10-10-2008, 12:11 PM | #321 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Not quite. There are a number of churches that date back to well before the Reformation, some of them all the way to the fourth century. Before then, however, there was essentially one Church; her bishops might have quarreled with one another, but never really to the point of an all out, long-lasting schism in the Church.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
10-11-2008, 01:31 AM | #322 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Silly? Oh, I guess that's why silly people like David Hume or Immanuel Kant were so silly as to waste their time refuting it. What a bunch of silly-billies!
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
10-11-2008, 03:22 AM | #323 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Oh my... Kant, a silly-billy? *grin*
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
10-11-2008, 09:56 PM | #324 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Why, BoP?! Haven't you heard? He's the source for cant! As in 'Kant couldn't or can't, either way he's full of cant!" Or Monty Python's Philosophers Song?
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable! But here, sung and illustrated! From me to you! ENJOY!!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc or this version, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bppHD...eature=related and materialistically all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVsh...eature=related
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 Last edited by inked : 10-11-2008 at 10:09 PM. Reason: additional philoso-*hic*-phizinnnnng |
10-12-2008, 11:52 AM | #325 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Quote:
As well, stating that "everything that comes to be, is caused by something else" is making an assumption. There are various ways of attacking this; famously, David Hume denied the very notion of causation, and some modern physicists claim that this doesn't hold true on the quantum level. Further, by saying "everything that comes to be is caused by something else" you are stating that the Universe as a whole came to be- again, an assumption. Or, to get at the root, it's saying that since everything in the Universe is contingent, the Universe as a whole is contingent. This is just a way to use the wording of the question to avoid the essence of the argument, which is that everything that exists has a cause. And of course, since the Unmoved Mover exists, it must have a cause- hence the whole argument falls flat on its own contradiction. Saying "comes to be" instead of "exists" is just a way of using words to dodge the question by embedding your assumption in the terms.
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
|
10-14-2008, 04:08 AM | #326 | ||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
While an infinite regression might seem odd, and even illogical, it does not mean that it is contradictory. While we can assert that the Universe in its current state is approx. 15 billion years old, it does not mean that this was the beginning of everything. I.e., time as we know it need not be finite! Quote:
A glaring point indeed.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
||
10-14-2008, 02:31 PM | #327 | |||||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, "Unmoved Mover" is not really the ideal term, as it refers to a different argument from motion. "Uncaused Cause" is better. Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|||||
10-15-2008, 10:36 AM | #328 | ||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
Quote:
I agree. There is an uncaused cause to the specific event that is the beginning of the Universe. As of now we can only speculate, and for all purposes we may never know. Yet we have a choice, to follow the trail that physicists are exploring, acknowledging humbly, that they have so much yet to learn and that they have come up with as many wrong answers than right, or we can take the words of a plethora of unknown authors in the Bible whom possess about one trillionth (That's being kind) of the knowledge that physicists now have of the development of the Universe (authors whom tellingly wrote this: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and then "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light". We know now though that light so emphatically preceeded the creation of the the heaven and the earth. I wonder.. Fascinating though!)
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
||
10-17-2008, 08:57 PM | #329 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
The key difference between science and theology.
The assumption of meaning!
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
10-17-2008, 10:26 PM | #330 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Evolution is blind and has no goal? Is that a new concept? George Bernard Shaw would not agree. He said the elan vital had self-maintenance as a goal. The "life force" worked to persist.
And what of all these teleological arguments for evolution producing the fittest if it has no goal? I smell an inconsistency .....
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-17-2008, 10:43 PM | #331 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
The "literary" scientists like to romaticize evolution, probably because it sells books, but there is no goal.
Science simply trys to explain what is, not why is.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
10-21-2008, 07:28 PM | #332 |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Yeah, spot on. In science, there is no inherent goal towards something. It is simply understanding how things are, not how things should be.
Evolution is blind, but not entirely random.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
10-21-2008, 08:00 PM | #333 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Coffehouse, Does the search for the TOE - Theory Of Everything - not count as a goal in science? Science does in fact have a goal and it is not merely the observation of everything, rather it is understanding the "how". It is not enough to merely describe and observe. Science strives to find the principles which underlie the phenomena - strictly in a materialist sense, of course.
And please explain what you mean by evolution being blind but not random. BJ, That's as close as you can get to separating materialist presuppositional faith from theological presuppositional faith! A presupposition that explanation for what is in strictly materialist terms is the ultimate description. The theological presupposition is that what is has a "why" - a cause and a purpose. So science and theology are not at odds and it is not an either/or scenario. Each answers different questions. The conflation of the two questions is entirely feasible but the absolute opposition of them as alternative sole explanations is not.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-21-2008, 08:05 PM | #334 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
As opposed to the assumption of non-meaning?
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
10-21-2008, 08:10 PM | #335 | |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
While the Theory of Everything is an ambitions way of saying we want to connect all the different spheres of science together to form one unified, coherent picture, albeit somehwat obscurely defined, there is no goal to reach a certain conclusion. The goal is to connect everything, not to define what that final picture looks like. Which is an important difference. Evolution is blind. It does not pursue a goal. The fact that human beings are as we are and do as we do is not a goal, and has never been. We haven't f.ex. arrived at a specific point in time as a final epic stage/culmination of evolution. Thus, no goal. But it's not entirely random either, because we have arrived where we are by natural selection, and there are branches of our roots which have died off in competition with us. The Neanderthals is the best example of this. There wasn't a goal in evolution that led to us being where we are today, but the circumstances having been what they have been in different periods of time, we came through and the Neanderthals didn't. Not random, but not destined either.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 10-21-2008 at 08:12 PM. |
|
10-22-2008, 12:05 AM | #336 |
Elven Maiden
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,309
|
|
10-22-2008, 10:52 PM | #337 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Coffeehouse, "The goal is to connect everything, not to define what that final picture looks like."
The goal is...certainly seems like you are defining the goal of science. But maybe I mistake you actually using the words you mean? "We haven't f.ex. arrived at a specific point in time as a final epic stage/culmination of evolution. Thus, no goal." Umm, that would be no arrival at "a final epic stage/culmination of evolution" which is not the same as no goal. The first is a process, second an end. katya, A person employing science is a scientist. The scientific method is a paradigm used to make and collate observations into _______ ? The TOE is convenient shorthand for _________ which is the goal of science. The person who does repetitive observations and records the data without attempting to understand them is called the technician, not the scientist.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
10-22-2008, 11:20 PM | #338 |
Elven Maiden
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,309
|
Regardless, Inked, the point is that evolution does not have a goal. The natural order of the universe does not have a goal. Part of the practice of science is finding "whys" and so on, but that science is created by humans. The underlying order (or disorder) of the universe is not, and it is also different from the scientific method. So saying that men try to find the TOE and equating that with Nature having a goal doesn't make much sense to me. Science as a discipline has a goal but the things scientists study do not.
|
10-23-2008, 04:31 AM | #339 | |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
What scientists try to do is first and foremost understand what and how things work. In relation to the Theory of Everything, this is a grand, ambitious idea to connect all that we know and want to know about the universe, its origins, its nature and its forces in such a way that complements what we know about our own reality here on Earth. Thus, a theory that can explain everything. Really, it is more of the mathematicians and physicists wettest dream than anything else, and to be sure we may never get there. What you're doing, it seems to be though, is mixing up this interest in obtaining an evermore encompassing theory (as some sort of goal) with a supposed inherent goal in science. While really the only goal in science is to know more, needless to say. What Katya eloquently explains, and I agree with her 100%, is that evolution, and Nature at that, does not have a goal. It does not strive to reach an end. It is blind. What that means for science is that science itself can not have a goal, or let me say agenda, to confirm a specific worldview or idea. Any scientist that tries to do this is basically kicking science in the shin and doing non-science. Science, in its purest form, is only seeking knowledge to understand what and how. It isn't setting a specific goal and trying to figure out how to get there, because that would violate the most basic, unbiased conduct that science requires. A scientist must keep an open mind and as is the case for the very same scientists that have been dreaming of a Theory of Everything, they too acknowledge that the theories that are currently closest to (they think) solving the riddle of the physics of the Big Bang (String Theory), could be a dead end, and that they could simply be wrong. One could say this: As human beings, scientists like anyone else have a goal to understand the ultimate origin of the universe. Yet although it can be said that in science the goal is to understand as much as possible, and thus the origin of the universe, one can not say that there is a goal that can be reached which is pre-defined or such that after that there is nothing more to explore. Science thus really only has one goal, to understand more, which really isn't the sort of goal that has been discussed in this thread, which comes back to your own post: Inked:"Evolution is blind and has no goal? Is that a new concept?" and Inked:"And what of all these teleological arguments for evolution producing the fittest if it has no goal? I smell an inconsistency" So conclusively: Evolution is blind. It has no goal. Is it a new concept? No, Charles S. Peirce, one of Americas greatest thinkers (19th century to early 20th) acknowledged this. The survival of the fittest versus a blind evolution is not inconsistent though. While evolution is blind, essentially having no goal whatsoever, the process which it is, development from singularity to variety, from simplicity to complexity, one species to many, one cell to many, is not entirely random. It is adaptation, providing development by way of the fittest. Yet although the crocodile has existed for millions of years (going back to the dinosaurs) and has proved a remarkably adaptive creature, fit to survive great climatic variations on our planet, there is no evolutionary goal of the crocodile. It can live for yet another hundred millions years, or it can become extinct, which would mean that it has seized to be effectively adaptive, seizing to be the fittest to survive, and that is the harsh reality of evolution for all species, human beings included.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 10-23-2008 at 04:54 AM. |
|
10-23-2008, 09:15 AM | #340 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Coffehouse,
"Science, in its purest form, is only seeking knowledge to understand what and how." That, my friend, is a goal. Goal: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goal 1. the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end. Synonyms 1. target; purpose, object, objective, intent, intention. 2. finish. 1. The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective. 1. the state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates behavior intended to achieve it 2. The final purpose or aim; the end to which a design tends, or which a person aims to reach or attain. You seem to have confused "specific answer" or "predetermined answer" with goal (op cit). ****************************************** So the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a mere teleological anthropomorphism? In which case, randomness which eventuates in survival is the end result of material processes only. So is there an inconsistency in your understanding of "survival of the fittest"? It seems it is merely a mode of saying that which survives is best and what is best is what survives, which seems circular. And, since all is the product of randomness, why should I accept your randomness rather than my own?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science | ayarella | General Messages | 804 | 04-13-2012 09:05 PM |
muslims PART 2 | Spock | General Messages | 805 | 02-03-2011 03:16 AM |
Theology III | Earniel | General Messages | 1007 | 07-02-2008 02:22 PM |
Theological Opinions | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 992 | 02-10-2006 04:15 PM |
REAL debate thread for RELIGION | Ruinel | General Messages | 1439 | 04-01-2005 02:47 PM |