Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[rusra02]

I think evolution has a huge amount of evidence. The fact that some people believe scientists without spending their lives digesting thousands of technical papers in no way reflects on science or scientists that do the work. The evidence that the scientific method is reliable is in evidence all around us...it permeates our lives.

What of scientists who reject the ToE based on the available evidence? Those who find unconvincing the technical papers that seek to prove this theory? Those who publish material that presents evidence for an intelligent Designer?
I agree with this quote from w6/04: "Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24) It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. The psalmist wrote: “The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”—Psalm 10:4."

 

[Etritonakin]

The force may cause on and off states. Multiple configurations of states would evolve in various arrangements. Meaning, the states evolve not the initial force. The first cause/force exerts an influence but doesn't evolve since its not subject to (physical) causation.

That sounds logical.

 

[psychoslice]

I do not believe that. I believe everyone knows truths everyone else does not.... including me -but also that the truth is greater than all we all know.

I believe that God has the truth -and reveals it as he wills.

Some can know things others do not -that is the nature of individual perspectives.

I know I could learn much from everyone -so I consider as much as possible.

Yes truth isn't someone we know, its what we are and everything else, we can experience truth, we can love truth, but we cannot conceptualize it, it is not found in any scriptures, scripture can only point to truth, and here we are all fighting over who has the truth lol.

 

[Whiterain]

So i'm trying to perceive the force behind reality as we see it as sentient, or as the contemporary idea of this super deity.

However, "life" seems to be various "forces," like symmetrical and non-symmetrical, and they clash. But the nature of life is brutal, which tickles me... Everything is weaponized, savage, even incredibly terrifying. There are fewer silly friendly creatures like seals and walruses. When I saw walruses thats when I thought mammals were stupid.

But the force of nature and "creation" or "life" isn't a single sentient force it is a series of reactions. Creation is a reaction to a variable situation, but may be engineered, as Mankind can and may in the future.

:O

 

[viole]

Infinite regress is based on the principal that all items have to be finite and caused (with no exception) but to the contrary, it uses infinite causeless process (with no beginning) to prove that all items are finite /caused. I

And the logical contradiction with this is....?

Suppose I tell you that a certain hypothetical Universe contains only one object X. And things are caused by other things that vanish after the causation.

1) X has been caused by X1 (after that, X1 vanishes)
2) X1 has been caused by X2 (after that, X2 vanishes)
3) X2 has been caused by X3 (after that, X3 vanishes)
.....ad infinitum

And all X and Xn are different.

What is inherently contradictory or impossible with that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Whiterain]

That bit about symmetric and unsymmetrical life is on point though. That's a real penile observation of nature. It's been said before though.

 

[NoorNoor]

And the logical contradiction with this is....?

Suppose I tell you that a certain hypothetical Universe contains only one object X. And things are caused by other things that vanish after the causation.

1) X has been caused by X1 (after that, X1 vanishes)
2) X1 has been caused by X2 (after that, X2 vanishes)
3) X2 has been caused by X3 (after that, X3 vanishes)
.....ad infinitum

And all X and Xn are different.

What is inherently contradictory or impossible with that?

Ciao

- viole

Your hypothesis entails that all X are contingent. All X were necessarily nonbeing at a point. Non of X accounts for its own existence (dependent on a cause). If all X in the chain are contingent (no exception), then the entire chain itself is necessarily contingent and can not account for its own existence.

the entire contingent X chain necessarily depends on non-contingent being to cause its existence. If all X are contingent and needs a cause, then nothing would have existed in absence of a non-contingent cause.

 

[Sapiens]

What of scientists who reject the ToE based on the available evidence?

They are simply and demonstrably wrong. They are poor scientists at best and abject fools at worst.

Those who find unconvincing the technical papers that seek to prove this theory? Those who publish material that presents evidence for an intelligent Designer?

What evidence for an intelligent Designer is there anyway?

I agree with this quote from w6/04: "Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24)

... of more likely does not exist.

It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.

That is just your unsupported (and I'd maintain unsupportable) opinion.

Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’”

He was an interesting entomologist but evidently a rather poor theorist. When all the available data indicates that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature’ and no data indicates otherwise, it is the height of arrogance to cleave to the bloviations of faith based unreason in place of rational discovery.

I'd bet that one could find way more preachers, priests, etc., who support evolution than one can find people who hide behind the title "Scientist" and yet support IDism.

So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. The psalmist wrote: “The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”—Psalm 10:4."

Yes ... but the search has been made, and while it is impossible to guarantee that god is not hiding under the next rock that will be turned over, it can be safely observed that he, she, or it has yet to appear from under any that have been so far examined.

 

[viole]

Your hypothesis entails that all X are contingent. All X were necessarily nonbeing at a point. Non of X accounts for its own existence (dependent on a cause). If all X in the chain are contingent (no exception), then the entire chain itself is necessarily contingent and can not account for its own existence.

the entire contingent X chain necessarily depends on non-contingent being to cause its existence. If all X are contingent and needs a cause, then nothing would have existed in absence of a non-contingent cause.

You naughty boy

You introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) as if it is assumed to be true. I agree, that my example would be challenging to justify, if the PSR is true. But there is no conclusive philosophical nor logical evidence that the PSR is necessarily true. Personally, I see no logical contradictions that arise from its negation. On the contrary, I see a few logical problems with it. And this is why I was talking of the possibility of brute facts (like the chain) that do not need to account for their own existence, while being non necessary.

Ergo, your criticism of my example relies heavily on a hypothesis that is still controversial, to put it mildly, and fails therefore to show logical contradictions that would make it impossible. Unless, of course, you are able to show me that negating the PSR would lead to absurd conclusions. Good luck with that

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

Accusing opponents of evolution of being "dishonest" seems to be a standard propaganda tactic for some evolution apologists. The claimed mechanisms for evolution (macro evolution) are woefully inadequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life, IMO. Consider what the following reveals about mutations; "The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, [scientist Wolf-Ekkehard] Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”" (g9/06)
With scientific evidence mounting that macro evolution is not factual, many evolutionists seem unwilling to accept the evidence, and instead attack anyone who dares raise doubts about the theory.

 

[Etritonakin]

What of scientists who reject the ToE based on the available evidence? Those who find unconvincing the technical papers that seek to prove this theory? Those who publish material that presents evidence for an intelligent Designer?
I agree with this quote from w6/04: "Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24) It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. The psalmist wrote: “The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”—Psalm 10:4."

Not sure what you meant there, but...
If the wicked one makes no search for the existence of God, then -by that logic -it is good to make a search for God -and his existence can be subject to scrutiny.
It is also true that not all scientific scrutiny need be direct.
It is not that God cannot be proven scientifically and logically -as -given enough evidence -his existence would stand to scientific scrutiny, but that a complete understanding of God would require a complete understanding of everything.
Similarly, the "super"natural is not unnatural -it is beyond our present ability and understanding.
The miraculous is not actually contrary to the laws of nature -but is from that which caused those laws to be in force in the first place -and is also able to alter that logic from a higher level of logic, as it were.
We are subject to the laws of nature (and we can make them subject to us somewhat by will), but the laws of nature are subject to something else.
The fact that the laws of nature (those which came to exist by the singularity we call the big bang) once did not exist is evidence that they are not absolute.
However, that is not to say there is nothing absolute.

God is not limited to any specific body within the creation -and producing God in any sort of body for scrutiny would not be sufficient proof. It is important to consider which of the aspects of "God" you are trying to prove -and prove them individually.
What would it take to "prove" that "God" exists? How can it be determined that God planned and executed the universe? How can it be determined that there is none else?
How can one prove a God who -for the time being -keeps himself unknown to many by choice?
By understanding the most basic aspects of nature -including that which preceded the big bang -it could be determined what required forethought/creativity.
Considering the overall state of humanity and the universe can also reveal the nature of that which is not readily apparent -just as the general shape and content of a puzzle piece may be known without the piece -but much of the proofs of God will come by experience and direct involvement by God.

I was just thinking about how alchemy was once believed possible -then it was ridiculed as being against the laws of nature -and now that we have made the laws of nature more subject to us, transmutation of elements apparently happens quite often.

(from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-lead-can-be-turned-into-gold/)

"With the dawn of the atomic age in the 20th century, however, the transmutation of elements finally became possible. Nowadays nuclear physicists routinely transform one element to another. In commercial nuclear reactors, uranium atoms break apart to yield smaller nuclei of elements such as xenon and strontium as well as heat that can be harnessed to generate electricity. In experimental fusion reactors heavy isotopes of hydrogen merge together to form helium. (An element is defined by the number of protons in its nucleus whereas an isotope of a given element is determined by the quantity of neutrons.)
But what of the fabled transmutation of lead to gold? It is indeed possible—all you need is a particle accelerator, a vast supply of energy and an extremely low expectation of how much gold you will end up with. More than 30 years ago nuclear scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California succeeded in producing very small amounts of gold from bismuth, a metallic element adjacent to lead on the periodic table. The same process would work for lead, but isolating the gold at the end of the reaction would prove much more difficult, says David J. Morrissey, now of Michigan State University, one of the scientists who conducted the research. “We could have used lead in the experiments, but we used bismuth because it has only one stable isotope,” Morrissey says. The element’s homogeneous nature means it is easier to separate gold from bismuth than it is to separate gold from lead, which has four stable isotopic identities."

Post 930 is awesome -have to check that out.

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

 

[Sapiens]

Accusing opponents of evolution of being "dishonest" seems to be a standard propaganda tactic for some evolution apologists.

It is hardly a tactic, it is simply the truth.

Denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, even when based on a disability such as the lack of sufficient background to interpret the evidence, is, never-the-less, still dishonest.

The claimed mechanisms for evolution (macro evolution) are woefully inadequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life, IMO.

That is simply false. BTW, what credentials do you support that suggest anyone take your opinion, in the absence of any facts, seriously?

Consider what the following reveals about mutations; "The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, [scientist Wolf-Ekkehard] Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”" (g9/06)

More dishonesty on your part.

Most of your post is plagiarized from a Jehovah's Witness site. That clearly reveals the bias you were attempting to hide. As to it's content, The National Center for Science Education notes:

"In their first opus, entitled Hat die Bibel doch recht? Der Evolutionstheorie fehlen die Beweise (Is the Bible Right? There is No Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, 1998), the main actor is Scherer, who is supported by the geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, and claims that "there is no evidence for macroevolution". Charles Darwin and Ernst Haeckel are described as the spiritual fathers of the Nazi Holocaust; this episode is accompanied by moving scenes showing Jews in concentration camps. At the end of the film, a Bible appears and the narrator remarks: "There is a book wherein the origin of species is reliably described … all living beings were created according to their own kind." More than 50 000 copies of this award-winning film were sold. An enthusiastic laudatio, authored by John C Lennox of Oxford University, is published on the internet. Videotape and DVD versions are available in German, English, Russian, and Persian. The implicit claim of this and other German anti-evolution films is that Darwinism — "a pseudo-scientific construction" — is largely equivalent to "atheism, materialism, and Hitler's Nazi ideology" (see http://www.dreilindenfilm.de)."

With scientific evidence mounting that macro evolution is not factual, many evolutionists seem unwilling to accept the evidence, and instead attack anyone who dares raise doubts about the theory.

That is a blatant lie. The mounting scientific evidence, much of it genetic, wholeheartedly supports Darwinian evolution. I'd love to see a new argument that might raise doubts about the TOE, unfortunately all I see is the same old tired retread augments that have been dealt with over, and over, and over and over again.

 

[Milton Platt]

What of scientists who reject the ToE based on the available evidence? Those who find unconvincing the technical papers that seek to prove this theory? Those who publish material that presents evidence for an intelligent Designer?
I agree with this quote from w6/04: "Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24) It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. The psalmist wrote: “The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”—Psalm 10:4."

Why go with the outliers??? What papers have they published, or research done to establish another theory that comprehensively include all of the available evidence, including geological, paleological, biological, etc.? The vast majority of scientists agree on the theory of evolution, even if they may disagree on some of the details from time to time. When they can provide evidence that shows that nature does not conform to the laws of nature (an absurd statement), then maybe they will have something.

 

[NoorNoor]

You introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) as if it is assumed to be true

I didn't introduce the PSR as true, your example did. The PSR simply requires that for every fact X , there must be an explanation/cause why X is the case. Your hypothesis necessitated that the PSR is true. If X is a fact, your example demands/provides an explanation for every X (with no exception). your example doesn't allow a single brute unexplainable fact in the sense that no X can appear without being caused by the preceding X.

I agree, that my example would be challenging to justify, if the PSR is true. But there is no conclusive philosophical nor logical evidence that the PSR is necessarily true.

The PSR is necessarily true within your example. your example confirms the PSR and refutes itself

And this is why I was talking of the possibility of brute facts (like the chain) that do not need to account for their own existence, while being non necessary

your example acknowledges the principal that no single X can appear without a cause (the preceding X) but it contradicts that principal by accepting the appearance of an entire chain (that can't account for its own existence) as an unexplainable fact.

Ergo, your criticism of my example relies heavily on a hypothesis that is still controversial, to put it mildly, and fails therefore to show logical contradictions that would make it impossible. Unless, of course, you are able to show me that negating the PSR would lead to absurd conclusions. Good luck with that

of course, negating the PSR would lead to absurd conclusions. The PSR requires an explanation/cause for every fact. Imagine a world where no fact needs an explanation (cause). Lets assume a fact that your car has some problems, then the mechanic entirely removes both the engine and transmission, he gives you the key, now you go home happy. The car runs perfectly (there is even no reason to pay for the service). No explanation /cause necessary. wouldn't that be absurd?

Again, if you accept causality as a scientific fact (in our physical realm) and causeless facts in principal, in your specific view, how can both be true?

 

[viole]

I didn't introduce the PSR as true, your example did. The PSR simply requires that for every fact X , there must be an explanation/cause why X is the case. Your hypothesis necessitated that the PSR is true. If X is a fact, your example demands/provides an explanation for every X (with no exception). your example doesn't allow a single brute unexplainable fact in the sense that no X can appear without being caused by the preceding X.

The PSR is necessarily true within your example. your example confirms the PSR and refutes itself

your example acknowledges the principal that no single X can appear without a cause (the preceding X) but it contradicts that principal by accepting the appearance of an entire chain (that can't account for its own existence) as an unexplainable fact.

I don't think so. If, as you correctly said, the PSR simply requires that for every fact X, there must an explanation/cause why X is the case, then it is your complain that the appearance of the entire chain can't account for its existence, that assumes PSR true. Surely not me, for I declare the existence of that chain as a brute fact that does not require any explanation or account for its existence (against PSR).

Actually, Leibnitz elevated the PSR to axiom, or self evident truth, exactly in order to avoid the problem of infinite series and make his case for the existence of a necessary uncaused cause.

of course, negating the PSR would lead to absurd conclusions. The PSR requires an explanation/cause for every fact. Imagine a world where no fact needs an explanation (cause). Lets assume a fact that your car has some problems, then the mechanic entirely removes both the engine and transmission, he gives you the key, now you go home happy. The car runs perfectly (there is even no reason to pay for the service). No explanation /cause necessary. wouldn't that be absurd?

There is a difference between "no facts need an explanation" and "it is possible for facts to have no explanations". Negating the PSR entails the latter, not the former. So, your rebuttal is a non sequitur.

Incidentally, the empirical, intuitive, and inductive realization that everything that happens in this Universe has an explanation, does not entail that the Universe, for instance, is subject to the same rules, unless we are ready to deploy the composition fallacy. It would be like saying that humanity has a mother, because all humans have mothers. So, in order to make this inference (that the Universe has an explanation, too), you need the PSR crucially. Otherwise, I could simply say that while all things in it have an explanation, the Universe itself is a brute fact, like my chain, and we would be on square one.

And no, if it is possible for facts to be brute facts without explanation, then that possibility does not lead to any absurdity we are aware of. How do I know? If it did, the subject of PSR would not be so fiercely debated in phylosophical circles.

If you are interested, the main "problem" with the PSR, at the moment, is that it seems to entail that everything is necessary and nothing is contingent. In other words, that things cannot possibly be different from the way they are. That is not an absurdity per se, but it seems to collide with our intuition that things could be different from the way they are.

Again, if you accept causality as a scientific fact (in our physical realm) and causeless facts in principal, in your specific view, how can both be true?

I told you. i do not accept causality, and I do not exactly because of fundamental physics. But that is a completely different discussion. Here I make the assumption that causality is metaphisically real and play by that rule.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

I don't think so. If, as you correctly said, the PSR simply requires that for every fact X, there must an explanation/cause why X is the case, then it is your complain that the appearance of the entire chain can't account for its existence, that assumes PSR true. Surely not me, for I declare the existence of that chain as a brute fact that does not require any explanation or account for its existence (against PSR).

Actually, Leibnitz elevated the PSR to axiom, or self evident truth, exactly in order to avoid the problem of infinite series and make his case for the existence of a necessary uncaused cause.

Its true that the PSR requires explanation for every fact but its also true that the existence of a self-necessitated Being (God) is among the consequences of the PSR. You have a tendency to keep moving the goalpost. I am not concerned about arguing the PSR but simply arguing your example based on mere logic regardless of any overlaps of that logic with the PSR or your assumption that I am introducing the PSR.

Your declaration of the chain as a brute fact is illogical and against the PSR not because of the unavoidable need of a brute fact but because the sum of contingent entities don't equal non-contingent entity. If all entities are contingent (doesn't account for its own existence), then the entire chain depends on an external non-contingent cause.

There is a difference between "no facts need an explanation" and "it is possible for facts to have no explanations". Negating the PSR entails the latter, not the former. So, your rebuttal is a non sequitur

No, again self-necessitated causeless Being is among the consequences of the PSR. I assume you agree with that.

Incidentally, the empirical, intuitive, and inductive realization that everything that happens in this Universe has an explanation, does not entail that the Universe, for instance, is subject to the same rules, unless we are ready to deploy the composition fallacy.

No, there is a difference between the entire universe and the entire absolute existence. If every thing in the universe needs an explanation (doesn't account for its own existence) then the entire universe doesn't account for its own existence but what is causeless is the entire absolute existence.

It would be like saying that humanity has a mother, because all humans have mothers. So, in order to make this inference (that the Universe has an explanation, too), you need the PSR crucially. Otherwise, I could simply say that while all things in it have an explanation, the Universe itself is a brute fact, like my chain, and we would be on square one.

We need to understand the realm of every rule otherwise we would be making misleading overlaps on areas beyond its validity. If all parts of a car are caused then the entire car is caused. It's a rule. This rule only stops to be true beyond the physical realm.

All physical contingent entities have causes, we do need the non-contingent but it's not the sum of the contingent. Its an external non contingent entity. The PSR concludes the same. But again, argument about the PSR is a shift of the goalpost.

If you are interested, the main "problem" with the PSR, at the moment, is that it seems to entail that everything is necessary and nothing is contingent. In other words, that things cannot possibly be different from the way they are. That is not an absurdity per se, but it seems to collide with our intuition that things could be different from the way they are.

everything is necessary only in the the sense that the causeless first cause can't be altered but beyond that principal, all caused, contingent entities are not necessary and can be altered.

I told you. i do not accept causality, and I do not exactly because of fundamental physics. But that is a completely different discussion. Here I make the assumption that causality is metaphisically real and play by that rule.

You agreed with the fact that causality is true in our observed physical realm as confirmed by classical physics and the general relativity. You also agreed that in principal facts are causeless. If that is established, then let's not run in circles and keep shifting the goalpost. How can both be true.

 

[viole]

Its true that the PSR requires explanation for every fact but its also true that the existence of a self-necessitated Being (God) is among the consequences of the PSR. You have a tendency to keep moving the goalpost. I am not concerned about arguing the PSR but simply arguing your example based on mere logic regardless of any overlaps of that logic with the PSR or your assumption that I am introducing the PSR.

Your declaration of the chain as a brute fact is illogical and against the PSR not because of the unavoidable need of a brute fact but because the sum of contingent entities don't equal non-contingent entity. If all entities are contingent (doesn't account for its own existence), then the entire chain depends on an external non-contingent cause.



No, again self-necessitated causeless Being is among the consequences of the PSR. I assume you agree with that.



No, there is a difference between the entire universe and the entire absolute existence. If every thing in the universe needs an explanation (doesn't account for its own existence) then the entire universe doesn't account for its own existence but what is causeless is the entire absolute existence.



We need to understand the realm of every rule otherwise we would be making misleading overlaps on areas beyond its validity. If all parts of a car are caused then the entire car is caused. It's a rule. This rule only stops to be true beyond the physical realm.

All physical contingent entities have causes, we do need the non-contingent but it's not the sum of the contingent. Its an external non contingent entity. The PSR concludes the same. But again, argument about the PSR is a shift of the goalpost.



everything is necessary only in the the sense that the causeless first cause can't be altered but beyond that principal, all caused, contingent entities are not necessary and can be altered.



You agreed with the fact that causality is true in our observed physical realm as confirmed by classical physics and the general relativity. You also agreed that in principal facts are causeless. If that is established, then let's not run in circles and keep shifting the goalpost. How can both be true.

Yet, after this nice discussion, I still do not see any logical rebuttal of my infinite regress example that does not strongly assume the PSR in its premises.

So, again, if we do not assume the PSR true, ergo we do not assume that everything needs to be accounted for, what arguments can you show me that my chain is impossible? Until now, your rebuttal is limited to the chain not be able to account for itself. But this defense is not legal, if PSR is not assumed true.

Once we get over this, you will have completed, if you are lucky, the first few centimeters of the marathon that will lead to a justification of the particular version of God you beleve in

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes truth isn't someone we know, its what we are and everything else, we can experience truth, we can love truth, but we cannot conceptualize it, it is not found in any scriptures, scripture can only point to truth, and here we are all fighting over who has the truth lol.

The truth is all that has ever been -how it all interrelates -and how it (including ourselves by decision) all should interrelate to cause an acceptable and wonderful future.
Human writings can contain observed truth and perceived or intentional falsehood - but true scripture is from the source.

We understand that we -as individuals -are able to say "I AM" -but we need to realize that "everything" was first able to say "I AM" -and that the overall "I AM" is able to express things to us -and conceal them from us -as desired.

 

[psychoslice]

The truth is all that has ever been -how it all interrelates -and how it (including ourselves by decision) all should interrelate to cause an acceptable and wonderful future.
Human writings can contain observed truth and perceived or intentional falsehood - but true scripture is from the source.

We understand that we -as individuals -are able to say "I AM" -but we need to realize that "everything" was first able to say "I AM" -and that the overall "I AM" is able to express things to us -and conceal them from us -as desired.

No, I don't agree with you, you are making something that is natural and easy complicated, its that simple.

 

[rusra02]

It is hardly a tactic, it is simply the truth.

Denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, even when based on a disability such as the lack of sufficient background to interpret the evidence, is, never-the-less, still dishonest.
That is simply false. BTW, what credentials do you support that suggest anyone take your opinion, in the absence of any facts, seriously?

More dishonesty on your part.

Most of your post is plagiarized from a Jehovah's Witness site. That clearly reveals the bias you were attempting to hide. As to it's content, The National Center for Science Education notes:

"In their first opus, entitled Hat die Bibel doch recht? Der Evolutionstheorie fehlen die Beweise (Is the Bible Right? There is No Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, 1998), the main actor is Scherer, who is supported by the geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, and claims that "there is no evidence for macroevolution". Charles Darwin and Ernst Haeckel are described as the spiritual fathers of the Nazi Holocaust; this episode is accompanied by moving scenes showing Jews in concentration camps. At the end of the film, a Bible appears and the narrator remarks: "There is a book wherein the origin of species is reliably described … all living beings were created according to their own kind." More than 50 000 copies of this award-winning film were sold. An enthusiastic laudatio, authored by John C Lennox of Oxford University, is published on the internet. Videotape and DVD versions are available in German, English, Russian, and Persian. The implicit claim of this and other German anti-evolution films is that Darwinism — "a pseudo-scientific construction" — is largely equivalent to "atheism, materialism, and Hitler's Nazi ideology" (see http://www.dreilindenfilm.de)."
That is a blatant lie. The mounting scientific evidence, much of it genetic, wholeheartedly supports Darwinian evolution. I'd love to see a new argument that might raise doubts about the TOE, unfortunately all I see is the same old tired retread augments that have been dealt with over, and over, and over and over again.

Like I said, evolutionist propagandists attack people, calling them liars, rather than address the evidence that proves macroevolution is simply false. For example, your claim I "plagiarized" my post. I was, in fact, quoting from the reference in the post, labeled (g9/06) Then, rather then address Lonnig's evidence, you seek to redirect from the evidence that he presented. Who is really being dishonest here?