Scientific Quandary- or Logical Devil's Advocate

Post Reply New Topic

If by 'evolution' you mean 'something else (but not evolution)', then maybe.

that is what is comes down to, as many creationists (or intelligent design, whatever) also believe in microevolution or macroevolution, the 14 billions year history of the earth. But every evolutionist disagrees with every creationist (and vice versa) on that one point.

um, the NT world, i guess? from my experience, anyway. they think all this stuff is boring.

Not specifically no. I've said that one of the proposed solutions to the cosmological argument, without rejecting one of the premises, was a 0 dimensional point, and I've said that twice already. This means that this is not a simple reduction, the issue is that deities are often considered to not to be finite, but rather infinite, which likely means in this context, that they are timeless entities, and non-contingent, which means that if they exist, then they cannot *not* exist, where as the non-existence of everything else in the universe is usually considered plausible.


Umm..... let's put it this way, the purposes of the creating being do not matter, only that this being can act to create things beyond the natural level. In any case, whims don't violate the assumption of purposefulness.


Not always, no. Arguments can have superfluous aspects to their definitions, in any case, the real test here is not whether this is a valid mathematical argument, but rather whether the logic, without making large inferential leaps is validly going the direction of natural theology. And nitpicking the premises actually does nothing for the latter, which is my objective.


Shiggily, you are a f*****g b***h, and that is all I can really say about you. You claim *I* don't understand the argument when you are having problems *GRASPING THE BASIC TERMS USED*! Look, I already said, the conventional problem with the argument is premise 4, and when I say "most people" I mean that from the perspective of philosophy, not from people who are unskilled at logic, as the basic lines of the debate are going to be between philosophical naturalism, and other philosophies, with theistic ones depending upon some of the premises, while the mere refutation of naturalism basically just demands a modified premise 4, and a modified premise 6, putting forward a natural theology past the refutation of naturalism then ends up relying upon the other premises more strongly, but in any case, proofs are less necessary than attempts at induction, as very few philosophical arguments are ever considered airtight, and usually somebody finds some wiggle-room.

um, that was sort of exactly my point. circular. cyclical.

Weirdos.

the idea that species can adapt, or even diversify does not prove that life can arise spontaneously... which is the topic of the discussion.

evolution as defined by life spontaneously arising from nonlife does not co-mingle with the belief that life was created and cannot spontaneously arise.

You can believe life is created, and aspects of the larger encompassing theory of evolution, but you cannot hold both beliefs on the generation of life.

I don't think we have the final answer on evolution or the Big Bang. A few years back I read about scientists postulating that the universe would simply expand and cool until it reached 0 Kelvin (or peace in Israel, or whatever...

Part of the problem seems to be that each camp must deny the possibility that the other camp has a leg to stand on Whether creation and evolution are the final answer, I don't know. We'll eventually have more answers, but one thing about being an old f%^t, you see a lot of 'accepted wisdom' on both sides eventually proved wrong over time.

why is it that so many people assume time is linear, just because when they imagine a beginning they look (mentally) behind themselves stretching back into the past, and when they imagine an end they look forward (mentally) along that same line, stretching out ahead.....but what if that line were an arc? a curve that disappeared in the distance to reappear behind you at the beginning again? and so on, and so on? why is this so hard to accept as a possibility? why the preference of straight to curved?

no s***, eh?

based on the way the argument failed to define irreducible complexity, premise 4 could or could not be faulty. I can see how if the definition were tied into the concept that it would violate natural laws to occur (as some people (ID) define it), then yes I would have issue with premise 4. Based on the definition I pulled from an evolutionary website, I see no issue with premise 4.
the rest of this is over-emotional diarrhea.

Because I do not view the universe as a Mobius strip. How did this loop come to be?

I am not sure I see circular reasoning as valid.

I don't see time as linear.

Well, to be honest, I was using the latter definition, and given that you *knew* there were 2 definitions, I don't see how it would be necessary for me to distinguish if you are capable of pulling off the counter-factuals.

No, not really, you actually *are* a b***h, so the reaction isn't over-emotional, but rather the proper reaction to your behavior.