The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

English isn't your native language, is it?

I speak good enough English for you to direct a nice portion of your 25,000+ posts to me.

 

[McBell]

I speak good enough English for you to direct a nice portion of your 25,000+ posts to me.

You seem to have forgotten your meds.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Runewolf and I are two different people with different views and opinions.

You see people? Cotw can't even distinguish between different people or viewpoints! Weak.

Ok so how about critiquing his viewpoint just like you critique mines? Ohh I get it, since his viewpoint doesn't have ID as part of it, he can say what he wants with no critique from you regardless of how absurd it is, right? Gotcha.

By the way, which people are you talking about that you want to see this? Are they the same people as the people who's arguing you down, or the people who potentially could hold different positions?

I was talking to whoever was following the history of the back and forth exchanges, Ouro.

You have to understand that Runewolf is talking out from a different perspective. In essence, nature is what God created it to be.

Wait a minute, the man just said God isn't necessary, yet you are on here speaking for him by giving the false interpretation of "In essence, nature is what God created it to be". Is that your interpretation? Because it sure isn't his.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

why don't you just humor him and let him imply what he wants. the rest of us can follow the logical argument and know better. you have done this circular thing long enough now and CotW still has not understood any of it. Are we waiting for a bolt from the heavens and hope that divine inspiration may hit him?

knowing what we know, that will be a really, really long wait. Might as well pull up that lounge chair, get some coffee, stock up on the chocolate, and some books and prepare for a prolonged tanning session...and then i need pillows and...

Well, if you can wait a really, really long time for a reptile to change to a bird, you can wait a really, really long time for me to school you people on how intelligence can't come from non-intelligence, and how life can't come from nonlife.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok so how about critiquing his viewpoint just like you critique mines? Ohh I get it, since his viewpoint doesn't have ID as part of it, he can say what he wants with no critique from you regardless of how absurd it is, right? Gotcha.

The reason why I critique you is because this discussion thread is about Evolution vs Creationism. I keep on getting the evolution part wrong. I'm standing up for the science, not creationism. God is a different issue all together. Why should I criticize him for anything about God when this thread is about something that shouldn't have to do anything with God?

I was talking to whoever was following the history of the back and forth exchanges, Ouro.

And I was talking about the history of the back and forth exchange as well.

Evolution does not contradict God. It's the image or understanding of God that has to change. Evolution contradicts special creation only.

Evolution doesn't need God to be explained because it's about how Nature does it. And if God created Nature this way, then this is the way God wanted Nature to do it.

Wait a minute, the man just said God isn't necessary, yet you are on here speaking for him by giving the false interpretation of "In essence, nature is what God created it to be". Is that your interpretation? Because it sure isn't his.

I know you don't get it, but can you for once try really, really hard?

Evolution is the natural process of how life is evolving. Hence the name.

God is not necessary to explain the natural process.

If God created nature to have this natural process that we call evolution, then it's a matter of understanding how God did it.

So, let's try this again.

Evolution does not include God in its explanation because it is the explanation to how Nature works. God is not part of the model or theory. God is not necessary to explain HOW it works, but it doesn't exclude the possibility or any belief that God is the one who MADE evolution.

I don't think I have to explain it any further. If you don't get it, then there's nothing I can add.

 

[Ouroboros]

You seem to have forgotten your meds.

I think he needs to take omega-3 supplements. He should eat more fish.

 

[McBell]

I think he needs to take omega-3 supplements. He should eat more fish.

Not sure if there is enough fish in the see...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No. Here we are going in a circle again. "Possibly X->X" is not a theorem in ANY system of modal logic. You can not infer that X exists from X possibly exists. Which is why Plantinga requires, as a premise, that it is possibly necessary that God exists. But then, that is equivalent to God necessarily existing.

When dealing with necessary truths, X does exist if it is possible for X to exist. That is the case with necessary truths. Now it is true that when dealing with contingent propositions, then you are correct, X doesn't exist if it is possible for X to exist. But we are not TALKING ABOUT CONTINGENT TRUTHS. We are talking about NECESSARY TRUTHS.

Nope, just plain old invalid. Unfortunately, this is the dilemma for ANY deductive proof of God's existence: beg the question, or be invalid. For if "God exists" appears in the conclusion of the argument, it MUST appear in one of the premises, else the argument would have to be invalid. But then, having God's existence figure as a premise in an argument for God's existence is bound to be question-begging.

In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Not at all. I don't have to make a deductive proof. I can simply say "It is possible for God to exist". That proposition is either true, or it is false. It just so happen that it is true, and if it is true, then God must exist because all possible necessary truths must exist in reality.

See, no deduction made; just a proposition. All you can then do is attack the proposition in a way to make it false, which, so far, you haven't been able to do.

But lets be serious here, either way, your refutation has no merit, because the argument is just as valid when stated...

1. God is defined as a MGB (four omnis), which would include necessary existence, supernatural, etc.

2. Since it is possible for God as defined in #1 to exist, God must exist

See, 5 or 6 steps broken down into just 2. There is just nothing you or anyone can do about it. I know it is hard to accept because if God exists, it would turn your whole world upside down. But hey, like death and taxes; sooner or later, it is gonna get to you.

 

[Skwim]

When dealing with necessary truths, X does exist if it is possible for X to exist. That is the case with necessary truths. Now it is true that when dealing with contingent propositions, then you are correct, X doesn't exist if it is possible for X to exist. But we are not TALKING ABOUT CONTINGENT TRUTHS. We are talking about NECESSARY TRUTHS.

Just a question. Does "necessary truths" = facts?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The reason why I critique you is because this discussion thread is about Evolution vs Creationism. I keep on getting the evolution part wrong. I'm standing up for the science, not creationism. God is a different issue all together. Why should I criticize him for anything about God when this thread is about something that shouldn't have to do anything with God?

Last I checked, Creationism implied God.

Evolution does not contradict God. It's the image or understanding of God that has to change. Evolution contradicts special creation only.

Even though evolution doesn't contradict God (necessarily), I don't see any evidence for it, regardless of how you want to put it.

Evolution doesn't need God to be explained because it's about how Nature does it.

Naturedidit is the naturalists version of Godditit. Gotcha.

And if God created Nature this way, then this is the way God wanted Nature to do it.

Hmm, so you are jumping in the conversation when I made a post regarding a guy that said God isn't necessary, yet you are telling me "if God did this" and such, which is completely different than saying "God isn't necessary". Not to mention the fact that I repeatedly said I am speaking to people that hold the position that evolution occurred without intelligent design.

I am trying to figure out what part of that you don't understand? So apparently you are having some reading comprehension problems and you don't really follow the history of the exchanges as you previously stated you did.

I know you don't get it, but can you for once try really, really hard?

Yeah, I find it really really hard to understand how a reptile can change to a bird. So far, I haven't been able to "get" that part. Oh, the irony.

Evolution is the natural process of how life is evolving. Hence the name.

I believe life is evolving too. We've seen our fair share of dogs producing different varieties of dogs, and cats-cats, etc. But reptiles to birds? Nope. Not buying it.

God is not necessary to explain the natural process.

I haven't seen any of these natural processes, have you? All I hear is the bio-babble. I haven't seen any processes. I can tell you what I have seen...animals produce what they are, not what they aren't. That is what I've seen, and there is not reason for me to go beyond that.

If God created nature to have this natural process that we call evolution, then it's a matter of understanding how God did it.

I don't believe that he did. I see no evidence that he did. Without reasons to believe, I don't believe it.

Evolution does not include God in its explanation because it is the explanation to how Nature works. God is not part of the model or theory. God is not necessary to explain HOW it works, but it doesn't exclude the possibility or any belief that God is the one who MADE evolution.

Once again, I don't see any evidence of macroevolution. All I see are animals producing their own kind, and I refuse to believe that millions of years after I die, or millions of years before I made my dwelling on earth, that animals will start making these transformations. Don't buy it. If you want to believe that reptiles evolved in to birds, fine, believe what you want. But I don't.

I don't think I have to explain it any further. If you don't get it, then there's nothing I can add.

Dogs produce dogs, Ouro. Point blank. Period. If you don't get it, then there's nothing I can add.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Just a question. Does "necessary truths" = facts?

Any kind of "truth" is a fact.

 

[Simurgh]

Any kind of "truth" is a fact.

Great, in this case I postulate the necessary truth that Jesus never existed and neither do gods. There you go, now you have the facts.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Great, in this case I postulate the necessary truth that Jesus never existed and neither do gods. There you go, now you have the facts.

Well, in this case I postulate the necessary truth that evolution is a lie and it isn't science. There you go, now you have the facts.

 

[Skwim]

Any kind of "truth" is a fact.

Then contingent truths must also = facts. Not any kind of modified, provisional, or dependent fact, but just as absolute a fact as the fact of a "necessary truth."

A fact is a fact is a fact!
​

Yet you have said:

"But we are not TALKING ABOUT CONTINGENT TRUTHS. We are talking about NECESSARY TRUTHS."
​

Or, to substitute.

"But we are not TALKING ABOUT FACTS. We are talking about FACTS."

​

 

[johnb21]

No.
Because you left out the hook.

You went from "if it is possible for god to exist then god has to exist" to simply "it is possible for god to exist."The first one is begging the question.
the second one isn't.

It is realy just a matter of free choice as to whether we believe in God or not. Philosophical debates just confuse a simple matter, and we know who is the author of confusion. That is why we are here; "TO CHOOSE" one way or the other.
See the "Wheat and Tares Parable":areyoucra Matthew 13: 24-30; 36-43 KJV if Possible.
JohnB

 

[cottage]

Any kind of "truth" is a fact.

A “fact” is something that can be true or false, i.e.: contingent and not certain; therefore a necessary truth is distinct from any matter of fact – unless of course the term is just being used in a colloquial sense?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then contingent truths must also = facts. Not any kind of modified, provisional, or dependent fact, but just as absolute a fact as the fact of a "necessary truth."

A fact is a fact is a fact!
​

Yet you have said:

"But we are not TALKING ABOUT CONTINGENT TRUTHS. We are talking about NECESSARY TRUTHS."
​

Or, to substitute.

"But we are not TALKING ABOUT FACTS. We are talking about FACTS."

​

See this is what happens when you are so quick to attack without fully looking at the complete context of the discussion. He said (paraphrasing) "Just because X is possible does not mean X is true".

And I said (paraphrasing) "That is the case with contingent truths, but that ISN'T the case with necessary truths".

So what are you talking about?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A “fact” is something that can be true or false, i.e.: contingent and not certain; therefore a necessary truth is distinct from any matter of fact – unless of course the term is just being used in a colloquial sense?

Once again, I don't get it.

 

[cottage]

Once again, I don't get it.

Sorry, I should have made it clearer.

This is probably wandering away from the current topic of the thread, but anyway…

‘The sun rises in the morning’ is a fact, but it may be true or false. ‘The sun rose yesterday’ is a fact, but only a contingent truth since it needn’t. By comparison ‘My Father is not my Mother’ is a necessary truth and has no dependence upon matters of fact (such as whether there are any mothers or fathers).

 

[cottage]

1. The Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as an ominscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenveolent being. God is also defined as a supernatural first cause, a cause that is eternal and necessary it his existence. We will call this being a maximally great being (MGB)

2. There is a possible world at which a MGB exists

3. If a MGB exists in one possible world, a MGB exists in all possible worlds

4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, a MGB exist in this world

5. If a MGB exists in this world, a MGB exists in reality.

6. Therefore, a MGB exist in reality. God exists in reality.

The argument wants to quickly pass over premise 1 in order to require us to accept the conclusion (6), via premises 2 -5, which are valid it must be said.

But I can see a number of reasons to reject premise 1. The first as I’ve already outlined elsewhere is the attribute of omnibenevolence, which can be confidently denied without contradiction. In fact it is only necessary to identify the obvious indifference to suffering by a supposed creator in order to reject omnibenevolence as an attribute necessary to the concept of God. This one objection alone refutes the first premise, which halts any progression to the conclusion. Of course this particular objection only refutes the God of Classical Theism, but there are still other ontological difficulties to be overcome even if the attribute of omnibenevolence is dropped (which would be an anathema to most Christian Theists).

The second thing to be said is that no existential demonstration follows from modal propositions alone. “Existence” implies that a thing is or obtains outside of any logical demonstration in some aspect, feature, form, or place etc. It cannot exist merely as a concept or a set of characteristics, such as omnipotence for example; for we wouldn’t say “omnipotence exists”! There has to be some object in which the characteristics inhere or are manifested. And so if it is asserted that there is a Maximally Great Being that necessarily exists, then it must be demonstrable outside of the proposition, which is to say in reality, which is what the term “existence” refers to. For an entity that exists in actual reality as well as being logically demonstrable is maximally greater than an entity that exists only as a logical demonstration. I don't think there can be any disagreement over that conclusion.

Further more, if God can be conceived to be non-existent in this the actual (and therefore possible) world, without involving a contradiction or some other absurdity, then it follows that there is no Maximally Great Being in every world, which means that no Maximally Great Being exists of necessity. For as Hume said: ‘it will always be possible for us at any time to conceive the non-existence of what we formally conceived to exist.’ He also said: ‘…nor can the mind lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain in always in being in the same manner that we lie under the necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four.’ In sum, there is no entailment from ‘God has necessary existence’ to ‘Necessarily God exists.’ So, if it is possible to conceive the non-existence of any object, then its non-existence is possible and therefore it cannot be necessary. We cannot think what cannot be thought! Consider the principle of identity: A = A is analytic: (‘a thing is the same as itself’). Notice it isn’t possibly necessary but immediately, intuitively, and necessarily certain. If God, the creator of all things is a Maximally Great, necessarily existent being, wouldn’t be as absurd to deny that truth as it would be say A = A is false - and with equal veracity? If a thing is necessary and an absolute truth then it cannot be thought as false, as with the 2 + 2 = 4 example that Hume mentioned. And yet, regardless of any definition, concept, or proposition we can conceive of there being no God, which would be impossible if God’s existence is necessary, certain and true.

So the real existence of an object cannot be demonstrated via a proposition (which of course is why few people believe in God because of an ontological argument); at most all that can be done is to show that the conclusion follows from valid premises and in which case the conclusion is said to be sound. But the soundness is arrived at due to the validity of the premises and not to any factual or ontological certitude; therefore one can’t suppose the existence of a necessarily existent being by virtue of the terms and their relationship in a proposition. But in any case what actually governs logical expressions is the question of whether we can think what cannot be thought. And whatever can be conceived of as existent can also be conceived to be non-existent, and since the God concept can only exist in the mind when it’s thought of, there is therefore no God that can be thought as remaining always in existence. And on that account God self-evidently cannot be necessarily existent.

And if I’m right in what I’ve said above then it can be objected that it is possible that there is no Maximally Great Being, and from which the conclusion must follow necessarily that a Maximally Great Being is an impossible concept.