are you not therefore as guilty of the same double standards you seem to be accusing everyone else of?

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 10:35

It's been a few pages since I spelt out the prime mover argument, so here goes again:

Short version:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about
3. No series of instrumental changes can be infinite.
4. Therefore there is an unchanged first changer in any series of instrumental changes.

Longer version, more technical:
1.That the actualization of potency is a real feature of the world follows from the occurrence of the events we know via sensory experience.
2.The occurrence of any event E presupposes the operation of a substance.
3.The existence of any natural substance S at any given moment presupposes the concurrent actualization of a potency.
4.No mere potency can actualize a potency: only something actual can do so.
5.So any actualizer A of S‘s current existence must itself be actual.
6.A‘s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent acutalization of a further potency or (b) A‘s being purely actual.
7.If A‘s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of a further potency, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
8.But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a causal series ordered per se, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
9.So either A itself is purely actual or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress of concurrent actualizers.
10.So the occurrence of E and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.

Edited by ChrisGB on Thursday 17th April 15:15

[ChrisGB]

NISMOgtr said:

Moonhawk said:

Have you always been a christian - or did you lack belief and only came to christianity after working through this argument?

You can't work through the 'arguments' he has presented and come to christianity. That is impossible! a 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 diety - yeah ok then.

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.

[mattmurdock]

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.

[mattmurdock]

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.

[Moonhawk]

ChrisGB said:

1. You invented a position about science and attributed it to me, you misread another author's quote as mine, so if I am guilty of putting words in your mouth I am in good company, no? If there is not an effort at interpretation going on in answers to posts, there is little point replying. (There may indeed be little point replying). I happy to let that drop so that we can carry on what has for me been so far interesting.

I didn't invent anything - and if you are going to quote others - at least make it clear that is what you have done and which parts have actually been quoted (quotation marks, italics or other such mechanisms can be used to show this). Simply putting a thanks at the bottom of a long post doesn't tell me whether you have quoted that source - or simply made reference to it.

ChrisGB said:

2. Can you actually back up your accusation?

That you are fitting the argument or its conclusions to your beliefs - your posts are evidence enough of that. Even your use of terms is biased by your beliefs "pure act" etc. You have chosen to express your argument using terms that are defined in terms of god.

ChrisGB said:

3. In what sense is God unknowable? There is also analogy, which allows us to know what god is like. So not unknowable in the sense of our not having a clue. Nothing I have said to you suggests God is unknowable, on the contrary.

Is that not one of the central tennets of Christianity?

ChrisGB said:

4. An argument like prime mover proves something of pure actuality exists; further simple deduction shows that this is not material or subject to change. How is science going to measure attributes of the immaterial?

An argument in itself "proves" nothing.

ChrisGB said:

5. I don't understand this sentence.

You asked why other christians dont follow the same line.....it was simply a suggestion as to why.

ChrisGB said:

6. You fail to account for atheists who become theists on the basis of the argument s like prime mover that I have given.

Your argument could be interpreted as a form of indoctrination or evangelism though - so it doesn't invalidate my point. Yes some may come to the conclusion independently without having previously heard these arguments from others - but equally - how many theists lose their faith or change faith after studying alternative arguments? Just because some atheists come to similar conclusions to you - dont validate your argument.

ChrisGB said:

If your reply here means that someone accepting the argument must have been indoctrinated, then this is double standards / prejudice - why wouldn't someone accepting the arguments of scientism, say, not rather be the indoctrinated one?

I didn't say "must" - again you are putting words into my mouth. It is however a demonstrable fact that religion (especially ones like christianity) have spread far and wide due to indoctrination.

[NISMOgtr]

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.

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.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

You know you've won when he starts dissecting your grammar.

[Moonhawk]

ChrisGB said:

It's been a few pages since I spelt out the prime mover argument, so here goes again:

Short version:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about
3. No series of instrumental changes can be infinite.
4. Therefore there is an unchanged first changer in any series of instrumental changes.

1. Agreed
2. Assumption/assertion
3. Assumption/assertion
4. Assumption/assertion

ChrisGB said:

Longer version, more technical:
1.That the actualization of potency is a real feature of the world follows from the occurrence of the events we know via sensory experience.
2.The occurrence of any event E presupposes the operation of a substance.
3.The existence of any natural substance S at any given moment presupposes the concurrent actualization of a potency.
4.No mere potency can actualize a potency: only something actual can do so.
5.So any actualizer A of S‘s current existence must itself be actual.
6.A‘s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent acutalization of a further potency or (b) A‘s being purely actual.
7.If A‘s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of a further potency, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
8.But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a causal series ordered per se, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
9.So either A itself is purely actual or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress of concurrent actualizers.
10.So the occurrence of E and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.

Any chance we could have that in your own words........I wouldnt want to be accused of misinterpreting or misrepresenting a copy/pasted quote again

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6002

If you are going to quote others - a citation is usually considered good form.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 15:40

[ofcorsa]

Short version:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about
3. No series of instrumental changes can be infinite.
4. Therefore there is an unchanged first changer in any series of instrumental changes.

Surely there is another possibility for 4? In that 2 and 3 could be incorrect suppositions . A substance that always existed and changed itself perhaps?

[IainT]

ChrisGB said:

IainT said:

ChrisGB said:

theism of the sort Anthony Flew came to accept

I think it's quite likely that your chum Feser cites this chap with full knowledge that Flew's conversion was probably manufactured by those taking advantage of his illness.

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?

Hi Chris, could you link to that please? I'm only going from things I've ready on Feser's polemic rather than first-hand info. Happy to admit to being wrong on this Would it be fair to say Flew hasn't logically torn down his pro-atheistic philosophising since his conversion?

Having just skimmed through some info on Flew's conversion it's interesting that he utterly rejected the Theist view.

[DickyC]

My ambition is to buy a mid sixties Series 3 Lotus 7. A twin cam would be nice but the first 7 I went in had a 997 Anglia engine with twin SUs. That would do nicely.



There is a God.

[IainT]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

6. You fail to account for atheists who become theists on the basis of the argument s like prime mover that I have given.

Your argument could be interpreted as a form of indoctrination or evangelism though - so it doesn't invalidate my point. Yes some may come to the conclusion independently without having previously heard these arguments from others - but equally - how many theists lose their faith or change faith after studying alternative arguments? Just because some atheists come to similar conclusions to you - dont validate your argument.

If Chris was using Flew as an example of Atheist becoming Theist he's, to be generous, mistaken. Flew rejected Theism to his death in 2010.

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

It's been a few pages since I spelt out the prime mover argument, so here goes again:

Short version:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about
3. No series of instrumental changes can be infinite.
4. Therefore there is an unchanged first changer in any series of instrumental changes.

1. Agreed
2. Assumption/assertion
3. Assumption/assertion
4. Assumption/assertion

ChrisGB said:

Longer version, more technical:
1.That the actualization of potency is a real feature of the world follows from the occurrence of the events we know via sensory experience.
2.The occurrence of any event E presupposes the operation of a substance.
3.The existence of any natural substance S at any given moment presupposes the concurrent actualization of a potency.
4.No mere potency can actualize a potency: only something actual can do so.
5.So any actualizer A of S‘s current existence must itself be actual.
6.A‘s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent acutalization of a further potency or (b) A‘s being purely actual.
7.If A‘s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of a further potency, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
8.But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a causal series ordered per se, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
9.So either A itself is purely actual or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress of concurrent actualizers.
10.So the occurrence of E and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.

Any chance we could have that in your own words........I wouldnt want to be accused of misinterpreting or misrepresenting a copy/pasted quote again

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6002

If you are going to quote others - a citation is usually considered good form.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 15:40

Short version - premise 2. Show me. I explained it is logically impossible. Refute that. Give a counterexample. Otherwise this is just bluster.
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.
Conclusion 4. How does it not follow?

On the longer argument, I must have missed it in the rules that I need to give a source every time I quote it. 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.

[Moonhawk]

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?

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

1. You invented a position about science and attributed it to me, you misread another author's quote as mine, so if I am guilty of putting words in your mouth I am in good company, no? If there is not an effort at interpretation going on in answers to posts, there is little point replying. (There may indeed be little point replying). I happy to let that drop so that we can carry on what has for me been so far interesting.

I didn't invent anything - and if you are going to quote others - at least make it clear that is what you have done and which parts have actually been quoted (quotation marks, italics or other such mechanisms can be used to show this). Simply putting a thanks at the bottom of a long post doesn't tell me whether you have quoted that source - or simply made reference to it.

ChrisGB said:

2. Can you actually back up your accusation?

That you are fitting the argument or its conclusions to your beliefs - your posts are evidence enough of that. Even your use of terms is biased by your beliefs "pure act" etc. You have chosen to express your argument using terms that are defined in terms of god.

ChrisGB said:

3. In what sense is God unknowable? There is also analogy, which allows us to know what god is like. So not unknowable in the sense of our not having a clue. Nothing I have said to you suggests God is unknowable, on the contrary.

Is that not one of the central tennets of Christianity?

ChrisGB said:

4. An argument like prime mover proves something of pure actuality exists; further simple deduction shows that this is not material or subject to change. How is science going to measure attributes of the immaterial?

An argument in itself "proves" nothing.

ChrisGB said:

5. I don't understand this sentence.

You asked why other christians dont follow the same line.....it was simply a suggestion as to why.

ChrisGB said:

6. You fail to account for atheists who become theists on the basis of the argument s like prime mover that I have given.

Your argument could be interpreted as a form of indoctrination or evangelism though - so it doesn't invalidate my point. Yes some may come to the conclusion independently without having previously heard these arguments from others - but equally - how many theists lose their faith or change faith after studying alternative arguments? Just because some atheists come to similar conclusions to you - dont validate your argument.

ChrisGB said:

If your reply here means that someone accepting the argument must have been indoctrinated, then this is double standards / prejudice - why wouldn't someone accepting the arguments of scientism, say, not rather be the indoctrinated one?

5. I didn't say "must" - again you are putting words into my mouth. It is however a demonstrable fact that religion (especially ones like christianity) have spread far and wide due to indoctrination.

1. Is clearly a diversion from addressing the argument, whic you haven't done anywhere in this post, which is disappointing.
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. 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.
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.
5. What is indoctrination except a biased way of saying convincing by argument? All atheists must also be indoctrinated?

Nice that none of this deals with the argument.