posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:07 PM
I posted this under another thread that I came across, had not realized that this topic was here until later. Please forgive me for any redundancy.
Here it is, I will post links in the future.
I just stumbled across this thread, found it interesting.
If you don't mind, I would like to share my observations and ask some questions.
The difficulty I am having is with the "information". It seems to be tainted by presupposition, definition, and perspective.
From the Creationists, I wonder if your chosen path, or however you wish to describe it, alters your perspective? Perhaps if both sides were to
provide a list of definitions that both would agree is accurate, then both sides could come to an agreement of some kind.
From the Scientists, same question about perspective. The Creationist offerred several "evidence in fact" as presented by the Scientists (or should
I go ahead here for the sake of argument and say "Evolutionists") where your response was "we don't know yet". How can you then present your case
as stronger than the Creationist?
When one side offers "proof", the other changes the definition, or makes an assumption, and it is obvious that presupposition skews the conclusion.
I have observed oversimplification in order to avoid a direct answer, so let's try that. At least we can view the flaws in this type of argument.
If a magnet, in near proximity to an attracted element, will add that material to itself. is that life? It is adding material, isn't it? Well,
technically no, if you define self on the basis of molecular sharing. But wait, over time, under observation, it will come to share a common bond of
material. Yes, but not in a vacuum. I thought we defined vacuum as not truly being complete emptiness, only to the point that we can observe the
emptiness, or nothingness if you prefer that term.
Do you see where this gets confusing?
What about logic? Doesn't logic depend on presupposition? Ok, we have addressed at least one element of disagreement, so we can get closer.
I will address the evolutionists side first, and only because they appear to be in the majority here. Am I allowed to use the term "Naturalism", so
as to avoid definition problems with the Creationists?
Naturalism holds that only the physical world exists and physical laws determine all events. This would include all mental events. However, anyone who
argues that something physical determines our thoughts suggests determinism (by way of causal determinism, is it agreed that this is scientific?).
Here we will need to address direct observation, but can we ignore,then, the presupposition of free will or reason? It is not an observation of all
life, only of "some life". Is that a true statement?
(1) A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe.
(2) Determinists believe non-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view.
(3) The inclusion of "ought to change' implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism.
(4) Naturalistic, complete determinism is irrational (merely by definition)
(5) For determinism to be true there would have to be a rational basis for their thought.
(6) If determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since all is determined by non-rational forces.
(7) If determinism claims to be true then it must be false.
A logical statment based on the presupposition and standards of modality and contingency.
Now, let's flip to the other side. As I structure the logic based on these premises, I will now admit that the logic is pulling me towards
"something else". I thought I should add that, so that it may be considered as a possilble presupposition. But then, presupposition is the case for
our logic. That wouldn't be a paradox or conflict, would you agree?
Now, to the Creationist. I am going to use the term "necessary being" , as opposed to contingent beings, if we can agree on definition.
Is this a true statement?
(1) The proposition that there is a unique necessary being who brought about the existence of everything other than itself by willing that the other
beings should exist, would, if true, explain why there are contingent beings.
(2) There is a possible explanation of the fact that there are contingent beings.
(3) There is no proposition consistent with the claim that there are only contingent beings which, if true, would explain why there are contingent
(4) Any possible explanation of the fact that there are contingent beings entails that there is a necessary being.
(5): It is reasonable to believe that there is a necessary being.
It holds up to the contingent facts, and the modal logic follows traditional lines of logic, so definition is the only thing left, but I tried to
Now, I expect to hear responses addressing defintion, so please supply the definition in question, and I will attempt to restructure.
I had no intention of being this long winded, so please forgive me.