Evolution?

[Rough_ER]

But that is not the argument being made. Rather, it is argued that beginnings are caused, and that if one posits a beginning to nature and the cosmos as a whole, then this First Cause must by definition be preternatural and ineffable. I am aware of but two meaningful counter-arguments:

1. There are potential mathematically coherent theories (e.g., M-Theory) in which there is no First Cause, thereby rendering first cause arguments moot.
2. Furthermore, even if one were to accept the possibility of a first cause, there are no grounds for extrapolating from this cause the sense of agency and intentionality.

In my opinion both of these are significant arguments which acknowledge the limitations of methodological naturalism and respect the implications of both ineffability and Gödel's insight.

Good post, now I understand. Was that so hard? There was no need to be mean. =P

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay has not yet stated which of the camps he is in.

Would you mind defining the opposing 'camps' for me?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good post, now I understand. Was that so hard? There was no need to be mean. =P

Yet someone simply defining God as "preternatural", and stating that because of this definition requires no explanation, is using solid, mature logic?

Drop the disingenuous hypocrisy ... :slap:

 

[Rough_ER]

​

Drop the disingenuous hypocrisy ... :slap:

Isn't is sad when horrible little old men have to bully young, inquisitive students on forums to make themselves feel big?

Sure is.

 

[Magic Man]

That is a remarkably stupid statement amounting to little more than a childish instance of circular reasoning.

Thanks for the input, even though it means less than nothing coming from you. It would be quite entertatining to see you try to back that up, but I know that's not your style. You'd rather just hurl insults and hide behind your "donor" status, then engage in any kind of real discussion. It must be fun living in your world, but I'll stick with reality.

 

[Magic Man]

Jay seems to have to go through a...what should we call it... a break in period (for my lack of a better phrase) before he can get into actually explaining things.

However, though it is often times frustrating, if you can wait out said breaking in period, he usually has a valid point.

I've rarely seen a valid point from him. It happens occasionally, but usually it's either nitpicking or he's just completely wrong. And regardless, there should be no "breaking in period". If he has a valid point, all he has to do is say it. Since he usually doesn't, he'd just rather insult people to stroke his own ego.

 

[Magic Man]

But that is not the argument being made. Rather, it is argued that beginnings are caused, and that if one posits a beginning to nature and the cosmos as a whole, then this First Cause must by definition be preternatural and ineffable. I am aware of but two meaningful counter-arguments:

1. There are potential mathematically coherent theories (e.g., M-Theory) in which there is no First Cause, thereby rendering first cause arguments moot.
2. Furthermore, even if one were to accept the possibility of a first cause, there are no grounds for extrapolating from this cause the sense of agency and intentionality.

In my opinion both of these are significant arguments which acknowledge the limitations of methodological naturalism and respect the implications of both ineffability and Gödel's insight.

Well, I was right. This was entertaining. Quite a bit off the mark, but nice try, at least. I'm sure it at least made you feel cool to be able to use so many big words, but you're trying too hard. The argument is that everything has to be created except God. There is no real reason given for why God doesn't have to be created, though. Therefore there's no reason to assume that God didn't have to be created while the universe did.

 

[Magic Man]

Isn't is sad when horrible little old men have to bully young, inquisitive students on forums to make themselves feel big?

Sure is.

It's even sadder when they are immune to the normal laws of the place because they're a long-time member and donor.

 

[Alceste]

Rubbish.

:biglaugh:

Oh, Jay, you are the most predictable person on earth.

 

[Alceste]

It's even sadder when they are immune to the normal laws of the place because they're a long-time member and donor.

I think his posts are actually written by a viral chat 'bot. I don't think he's a real person. He's like jabberwacky with a migraine.

 

[Valjean]

He just has little patience with poor reasoning or lack of evidence. True, he's rather curt and dismissive.
I suspect he thinks it a waste of time trying to bring non-intellectuals or the uninformed up to speed.

If you do manage to draw him into discussion, though, he's usually brilliant and offers fascinating insight and analysis. I find his links excellent as well -- informative and thought-provoking.

 

[painted wolf]

Not to mention zero patience for people who whinge about his being 'mean'.
He is often curt and dismissive of arguments people use rather than people themselves.

It never hurts to look at what you have said and see if there is a better or more logical way to rephrase it. Or to have to justify what you have held up as 'simple logic'... (because "simple logic" rarely is)

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, Jay, you are the most predictable person on earth.

And you have the best avatar. :yes:

 

[logician]

But most cosmological theories are now indicating matter and energy have always existed, i.e. "something" has always existed, making any creation events moot. You can have your gods if you want them, but the multiverse didn't need one.

 

[rojse]

They have nothing better to say. Ever tried debating with Jay?

Jayhawker Soule says more in a single sentence than most posters do in an entire post.

Jayhawker Soule explains his reasons if you ask him nicely, and will refer you to a book or website if required.

 

[rojse]

I've rarely seen a valid point from him. It happens occasionally, but usually it's either nitpicking or he's just completely wrong. And regardless, there should be no "breaking in period". If he has a valid point, all he has to do is say it. Since he usually doesn't, he'd just rather insult people to stroke his own ego.

Are we talking about the same Jayhawker Soule here?

 

[Alceste]

Everybody thinks so except creationists

Not to be a pain... but I don't think so.

not always... one could think of 'god' as "co-existant" with the universe.

wa:do

Does a 'god' that is thought to be 'co-existent' with the universe qualify as a creator god? If so, and if that's what you believe in, you'd be a creationist wouldn't you? And you'd then be covered by the "except"?

 

[Alceste]

And you have the best avatar. :yes:

Aw, shucks. :flirt:

 

[DarkSun]

But before He created Himself He would not have existed, there would have been no "He" to create Himself.
now I'm confusing myself...:sarcastic

Maybe He's so awesome that he was non-existent and He created Himself at the same time? Omnipotence literally means the ability to do anything, so... It doesn't matter whether you think He could do it. Maybe He just did.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But most cosmological theories are now indicating matter and energy have always existed, ...

And most religious theories are now indicating that God is great. What unites these theories is the absence of intersubjective verifiability. It would be better and, perhaps, more honest to use the term 'positing' rather than 'indicating' and while [one of] these theories may potentially undermine first-cause arguments, it is only a potential at his time.

Furthermore, as has been said ad nauseum, the existence or non-existence of a first cause says little about evolution.