Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
pbee
Member (Idle past 6027 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 31 of 297 (416343)
08-15-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Phat
08-15-2007 9:10 AM


Re: Original Thoughts
quote:
So the uncaused first cause assertion has no evidence, eh? Poor God!
Can this even be classified as coherent? The rest of your comment is residual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 08-15-2007 9:10 AM Phat has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 32 of 297 (416358)
08-15-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mark24
08-15-2007 3:51 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
Yes, that's right. Otherwise I have to accept all gods & goddesses regardles of whether they are mutually contradictory, or not.
No you don't... that's where logic comes in thank you very much...
A logically contradictory statement cannot be true. That is logic. It's the law of non-contradiction. And everyone believes in it.
So when other religion's great philosophers and expounders, trip all over themselves with logical contradiction upon logical contradiction, we can be certain they are false.
You keep saying that I am illogical. You even said that anyone can peruse my posts. Yet you give not one example in this thread mark24...
mark24:
None of your posts have provided evidence for your position. The EVIDENCE is your previous posts available for the perusal of all, ergo, my statement is an assertion with an evidential basis. You should try it.
And that is where you are wrong... You don't understand philosophy. Truth is essentially the quality of our propositions.
My evidence is in the revealed Word itself (the law of non-contradiction / logic). Because I am being logical (philosophically coherent) then my philosophical construct must be true.
If the evidence of contradiction is in my posts, then provide that evidence and I will be happy to retract it.
I think you have bought into a philosophical contradiction. And it began in earnest with a man named David Hume back in the 18th century. It was at about this time that science began to be defined as seperate from philosophy. And it took a clever sophist named Hume to do it. But it is what people wanted to believe (as you accuse me of being).
Let's examine Humes mind shall we? And I'll show you how to give evidence of logical contradiction.
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)
Hume's statement is a violent contradiction because His own statement (a baseless assertion) does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence.
How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless?
You see mark? Hume was a philosopher, as are you, as are we all.
There is no dichotomy between science and philosophy. To say so, or otherwise, is ultimately a philsophical construct. And philosophy is really just our religion, specifically the theoretical theology we use to explain it.
mark24:
Rob mate, you're a waste of time, & you have the balls to tell me how important logic is. Embarrassing.
Well mark, I am joyful that I do not feel the frustration that you do. I don't think your a waste of time at all. We've actually a great deal to discuss if you'll stay calm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 3:51 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 11:44 AM Rob has replied
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 1:51 PM Rob has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 33 of 297 (416361)
08-15-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rob
08-15-2007 11:07 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob's link writes:
..for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
These particular words you quote, dispose of what epistemology tells us. Many positivists simply don't adhere to the fact that TRUTH exists beyond the empirically tangible, and/or without it.
Many discoveries of knowledge preceded science.
The cavemen had internal truth when they found that they enjoyed certain activities. This is subjective truth, but truth is all elemental. An objective truth is not worth more than a subjective truth. This is why the likes of this Hume-guy, disregard philosophy, but science only works because of the philosophies of epistemology and logic.
This is why I see such statements as arrogant, because what we don't know is so prolific that we can not conclude anything about the whole universe, and it's full reality, from but a small measure of knowledge found scientifically.
We have logic and epistemology as the base, then science, and what it can tell us, and then worldviews, which are guesswork.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 11:07 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 1:14 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 36 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 1:50 PM mike the wiz has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 34 of 297 (416371)
08-15-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)
mike the wiz:
"..for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
These particular words you quote, dispose of what epistemology tells us.
Yes, and that is the contradiction.
In his book 'Miracles', C.S. Lewis lays some important groundwork before moving on in defense of the 'miraculous'. In Chapter 3, 'The Cardianl Difficulty of Naturalism' he marvelously captures this problem. One cannot give a quote and do justice a whole chapter, but here is one way he puts it on pages 21 and 22:
"...Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true.
It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained eveything else in the whole universe but which made it imposssible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. it would have destroyed it's own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound-a proof that there are no such thing as proofs-which is nonsense."
mike the wiz:
positivists simply don't adhere to the fact that TRUTH exists beyond the empirically tangible, and/or without it.
I know... but how do you prove that emperically? It is an act of faith (as the Davies quote below will show).
The term 'positivists' is new to me, but the point is...that their's is a philosophical position. Their philosophy is not based on any material proof (no philosophy is), but on the validity of reason and logic. It is an assumption, that a contradiction must be false.
So, as Lewis, myself, you, and many others have shown over and over again... there is ultimately nothing emperical about 'empericism' other than it's correct inference to logic (ie. philosophical coherence).
But the funny thing is... 'philosophical coherence' is not what they claim 'empericism' to be. 'It is not philosophy', they say, 'it is real and hard evidence'. And that is what a baseless assertion is for the mark24's among us... On what can they base that claim?
So... as Paul Daives has said,
"“The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.
That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”
mike the wiz:
This is why the likes of this Hume-guy, disregard philosophy, but science only works because of the philosophies of epistemology and logic.
Exactly!
And the sad part is... Hume was a philosopher. And so modern science's claim to fame, the almighty and emperical fact that is superior and utterly removed from philsophical bias' was given birth to by philosophers.
They have raised this image, and given it the ability to speak. And a great number of millions follow and marvel at it...
mike the wiz:
We have logic and epistemology as the base, then science, and what it can tell us, and then worldviews, which are guesswork.
I would state it differently...
If our worldview is not logical, then it is a false philosophical construct which is our worldview (philosophy), and attempts to combine the different disciplines into a coherent portrait of God (reality).
What I think you and I understand, is that God reveals Himself through logical and coherent reasoning. And that is the Word. And that is what we all use to relay these things. So as soon as you speak, we are looking for coherence...
So, truth is axiomatic. And you and I consider these truths to be self evident. They do not depend upon bias, but upon logic actually being valid.
And this relates to the subject... 'Was there ever a time when logic did not exist'? For that is the nature of God's holy Spirit. Once you know it... you have begun to fear and know Him. For he does not show partiality.
How was that mike??? Was I starting to ramble at the end?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 11:44 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 1:49 PM Rob has replied
 Message 198 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-26-2007 3:05 AM Rob has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 297 (416376)
08-15-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rob
08-15-2007 1:14 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
First off Rob, I am not sure what the beef is between you and Mark24, so I can't really comment on his views.
The term 'positivists' is new to me,
Logical positivists(if memory serves correct), are those that claim that all claims are vacuous and deemed false unless proven positive. So for example;
God exists = positivist would say, "no evidence/proof, therefore the claim is worthless".
My problem with this is that, logic does not allow us to incapacitate a potential inference. If you assume everything with no evidence is false, or meaningless, then you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
So, as Lewis, myself, you, and many others have shown over and over again... there is ultimately nothing emperical about 'empericism' other than it's correct inference to logic (ie. philosophical coherence).
I agree if you mean to say that empericism or empiricism is only sound because of logic.
And so modern science's claim to fame, the almighty and emperical fact that is superior and utterly removed from philsophical bias' was given birth to by philosophers.
They have raised this image, and given it the ability to speak. And a great number of millions follow and marvel at it...
I agree.
Although I CAN understand why the marvel. Science is the torch in the dark. To others, nothing else has proved itself. But for those who have had spiritual experiences, they have subjective knowledge or conviction that God is true. Epistemology shows that internal knowledge can be true - and that's all I need to show.
You can't conclude that only objective truth is valuable, as Shraff tries to show to me, time and time again.
What I think you and I understand, is that God reveals Himself through logical and coherent reasoning. And that is the Word. And that is what we all use to relay these things. So as soon as you speak, we are looking for coherence...
I understand what you're saying, yes. For me, Christ is the most wise. Logic, the philosophy of humans, is probably the baby-steps to God's ultimate wisdom.
How was that mike??? Was I starting to ramble at the end?
It was fine - thanks for the quotes, feel free to provide more.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 1:14 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 1:55 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 36 of 297 (416377)
08-15-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
It just hit me Mike...
I think the empericists are trying to say that the physical world proves itself to be logical. But what we are saying, is that it really only proves logic to be valid.
And if logic is valid, then it is valid beyond even the emperical, since the emperical is baseless without it (as you said). That's the only reason either side can legitimately theorize about their ultimate philosophical construct of reality.
So, the physical world shows emperically the validity of logic. We do not have a complete picture on either side, but it reveals God's (Reality's) nature.
So mike... what the apostle Paul said was true (since it cannot be otherwise):
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
If logic is valid there simply is no other conclusion, since the premise is itself 'logic'.
And unless I forget the context, that is why I told Mark24 that my claim is not a premise, but a conclusion.
Certainly he will not say that that claim is baseless, since the emperical world is my evidence of logics validity.
It's kind of what Ray Comfort tries to say... 'you cano thave a building without a builder'. The universe itself, in all of it's glory, is the evidence of God.
Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 11:44 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 2:03 PM Rob has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 297 (416378)
08-15-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rob
08-15-2007 11:07 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,
Yes, that's right. Otherwise I have to accept all gods & goddesses regardles of whether they are mutually contradictory, or not.
No you don't... that's where logic comes in thank you very much...
But I do, you seem to assume the god being alluded to is YOUR god. This is why you keep saying god is everything. This simply doesn't have to be the case. Gods could exist that aren't everything. There is no logical prerogative to assume that god is 1/ yours, & 2/ the only one.
I've been in discussions with members of other religions & they expect me to accept their assertions with no more evidence than you provide, ie. none. Their assertions contradict yours. The only way I can tell between them is with empirical evidence. You can make up fantasty-land stories that are internally consistent & therefore internally logical all day long. But that logic won't help anyone get to the truth, only evidence can do that.
Yet you give not one example in this thread mark24
I can't give an example of something that doesn't exist, which is rather the point.
My evidence is in the revealed Word itself (the law of non-contradiction / logic). Because I am being logical (philosophically coherent) then my philosophical construct must be true.
No, you are believing an account that is (& even that isn't the case)internally consistent. So what? No evidence = no acceptance.
Just because a statement is internally coherant doesn't make it true!
The rabbit god El Ahrairah is the prince with a thousand enemies, he & his trusted lieutenant, Rabscuttle, & his rabbit folk wreak havoc with other peoples & animals lives & food supplies. They were given white fluffy tales by Frith the sun god to make them easier to see.
This is a logically consistent statement, it is the word, therefore, according to you, it must be true.
Cobblers. Just like you I would be accepting without evidence. You can play silly philosophical word games for the rest of your life to sooth yourself. Why not? Other religions do exactly the same, come to contradictory conclusions, & their conclusion is as good as yours; evidentially vacuous.
No evidence = no deal.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 11:07 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 2:00 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 08-15-2007 3:51 PM mark24 has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 38 of 297 (416379)
08-15-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 1:49 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mike the wiz:
I agree if you mean to say that empericism or empiricism is only sound because of logic.
Yes!
mike the wiz:
I understand what you're saying, yes. For me, Christ is the most wise. Logic, the philosophy of humans, is probably the baby-steps to God's ultimate wisdom.
Oh yes... so true so true...
We must first understand addition and subtraction, before we can progress to algebra.
God is logical. And so he is both simple and complex. he is not divided against Himself. He does not oppose Himself (ie. He never contradicts Himself).
A knigndom divided cannot stand. His endures forever...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 1:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 39 of 297 (416380)
08-15-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mark24
08-15-2007 1:51 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
No evidence = no deal.
I go back to my question... What particualr emperical evidence would you be willing to accept?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 1:51 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 2:15 PM Rob has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 40 of 297 (416382)
08-15-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rob
08-15-2007 1:50 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
I think the empericists are trying to say that the physical world proves itself to be logical. But what we are saying, is that it really only proves logic to be valid.
And if logic is valid, then it is valid beyond even the emperical, since the emperical is baseless without it (as you said). That's the only reason either side can legitimately theorize about their ultimate philosophical construct of reality.
So, the physical world shows emperically the validity of logic. We do not have a complete picture on either side, but it reveals God's (Reality's) nature.
Excellent. Yes, I agree with you a 1000%.
HOWEVER, (and yu might hate me for this) - I think the last part; "but it reveals God's (reality's) nature", I think this is our belief, because of our experience. (Our conviction.)
I think Mark's message #37 hits on why God/s aen't proven.
The problems we have is that all religions say the same thing - unfortunately for us, even if we are utterly convinced our God is God - that is not self-evident to others.
But mostly, I agree with you pretty much fully, concerning logic, empericism etc.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 1:50 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:00 PM mike the wiz has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 41 of 297 (416384)
08-15-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rob
08-15-2007 2:00 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,
What particualr emperical evidence would you be willing to accept?
Whatever characteristics you aspire for your god, I'd like to see those characteristics in action.
Make a new living species under laboratory conditions. Create a planet whilst we watch, part the red sea on command. That kind of thing.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 2:00 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:23 PM mark24 has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 42 of 297 (416388)
08-15-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 2:03 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mike the wiz:
I think Mark's message #37 hits on why God/s aren't proven.
Internal consistency is not enough... I agree!
But did you notice that he also said, other religious views contradict ours? Hence, they cannot all be true.
mark24:
I've been in discussions with members of other religions & they expect me to accept their assertions with no more evidence than you provide, ie. none. Their assertions contradict yours. The only way I can tell between them is with empirical evidence. You can make up fantasty-land stories that are internally consistent & therefore internally logical all day long. But that logic won't help anyone get to the truth, only evidence can do that...
...Just because a statement is internally coherent doesn't make it true!
But what is also being said (which I think he misses), is that internal 'in-consistency' would be an example of falsehood.
So when 'methodological naturalism' is internally inconsistent, what does that mean?
Let me explain by sharing a revealig article for you: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/intelligent-design/?...
In it Discover magazine editor Susan Kruglinski says,
...WHY ID IS NOT SCIENCE
Definition of science
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;..."
"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth."
"In deliberately (ie. for philosophical reasons) omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."
Now that is fascinating, because they do so for philsophical reasons...
Hence the internal inconsistency and evidential falsification of it's merits based up on logic.
Do you understand that mike?
Would you put it differently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 2:03 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 3:35 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 43 of 297 (416391)
08-15-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by mark24
08-15-2007 2:15 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
Make a new living species under laboratory conditions.
I did not anticipate that response...
Are you saying that if we could duplicate that, you would beleive that the universe is essentially one giant lab, and that God used?
Most seem to think it would prove that life arose by purely natural means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 2:15 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 3:41 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 48 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 4:03 PM Rob has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 44 of 297 (416392)
08-15-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rob
08-15-2007 3:00 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
That quote about philosophical coherency is interesting.
This part is interesting;
" science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world ".
For me - it is frustrating that people therefore dismiss such things.
It's important to remember that there are logical reasons which are valid, when it comes to the God of the gaps, and the author can not help the authority science seems to have in the modern era, because of it's results.
But the good news is that this statement doesn't say that God doesn't have any credence. Afterall, look at Aristotle's causes. Such arguments are powerful in regards to a formal cause, etc...that being that entities have the nature of that which they come from, within them etc...so the statement doesn't rule out value to philosophy.
For example, inherently a biological entity will have an inner-cause/design which comes from the predecessors, the parents.
May I ask though Rob - do you think ID should be a part of science then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:00 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 55 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 8:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 45 of 297 (416394)
08-15-2007 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rob
08-15-2007 3:23 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
I'm not very articulate in a way that others understand me. Here's a better explanation;
Formal cause

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:23 PM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024