Evolution Vs Creation

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ChrisGB said:

You're forgetting the impossibility of explaining the evolution of complex human artefacts like religion without using final causality.

You're forgetting that it's already been explained in this thread.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Captain Muppet said:

The science of evolution does not change if it was accurately predicted by God or not.

It's not that it's predicted. He's not guessing!!! He didn't have a fiver each way on opposable thumbs! It's that it's planned, and that does change the science. In fact, it rips up the science and bins it.

[rxtx]

ChrisGB said:

On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God

No they wouldn't, because of what "atheist" means. Even so, a lot of atheists have studied the arguments, you're talking some of them right now.

You're the one with the personal god, not me. You figure out why you believe in one god and not others, and why you think your religion is the "right" one. It's because of your parents, nothing more.

[DickyC]

I'm lost. Who was it in the long gown with the long beard who claimed he was responsible for the Fjords?

[rxtx]

Slartibartfast.

[Captain Muppet]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Captain Muppet said:

The science of evolution does not change if it was accurately predicted by God or not.

It's not that it's predicted. He's not guessing!!! He didn't have a fiver each way on opposable thumbs! It's that it's planned, and that does change the science. In fact, it rips up the science and bins it.

Which of the scientific observations is changed? It's none of them.

Philosophically the difference is huge, but if science could tell the difference between evolution and evolution-as-intended-by-god we’d already have our proof of the existence or not of God.
The fact is science can’t tell the difference. So the science of evolution is equally valid with or without the existance of a God.

[Engineer1]

Captain Muppet said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Captain Muppet said:

The science of evolution does not change if it was accurately predicted by God or not.

It's not that it's predicted. He's not guessing!!! He didn't have a fiver each way on opposable thumbs! It's that it's planned, and that does change the science. In fact, it rips up the science and bins it.

Which of the scientific observations is changed? It's none of them.

Philosophically the difference is huge, but if science could tell the difference between evolution and evolution-as-intended-by-god we’d already have our proof of the existence or not of God.
The fact is science can’t tell the difference. So the science of evolution is equally valid with or without the existance of a God.

Evolution by Natural selection stops being evolution by Natural selection if god tweaks things every so often.

[IainT]

ChrisGB said:

As scientific method only deals with the physical, there is nothing for it to do when it comes to God.

This 'god' of yours takes action in the world according to you fellow deluded - miracles are core to Catholic vajazzling. That action, on the physical would be measurable via scientific method.

[DickyC]

Philosophy. Ah, yes.

In the seventies I met a guy with a Masters Degree in Philosophy who washed up in the canteen at the Prudential in Reading. He was very philosophical about it.

[ChrisGB]

Captain Muppet said:

ChrisGB said:

Engineer1 said:

ChrisGB's God is almost indstigishable from there not being a God for all the input he has in the universe since started it, it's just Chris belives he exists.

The God of classical theism accounts for and makes possible every event, all rationality and all meaning. I guess in a fundamentalist-atheist universe none of those things matters much though?

You missed out a word. "The God of classical theism might account for and make possible every event, all rationality and all meaning." Or he might not. It might be Thor doing it. Or Odin. Or Moby, my dead cat. Or any other thing we can't provide any evidence of. Aliens maybe.

Pick the story you like the most and pretend it's that, no one will mind, just so long as you're willing to admit that when there is no proof either way you can't really be sure.

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

[mattmurdock]

Engineer1 said:

Evolution by Natural selection stops being evolution by Natural selection if god tweaks things every so often.

Exactly - that things evolve is a fact, the science of evolution is our best researched explanation as to how evolution works. That science says evolution has no fixed goal or end game, whereas evolution where every change is already known would, by definition, be evolution with a fixed goal or end game.

Ergo, if evolution is in any way predictable or deterministic, then our current science of evolution is wrong.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Engineer1 said:

Captain Muppet said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Captain Muppet said:

The science of evolution does not change if it was accurately predicted by God or not.

It's not that it's predicted. He's not guessing!!! He didn't have a fiver each way on opposable thumbs! It's that it's planned, and that does change the science. In fact, it rips up the science and bins it.

Which of the scientific observations is changed? It's none of them.

Philosophically the difference is huge, but if science could tell the difference between evolution and evolution-as-intended-by-god we’d already have our proof of the existence or not of God.
The fact is science can’t tell the difference. So the science of evolution is equally valid with or without the existance of a God.

Evolution by Natural selection stops being evolution by Natural selection if god tweaks things every so often.

Exactly right.

[ChrisGB]

Engineer1 said:

ChrisGB said:

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


And my comment stands: the implied argument is that if religion is universal, then religion is false. This is a worthless argument.

No the implied argumnet is if religion is universal but religions are indvidual and contradictory they can't all be the divine truth.

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.

[Engineer1]

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.

[IainT]

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.

[Moonhawk]

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

[mattmurdock]

ChrisGB said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moonhawk]

mattmurdock said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 17th April 10:38

[Captain Muppet]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Engineer1 said:

Captain Muppet said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Captain Muppet said:

The science of evolution does not change if it was accurately predicted by God or not.

It's not that it's predicted. He's not guessing!!! He didn't have a fiver each way on opposable thumbs! It's that it's planned, and that does change the science. In fact, it rips up the science and bins it.

Which of the scientific observations is changed? It's none of them.

Philosophically the difference is huge, but if science could tell the difference between evolution and evolution-as-intended-by-god we’d already have our proof of the existence or not of God.
The fact is science can’t tell the difference. So the science of evolution is equally valid with or without the existance of a God.

Evolution by Natural selection stops being evolution by Natural selection if god tweaks things every so often.

Exactly right.

But if god doesn't tweak things every so often but gets the desired end results just by tweaking the start conditions then the science is the same. No observable difference.

I can pot two balls off the break in pool, whether I meant to or not doesn't change the laws of motion, just how the other players feel about the game.

[DickyC]

Explain the gerkin thing to me again.