Logic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,454
Unbelievable reaction to one the most level headed people in this debate. I would suggest you go and read all the valuable posts made by DMNight in this debate.
so what do you think of his idea of letting something be a cause, an outcome of a cause and a process?
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,454
Hahahaaaa.
Ignore things- run away (again).

Mmmm - have you in the meantime figured out what Teleology is?
Hahaaaaa.
Err, atheism is nothing more than the view that God does not exist. Other than that it is completely useless. Don't try and make it out to more than what it is.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
24,295
A force is a subset of the concept of causes. In the context of this discussion a cause is analogous to an efficient cause in Aristotelian terms. To give a few examples:
1) A force acting on an object can cause it to change its velocity. So the cause (in this case some force) results in some effect (change in velocity).
2) If we can think of natural selection as some force we can state it as follows:
Natural selection is a natural force that results in the propagation of certain alleles and the destruction of others. So natural selection is the cause of the the effect --> the propagation of certain alleles and the destruction of others .
Am I right in thinking that in Aristotelian terms, cause and force point towards a start and subsequently a purpose? But yet coupled with the term 'natural', is it enough that the purpose of natural selection is life and this in itself explains self propagation through cause and force? Or do you suggest this all this ties back in to a creator?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,749
Hahahaaaa.
Ignore things- run away (again).

Mmmm - have you in the meantime figured out what Teleology is?
Hahaaaaa.
Have you? I know very well what it is because it is another fallback position a Creationist resorts to when he is pushed into a corner.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,454
Am I right in thinking that in Aristotelian terms, cause and force point towards a start and subsequently a purpose? But yet coupled with the term 'natural', is it enough that the purpose of natural selection is life and this in itself explains self propagation through cause and force? Or do you suggest this all this ties back in to a creator?
In Aristotelian terms an efficient cause has a natural end. For example, the natural end of a force acting on an object is that the object changes velocity.
In the example of natural selection the natural end of natural selection is the differential propagation of alleles or to put it differently... the different survival patterns of alleles.

That is it. You can analyze Aristotelian causes further and argue whether efficient causes tie in to anything supernatural or not. It is irrelevant for me since I don't see natural selection as a cause or force, but you are welcome to argue for that view.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,179
Have you? I know very well what it is because it is another fallback position a Creationist resorts to when he is pushed into a corner.
What corner?
Just respond to post 1053 please.
Is the TOE not a "well established scientific theory".
Why do you refuse to respond?
You are again trying to "run away", and will no doubt inform others that Ponderer always "runs away" when confronted with Logic.
Show some backbone for a change.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
82,310
What corner?
Just respond to post 1053 please.
Is the TOE not a "well established scientific theory".
Why do you refuse to respond?
You are again trying to "run away", and will no doubt inform others that Ponderer always "runs away" when confronted with Logic.
Show some backbone for a change.
So very cute....

You need to figure out what a backbone actually is before accusing others of not having one...
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
Did Life arise spontaneously, and if so, how?
We cannot know. It's impossible for us to go back in time and put life under the microscope as it forms.

Does the "evolutionary tree of Life" represent order of appearance and complexity?
The Evolutionary tree of life is merely a visual conceptualization of what evolution has done.
Evolution and Natural selection are subject to a number of forces that no-one can predict or model.

Can certain types/kinds of Life be considered as more complex than others?
Some forms of life (Amoeba) simply stayed as they were for millenia, while others formed colonies to survive, perhaps because of adverse conditions, or efficiencies in gathering food. Life is so diverse in its intent, beginnings, endings, efficiencies, desire, etc.

So the answer is both yes and no. The Amoeba survives because it simply does. It's food source is adequate, it's living conditions are fine and it lives long enough to procreate and pass on it's genetic form to another Amoeba, perhaps it even gets to procreate a few times, making its genetic stamp more widespread.

Multicelled organisms are almost exactly the same except that they live symbiotically with each other. When they developed, they found they were not competing for the same food source as Amoeba's, or those that tried to compete, lost and only the multi-celled organisms that did not compete with Amoebas, survived to live on an alternate food source... uncompeted.

Did/does complexity spontaneously arise from simplicity?
Both. That's the natural order of things. Things become ordered and then chaotic and out of chaos comes order. It is inevitable.

Why is the types/kinds of Life so greatly "quantised"? - why be there "big gaps" between the "evolved" and "base" types/kinds of Life?
Because the gaps DIED and they forgot to die in a convenient place for paleontologist to discover, or fly into a handy tree covered in Tree Sap that was conducive to turning into amber.
They therefore degraded into their base elements, including the DNA and other building blocks of living beings.

Why is it that only certain types/kinds of Life have a penchant to improve themselves while it is absent in others?
AS expanded on before. When there is no threat to life then it doesn't need to change. When life is threatened to the point of non-existence, those that do survive to a point of being able to breed and pass on genetic material do so, whereas those that die do not. Can't have sex when you're dead and most certainly can't pass on genetic material.

Can regression (loss of ability/functionality) be considered as Evolution, and if so, is it then not possible that certain/types/kinds of Life devolved form higher-order (more complex) types/kinds of Life?
Loss of ability does not equate to regression. Like I've said before... It ain't stupid if it works. In a post Bird-Cage world, the blind are most suitable to survive in a world that turns eyesight into a death sentence.

We've had this discussion before, with blind see through fish found deep inside mountains in a closed eco system, that can be traced genetically to some cousins in a river nearby.

Anybody prepared to have a go at these logical questions?
C'mon, don't be shy - use the "well established TOE scientific theory".
Hahahaaaaa.
Round and Round and Round we go. Just asking the same questions with different words don't equate to different questions, just an entrenched mindset determined to have its way.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,749
What corner?
Just respond to post 1053 please.
Is the TOE not a "well established scientific theory".
Why do you refuse to respond?
You are again trying to "run away", and will no doubt inform others that Ponderer always "runs away" when confronted with Logic.
Show some backbone for a change.
Why must I repeat myself? It is you that continually use different words to try and say the same thing. It is you that apparently does not understand what Teleology means and more importantly how the word has changed in meaning over time since it was first coined by Aristotle.

I have gone out of my way to replay to your numerous posts, yet it is you that avoids anything and everything that challenges your view.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
Your personal definition of Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Atheism is no different than any other religion.
It is by definition a belief, and not a non-belief.
You can rant and rave as much as you want with regards to that, but that won't change a damn thing.

So how does that make you feel huh?
I don't believe in any kind of God. I think the definition of God is simply an oversimplification of a concept of what we cannot conceive of.
I believe that the world is as it is because it was set in motion to be so very possibly by a being we literally cannot understand.
We're the equivalent of a goldfish in a bowl on the desk of the captain of a submarine at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
There are things and concepts that are going to be out of our grasp until such a time comes when our children are IQ 200 and their children 300 etc. etc.

As the Speed of Dark video expounded upon, the rate at which we learn is constantly outpaced by the rate at which we learn what we don't know.
There's always going to be more that we don't know and it's really exciting stuff.

The Theory of Evolution is scientifically the most adequate fit for explaining all of the questions you have about where we come from and how we got here and what is possible in the future.
But like any good scientific theory, it's out the window as soon as there's a better theory which fits the evidence we do have, better.
But the evidence always remains unchanged and umutable. It's our understanding of the evidence that changes.

Theory of creation proponents are trying to change our understanding of the evidence, based on a belief/agenda, not on the evidence itself.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
24,295
In Aristotelian terms an efficient cause has a natural end. For example, the natural end of a force acting on an object is that the object changes velocity.
In the example of natural selection the natural end of natural selection is the differential propagation of alleles or to put it differently... the different survival patterns of alleles.

That is it. You can analyze Aristotelian causes further and argue whether efficient causes tie in to anything supernatural or not. It is irrelevant for me since I don't see natural selection as a cause or force, but you are welcome to argue for that view.
It's not my view, but one you have argued for in the past iirc when you've talked about Aquinas. You mentioned a natural end, but must an efficient cause also have a beginning? Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I thought that was what you were driving at.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,179
Why must I repeat myself? It is you that continually use different words to try and say the same thing. It is you that apparently does not understand what Teleology means and more importantly how the word has changed in meaning over time since it was first coined by Aristotle.

I have gone out of my way to replay to your numerous posts, yet it is you that avoids anything and everything that challenges your view.
So you figured out that Teleology and Theology were different things.
Progress indeed.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,179
I don't believe in any kind of God. I think the definition of God is simply an oversimplification of a concept of what we cannot conceive of.
I believe that the world is as it is because it was set in motion to be so very possibly by a being we literally cannot understand.
We're the equivalent of a goldfish in a bowl on the desk of the captain of a submarine at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
There are things and concepts that are going to be out of our grasp until such a time comes when our children are IQ 200 and their children 300 etc. etc.

As the Speed of Dark video expounded upon, the rate at which we learn is constantly outpaced by the rate at which we learn what we don't know.
There's always going to be more that we don't know and it's really exciting stuff.

The Theory of Evolution is scientifically the most adequate fit for explaining all of the questions you have about where we come from and how we got here and what is possible in the future.
But like any good scientific theory, it's out the window as soon as there's a better theory which fits the evidence we do have, better.
But the evidence always remains unchanged and umutable. It's our understanding of the evidence that changes.

Theory of creation proponents are trying to change our understanding of the evidence, based on a belief/agenda, not on the evidence itself.
I agree with most of the things you say.
Where I however strongly disagree is that proponents of Creation are less intelligent and/or lesser scientists than atheists.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
82,310
I agree with most of the things you say.
Where I however strongly disagree is that proponents of Creation are less intelligent and/or lesser scientists than atheists.
They may not be lesser scientist, unless they're claiming to be scientists in an area that is dominated by TOE.... then they aren't scientists anymore.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,179
:unsure:

From the most heels dug in person in this whole discussion... I really don't know how to take that.
Do not mistake me agreeing with some of your opinions as attempted compliments.
I still regard your opinion that the TOE is a valid scientific theory as being naive.
It's about as much actual/true/real science as the utterances of a Sangoma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top