Philosophy Discussion Forums

ernestm wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 9:34 pm METHOD
1. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is intelligent, then the Creator would use evolution as a tool.
2. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is conscious and wise, then:
2a. The Creator would not use a tool that does not meet the Creator's goals.
2b. Therefore evolution produces results that meet the Creator's goals.

The above pseudo-syllogism is false.

When we talk of "evolution" we are really talking about Natural Selection..

And the point about NS is that it is "natural", - the clue is on the phrase.
Natural Selection is autonomic, so there is not "Using it as a tool". It works all by itself as it clearly demonstrable. It takes time - time a creator would not need.

Since your incompetence and erratic approach to everything extends to the use of simple PHP formatting, and it becomes quite a hassle trying to correct it every time, I will simplify the task by quoting without nesting our statements, although some context is lost. Try cooling off and think before you write so you don't stumble all over yourself.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Nope. Causation simply implies an ordered universe. A causal loop. To make your argument convincing you must demonstrate how complete chaos produces life.

Stay on focus and don't go astray, maybe you'll figure out what the argument was. No scientist has ever claimed that complete chaos produced life. A set of conditions in nature produced life.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Contingency viz a creator/first cause implies the best of all possible worlds.

The "best of all possible worlds" implies other worlds are possible, which is exactly my point about the world not being the necessary effect of a first cause.

3017Metaphysician wrote: it doesn't change the fact that evolution only hypothesizes from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo.

That's like saying that you cannot say much about a ladder if you haven't seen the first step.

3017Metaphysician wrote: You put yourself in an untenable position of explaining the nature of all existing things. Hence, why there is something and not nothing and/or where material Singularity came from!

This is some type of slippery slope fallacy. No, I don't have to explain the nature of ALL existing things, no one has to, but we can try the best that we can to explain the known universe with a fair degree of accuracy. So far, science has been the best and only tool to explain the world, not religion. The world is material and objectively real, that's an explanation none of your religious speculations is able to refute.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Nope. Basic cause and effect relate to a first cause(s)!

Not exclusively, they could obviously also relate to secondary causes, so you have solved nothing.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Sure, you mean just like relatively and QM? Or is the logically impossibility of conscious existence easier to parse?

I assume you meant to say relativity. Tested and confirmed every time. Quantum mechanics? Tested and confirmed every time. Gods? Pure baloney.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Are you sure? isn't it logically impossible to be dreaming about being on a beach while driving and crashing a car?

As many other things, you don't understand the concept of "logical impossibility". Maybe if you studied a lot more you could reach a basic understanding of philosophical concepts. You should start soon.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:12 pm

ernestm wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 9:34 pm METHOD
1. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is intelligent, then the Creator would use evolution as a tool.
2. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is conscious and wise, then:
2a. The Creator would not use a tool that does not meet the Creator's goals.
2b. Therefore evolution produces results that meet the Creator's goals.

The above pseudo-syllogism is false.

When we talk of "evolution" we are really talking about Natural Selection..

And the point about NS is that it is "natural", - the clue is on the phrase.
Natural Selection is autonomic, so there is not "Using it as a tool". It works all by itself as it clearly demonstrable. It takes time - time a creator would not need.

Let me rephrase that for you. When someone says something I dont agree with, they must be wrong. I provided the full argument. You didnt read it. You just wanted to say its wrong. Now you have got your rockls off, you dont care what else I say. We already went through that twice. Once, more fool me. Twice, I know you do it. Third time, dont bother talking to me, Ill just repeat this.

ernestm wrote: ↑November 19th, 2022, 4:04 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 7:12 pm

ernestm wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 9:34 pm METHOD
1. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is intelligent, then the Creator would use evolution as a tool.
2. If there is a Creator, and the Creator is conscious and wise, then:
2a. The Creator would not use a tool that does not meet the Creator's goals.
2b. Therefore evolution produces results that meet the Creator's goals.

The above pseudo-syllogism is false.

When we talk of "evolution" we are really talking about Natural Selection..

And the point about NS is that it is "natural", - the clue is on the phrase.
Natural Selection is autonomic, so there is not "Using it as a tool". It works all by itself as it clearly demonstrable. It takes time - time a creator would not need.

Let me rephrase that for you. When someone says something I dont agree with, they must be wrong. I provided the full argument. You didnt read it. You just wanted to say its wrong. Now you have got your rockls off, you dont care what else I say. We already went through that twice. Once, more fool me. Twice, I know you do it. Third time, dont bother talking to me, Ill just repeat this.

Let me make this totally clear and plain.
I read everything you had to say, and decided to focus exactly on the places in your (ahem!) "argument" where you made incorrect assertions.
If you cannot be bothered to respond to those points then, myself and others can judge the value of your thinking.
On the other hand, should you wish to try and support those things that I called attention to I shall be more than happy to make things more clear for you so that we can discuss them.
That is how it works. This is a "Forum".
Definition: "a website or web page where users can post comments about a particular issue or topic and reply to other users' postings."
I hope that is clear?

Evolution is robotics incarnate.

If evolution is ROBOTICS incarnate, then there is no creator. It's robotics.

End of discussion.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 19th, 2022, 8:41 am Since your incompetence and erratic approach to everything extends to the use of simple PHP formatting, and it becomes quite a hassle trying to correct it every time, I will simplify the task by quoting without nesting our statements, although some context is lost. Try cooling off and think before you write so you don't stumble all over yourself.

Is that another way of saying you can't support your position?

3017Metaphysician wrote:Nope. Causation simply implies an ordered universe. A causal loop. To make your argument convincing you must demonstrate how complete chaos produces life.

Stay on focus and don't go astray, maybe you'll figure out what the argument was. No scientist has ever claimed that complete chaos produced life. A set of conditions in nature produced life.

We're confused, weren't you arguing for some chaotic system to substantiate your claim?

3017Metaphysician wrote: Contingency viz a creator/first cause implies the best of all possible worlds.

The "best of all possible worlds" implies other worlds are possible, which is exactly my point about the world not being the necessary effect of a first cause.

Great! Then tell us how things could be differently? Share your theory if you have one!

3017Metaphysician wrote: it doesn't change the fact that evolution only hypothesizes from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo.

That's like saying that you cannot say much about a ladder if you haven't seen the first step.

Sure, you can't explain the ladder's existence, but you use it anyway. Hence, your argument seems to be saying the blind is leading the blind, no? In other words, since you don't know where Singularity came from, and you don't know how biological life forms emerged from matter, you really don't know the nature of all existence.

Keep trying Countess !!

3017Metaphysician wrote: You put yourself in an untenable position of explaining the nature of all existing things. Hence, why there is something and not nothing and/or where material Singularity came from!

This is some type of slippery slope fallacy. No, I don't have to explain the nature of ALL existing things, no one has to, but we can try the best that we can to explain the known universe with a fair degree of accuracy. So far, science has been the best and only tool to explain the world, not religion. The world is material and objectively real, that's an explanation none of your religious speculations is able to refute.

How is the world exclusively material and purely objective? Maybe you're thinking about some platonic realm of numbers!!

Otherwise, if you have a theory that substantiates that position, please feel free to shar, if you can!

3017Metaphysician wrote: Nope. Basic cause and effect relate to a first cause(s)!

Not exclusively, they could obviously also relate to secondary causes, so you have solved nothing.

3017Metaphysician wrote:
Please share your theory about "secondary causes" if you have one!


Sure, you mean just like relatively and QM? Or is the logically impossibility of conscious existence easier to parse?

I assume you meant to say relativity. Tested and confirmed every time. Quantum mechanics? Tested and confirmed every time. Gods? Pure baloney.

3017Metaphysician wrote:
Great! If QM has been 'tested and confirmed", does that mean spooky action at a distance causes stuff to happen? Or, does it mean that time itself (relatively) is a metaphysical phenomenon? Please share your thoughts if you have any!!


Are you sure? isn't it logically impossible to be dreaming about being on a beach while driving and crashing a car?

As many other things, you don't understand the concept of "logical impossibility". Maybe if you studied a lot more you could reach a basic understanding of philosophical concepts. You should start soon.

Does that mean you really can't support your assertions about consciousness? You know that there are existing phenomena that is considered logically impossible?

Keep trying Countess!!

3017Metaphysician wrote:Is that another way of saying you can't support your position?

No, I'm just trying to give you advice on how not to look as someone that can't be taken seriously, someone that is not just a mere agitator.

3017Metaphysician wrote: We're confused, weren't you arguing for some chaotic system to substantiate your claim?

You might be confused, not my fault. And no, evidently, I wasn't arguing for that.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Great! Then tell us how things could be differently? Share your theory if you have one!

In my "theory", if you want to call it like that, there's no first cause.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Sure, you can't explain the ladder's existence, but you use it anyway. Hence, your argument seems to be saying the blind is leading the blind, no? In other words, since you don't know where Singularity came from, and you don't know how biological life forms emerged from matter, you really don't know the nature of all existence.

Once you confirm the ladder's existence, you can test it and actually go upward and downward with it, not precisely what you would call moving blindly. We don't know everything of how biological life emerged from inanimate matter, but we do know it is still made of matter.

3017Metaphysician wrote: How is the world exclusively material and purely objective? Maybe you're thinking about some platonic realm of numbers!!

You wouldn't take a step out of bed at the start of each day if the world wasn't material and real.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Great! If QM has been 'tested and confirmed", does that mean spooky action at a distance causes stuff to happen? Or, does it mean that time itself (relatively) is a metaphysical phenomenon? Please share your thoughts if you have any!!

Quantum phenomena is real for particles. General relativity is real for macroscopic objects. We don't know yet the unifying theory of both levels. That's it. No bearded old man sending magic rays is needed to explain anything.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Does that mean you really can't support your assertions about consciousness? You know that there are existing phenomena that is considered logically impossible?

What assertions about consciousness?
You obviously ignore the distinction between analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. God, for example, defined as an omnipotent and omniscient being, is logically impossible, but that comes from the definition itself.

3017Metaphysician wrote: Keep trying Countess!!

As the internet agitator that you are, you insist on this as a way of mockery or insult, hoping your provocation gets me hooked on you. Too bad (for you) that I'm old enough to read what's behind this childish outburst, that says more about you than about me. In any case, that will be the last one before I put you on the hide list. Not that I'll be missing anything of worth.

The pancreator is the unique uncaused cause.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2022, 12:16 am

3017Metaphysician wrote:Is that another way of saying you can't support your position?

No, I'm just trying to give you advice on how not to look as someone that can't be taken seriously, someone that is not just a mere agitator.

I'm waiting for your antithesis with bated breath!

3017Metaphysician wrote: We're confused, weren't you arguing for some chaotic system to substantiate your claim?

You might be confused, not my fault. And no, evidently, I wasn't arguing for that.

I'm waiting for your antithesis with bated breath!

3017Metaphysician wrote: Great! Then tell us how things could be differently? Share your theory if you have one!

In my "theory", if you want to call it like that, there's no first cause.

I'm waiting for your antithesis with bated breath!

3017Metaphysician wrote: Sure, you can't explain the ladder's existence, but you use it anyway. Hence, your argument seems to be saying the blind is leading the blind, no? In other words, since you don't know where Singularity came from, and you don't know how biological life forms emerged from matter, you really don't know the nature of all existence.

Once you confirm the ladder's existence, you can test it and actually go upward and downward with it, not precisely what you would call moving blindly. We don't know everything of how biological life emerged from inanimate matter, but we do know it is still made of matter.

Whoopty doo Countes! How is that relevant to the concern of causality? Anyway, I'm still holding my breath!!

3017Metaphysician wrote: How is the world exclusively material and purely objective? Maybe you're thinking about some platonic realm of numbers!!

You wouldn't take a step out of bed at the start of each day if the world wasn't material and real.

Sure. You wouldn't need to had you not been endowed with a Will! You know, a meta-physical thingy that causes humans to do stuff!!

3017Metaphysician wrote: Great! If QM has been 'tested and confirmed", does that mean spooky action at a distance causes stuff to happen? Or, does it mean that time itself (relatively) is a metaphysical phenomenon? Please share your thoughts if you have any!!

Quantum phenomena is real for particles. General relativity is real for macroscopic objects. We don't know yet the unifying theory of both levels. That's it. No bearded old man sending magic rays is needed to explain anything.

Where did you find a bearded old man with ray-bans, on the beach while driving? Or was he controlling things from that spooky action at a distance? You know, where material particles communicate without any material instructions!

3017Metaphysician wrote: Does that mean you really can't support your assertions about consciousness? You know that there are existing phenomena that is considered logically impossible?

What assertions about consciousness?
You obviously ignore the distinction between analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. God, for example, defined as an omnipotent and omniscient being, is logically impossible, but that comes from the definition itself.

Sure. There are a lot of things that are logically impossible yet exist. Just like there are things that are logically possible but don't exist. Does that help any?

3017Metaphysician wrote: Keep trying Countess!!

As the internet agitator that you are, you insist on this as a way of mockery or insult, hoping your provocation gets me hooked on you. Too bad (for you) that I'm old enough to read what's behind this childish outburst, that says more about you than about me. In any case, that will be the last one before I put you on the hide list. Not that I'll be missing anything of worth.

Let me know when you want to get serious and provide evidence to support your claims!

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2022, 9:37 am
Whoopty doo Countes!

There you go. After a while, the cat gets bored of playing with the mouse. Bye, bye, Mickey!!

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2022, 12:55 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2022, 9:37 am
Whoopty doo Countes!

There you go. After a while, the cat gets bored of playing with the mouse. Bye, bye, Mickey!!

Thanks! I surely hope that your neurons didn't get too overwhelmed! Please come back when you've finalized your theory!