Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

[PaulSacramento]

AND for the LAST time, Aquinas does NOT and has NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause OR that EVERYTHING "moves".

[Byblos]

AND for the LAST time, Aquinas does NOT and has NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause OR that EVERYTHING "moves".

Yeah but TE insists that's what the argument ought to be . Evidently that's the mark of the truly enlightened, build a straw man argument and attack that while completely ignoring the actual argument (like he did with the PSR).

[PaulSacramento]

AND for the LAST time, Aquinas does NOT and has NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause OR that EVERYTHING "moves".

Yeah but TE insists that's what the argument ought to be . Evidently that's the mark of the truly enlightened, build a straw man argument and attack that while completely ignoring the actual argument (like he did with the PSR).

Stuff like this hurts my head...
Seriously.

[Philip]

trulyenlightened wrote:Now this was my simple take on the arguments from Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Eddy, or anyone else who chooses to argue the existence of a Deity from ignorance, gap-filling, false equivocating, and making up false conclusions.

Byblos: And your take is not only fallacious but so sophomoric that a philosophy 101 student could have poked holes in it the size of the universe. You disappoint.

That's because Truly is apparently smarter than Einstein, and many other great scientists who recognize the necessity of a God to explain what exists, their many amazing designs and functionality, who also recognize the hard limits of what non-intelligent, blind, deaf, mindless things can produce - and, BTW, no amount of time changes those incapabilities.

Paul: IMO, scientific discoveries happen because people believe something ( hypothesis) and then set about trying to prove it. Sure there are times that something gets discovered along the way and that is great.
Add to that also the fact that what may be discovered, if it be science, must be:

Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable.

And the ONLY reason the scientific method is even possible, is because of the incredible consistencies of their functionalities, processes, and parameters built into the universe - so many of which have razor-thin necessities to be able to function as they do. We see the exact opposite of random chaos across our world, and in the heavens.

[trulyenlightened]

AND for the LAST time, Aquinas does NOT and has NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause OR that EVERYTHING "moves".

Where on my thread do I state that Aquinas said that EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE or that EVERYTHING MOVES? Spare me the straw man. But for your information EVERYTHING IS IN MOTION, moving at incredible speeds. And, all things DO have a cause. It is irrelevant who states these obvious facts. Don

[Byblos]

AND for the LAST time, Aquinas does NOT and has NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause OR that EVERYTHING "moves".

Where on my thread do I state that Aquinas said that EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE or that EVERYTHING MOVES? Spare me the straw man. But for your information EVERYTHING IS IN MOTION, moving at incredible speeds. And, all things DO have a cause. It is irrelevant who states these obvious facts. Don

And yet again, you do not truly understand what kind of motion we are truly referring to. And if everything has a cause, then what is the cause of that cause? Careful now, you don't want to get caught in an infinite regress lest you explain nothing (how's that for irony).

[PaulSacramento]

But for your information EVERYTHING IS IN MOTION, moving at incredible speeds. And, all things DO have a cause

IF that is the case then Aquinas, who states that somethings have a cause and that cause can't be themselves and that things that move ( from what they are to what they have potential to be) are moved by something outside themselves, is correct.

[abelcainsbrother]

Topic 2: The Truth Surrounding Our Brain and Senses

Our brain is constantly undergoing two separate battles for total control of the body. One battle is direct control of the body by our genes(instinctive control). The other is conscious control by the higher centers of our brain. Will the body be controlled by its instinctive drives to only satisfy its basic physiological needs(food, sleep, water, air, procreation, shelter and clothing)? Or, will the body be controlled by its psychological apparatus(Id, ego, and superego) to satisfy its most basic psychological/sociological needs(safety, security, control, power, significance, certainty, love and connection)? Are we humans driven by instinct(genes) or consciousness(free will)? This battle goes on every day of our lives, and affects every decision we make. The more physiological needs we have, the more likely our genes will dominate and control our responses(ie., search for food). Even our higher centers of consciousness will be suppressed, or made irrelevant. Our psychological needs are fuelled by knowledge, comprehension, awareness, insight, logic, and answers. It is irrelevant from a psychological perspective, whether any of these attributes are true or false(cognitive dissonance). The more answers these areas of the brain(prefrontal and frontal lobes) receive from questions, the more our consciousness will dominate and control how the body will respond(decision making, free will) and avoid any conflicts. Therefore, how we actualize events in our reality is totally determined by the information we receive from our senses, and the genes we inherite from our ancestors. This battle can never be truly won by either side. Our higher centers cannot control our basic needs for survival, or can consciously control every movement of our body. But, neither can our genes control how we interpret questions based on their inherited genetic patterns. We can simply choose not to action. It is our senses that provide our only direct connection to objective reality. Since we can't see outside of ourselves, or mind-melt with another human, we are trapped within our own subjective perspective? What we experience can only be experienced by us and no one else. Therefore, I can only experience what exists in my own reality. This makes me unique, and a Universe unto myself.

As we age, our sense receptors age as well. We lose brain cells at a rapid rate, and these cells are not replaced. We lose hair cells in the inner ear(organ of Corti). We lose degrees of vision due to macular degenerative diseases, lens changes, and malfunctioning rods and cones. Taste buds atrophy at around 55 years(in women) and 65 years(in men). Basically, all of our sense receptors undergo degenerative changes due to ageing. Ageing also affects the properties and expression of our genetic material as well. This will obviously affect how the brain will represent reality to our conscious mind. This can easily be seen when the brain is under the effects of mind altering drugs or diseases. This can be seen in those with amputated limbs(phantom sensations). This can also be seen in Near Death Experiences. Many different states of consciousness can be induced, experimentally altered, controlled, and artificially stimulated. In other words, a 90yo would see reality much differently than a 20 yo, or a 5yo.

The only way to know for certain that reality is more than the product of our senses, is to step outside of our reality and look back inside. Or, if we can objectively demonstrate that any other realities exist outside of our own. Of course this is impossible, and would only mean that our reality is now a part of someone else's. But theirs is not a part of ours. Therefore, our reality is all that we can and will know, no matter what we wish to believe or think that we know. Don

I have often said that in order to deny God a person must go outside reality into imagination,speculation and even LA LA LAND. I know it sounds harsh at first to people who claim to be so smart.They might be book smart but have no common sense. So this is what I see skeptics doing in order to avoid God,they are going outside reality instead of just accepting reality and all to deny God because reality points to their being a God even if there might not be any proof of God.Reality still points to God and so people who reject God must go outside reality in order to deny God.The problem they have is that when they go outside reality they are just engaged in imagination and speculation and entertain things they cannot really know is true.This is before we get into any evidence for God too. We must get non-believer skeptics to get back in reality which is very hard to do because they are off in LA LA LAND and have convinced themselves it is OK and good to speculate and imagine things they can't possibly really ever know is true.

Was there an area in my topic that you consider as being La La Land, or is outside of reality? What area in my topic do you feel that I can't support? Why do you feel that I am purposely trying to avoid or deny God? What is wrong with free thinking? What point are you trying to make? Don

I did not specifically say you were off in LA LA LAND but somehow you must be denying reality if you reject God.I have noticed that this is the case with those who reject God and they can seem so smart scientifically too but use imagination and speculation from going outside reality to feel in the blanks of what they don't know.By blending scientific truth with imagination and speculation it can make it seem more believable.But it is really just materialism of the gaps.I hope you don't lose context with my point and you may have to go back and read so that you have proper context of my point.It is easy to lose context in these threads by just responding to posts without context of the original point made.

[trulyenlightened]

Topic 2: The Truth Surrounding Our Brain and Senses

Our brain is constantly undergoing two separate battles for total control of the body. One battle is direct control of the body by our genes(instinctive control). The other is conscious control by the higher centers of our brain. Will the body be controlled by its instinctive drives to only satisfy its basic physiological needs(food, sleep, water, air, procreation, shelter and clothing)? Or, will the body be controlled by its psychological apparatus(Id, ego, and superego) to satisfy its most basic psychological/sociological needs(safety, security, control, power, significance, certainty, love and connection)? Are we humans driven by instinct(genes) or consciousness(free will)? This battle goes on every day of our lives, and affects every decision we make. The more physiological needs we have, the more likely our genes will dominate and control our responses(ie., search for food). Even our higher centers of consciousness will be suppressed, or made irrelevant. Our psychological needs are fuelled by knowledge, comprehension, awareness, insight, logic, and answers. It is irrelevant from a psychological perspective, whether any of these attributes are true or false(cognitive dissonance). The more answers these areas of the brain(prefrontal and frontal lobes) receive from questions, the more our consciousness will dominate and control how the body will respond(decision making, free will) and avoid any conflicts. Therefore, how we actualize events in our reality is totally determined by the information we receive from our senses, and the genes we inherite from our ancestors. This battle can never be truly won by either side. Our higher centers cannot control our basic needs for survival, or can consciously control every movement of our body. But, neither can our genes control how we interpret questions based on their inherited genetic patterns. We can simply choose not to action. It is our senses that provide our only direct connection to objective reality. Since we can't see outside of ourselves, or mind-melt with another human, we are trapped within our own subjective perspective? What we experience can only be experienced by us and no one else. Therefore, I can only experience what exists in my own reality. This makes me unique, and a Universe unto myself.

As we age, our sense receptors age as well. We lose brain cells at a rapid rate, and these cells are not replaced. We lose hair cells in the inner ear(organ of Corti). We lose degrees of vision due to macular degenerative diseases, lens changes, and malfunctioning rods and cones. Taste buds atrophy at around 55 years(in women) and 65 years(in men). Basically, all of our sense receptors undergo degenerative changes due to ageing. Ageing also affects the properties and expression of our genetic material as well. This will obviously affect how the brain will represent reality to our conscious mind. This can easily be seen when the brain is under the effects of mind altering drugs or diseases. This can be seen in those with amputated limbs(phantom sensations). This can also be seen in Near Death Experiences. Many different states of consciousness can be induced, experimentally altered, controlled, and artificially stimulated. In other words, a 90yo would see reality much differently than a 20 yo, or a 5yo.

The only way to know for certain that reality is more than the product of our senses, is to step outside of our reality and look back inside. Or, if we can objectively demonstrate that any other realities exist outside of our own. Of course this is impossible, and would only mean that our reality is now a part of someone else's. But theirs is not a part of ours. Therefore, our reality is all that we can and will know, no matter what we wish to believe or think that we know. Don

I have often said that in order to deny God a person must go outside reality into imagination,speculation and even LA LA LAND. I know it sounds harsh at first to people who claim to be so smart.They might be book smart but have no common sense. So this is what I see skeptics doing in order to avoid God,they are going outside reality instead of just accepting reality and all to deny God because reality points to their being a God even if there might not be any proof of God.Reality still points to God and so people who reject God must go outside reality in order to deny God.The problem they have is that when they go outside reality they are just engaged in imagination and speculation and entertain things they cannot really know is true.This is before we get into any evidence for God too. We must get non-believer skeptics to get back in reality which is very hard to do because they are off in LA LA LAND and have convinced themselves it is OK and good to speculate and imagine things they can't possibly really ever know is true.

Was there an area in my topic that you consider as being La La Land, or is outside of reality? What area in my topic do you feel that I can't support? Why do you feel that I am purposely trying to avoid or deny God? What is wrong with free thinking? What point are you trying to make? Don

I did not specifically say you were off in LA LA LAND but somehow you must be denying reality if you reject God.I have noticed that this is the case with those who reject God and they can seem so smart scientifically too but use imagination and speculation from going outside reality to feel in the blanks of what they don't know.By blending scientific truth with imagination and speculation it can make it seem more believable.But it is really just materialism of the gaps.I hope you don't lose context with my point and you may have to go back and read so that you have proper context of my point.It is easy to lose context in these threads by just responding to posts without context of the original point made.

Actually, you make a very good point. I agree that we should never blend scientific truths with imagination and speculation, to prove either a scientific truth or a Religious truth. Both are incompatible in my opinion. My ideas on the relationship of what we sense and what is mentally represented to us as reality, is based on logic, common sense, and science. It has nothing to do with Belief. The loss of our sensory receptors over time is a fact, no imagination or speculation here either. Artificial simulation and stimulation that produce different realities, is also real and has nothing to do with Belief, or the need to entering any La La Land of creative reasoning. The objective reality, and our mental representation of it, is not a one-to-one relationship. This again is a scientific fact, without question. Where does your disagreement lie? Are we not trapped in our own subjective bubble, that is controlled by our senses, and genetic expressions ? Or, are we not?

Again, what are your specific objections regarding my post? Not about what you think I may have stated, but about what I actually did state? What area in my post is pure fantasy and speculation, and what area in my post did I clearly reject God, or try and change reality? Do you not agree that you are truly a Universe unto yourself? Don

[trulyenlightened]

I will re-read my topic and see where I have taken a swipe at religion. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that all the great scientist of the past were all motivated by their beliefs, to search for the order and purpose within natural phenomenon? I simply disagree. Most of the great scientist were not that spiritually motivated. Their motivation was certainly far less Ecclesiastic. I also disagree that without this search for order or purpose, there would be no more science. Especially considering that most scientific discoveries happened BY ACCIDENT or was INADVERTENTLY UNEXPECTED.

It is irrelevant whether these scientist were religious or not. What IS relevant is what these scientists discovered or invented, not what they believed in. Belief will always be a subjective mental construct. Discoveries and new inventions will always be objective constructs. Science is only concerned if it works, nothing more and nothing less. Don

It is not relevant WHY a scientist discovers things? invents things?
It is not relevant why Galileo felt the need to dispel the Geocentric view, especially since, at the time, there was no real reason to doubt it?
Sure you can have that opinion ( doesn't seem to make any sense to me, but hey, have at it), though I don't think that the likes of Galileo and Newton would have though that.

I think that it is very important to understand WHY things are, as much as HOW as a matter of fact ( if not more).

You think that most scientific discoveries happen by accident or are unexpected?
You have data for this I assume?

IMO, scientific discoveries happen because people believe something ( hypothesis) and then set about trying to prove it.
Sure there are times that something gets discovered along the way and that is great.
Add to that also the fact that what may be discovered, if it be science, must be:

Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable.

Why is that by the way?

I certainly agree with you there! It is totally irrelevant WHY scientist discover or invent things. All that matters is what the invention/discovery is, and how useful or practical it is. If it were not for the truth claim made, that our early great scientist were purely motivated by their Religious beliefs, or that science itself is somehow dependent on Religion Dogma, this would never have been a topic for discussion. IMHO, science is initially the journey to provide an explanation to the how and the why questions about natural phenomenon. This journey is always ongoing, and will never end. It is a journey of discovery, not a journey to validate any preconceived belief. It requires a special kind of mind that is open to all the possibilities of enlightenment. Not a mind that is restricted, limited, or censored by the popular dogma of the time. Although, I may have been off the mark in stating that most of ALL scientific discoveries were by accident, many certainly were(penicillin, dynamite, microwave, radiation, super-glue, viagra, etc.). http://mentalfloss.com/article/53646/24 ... d-accident

Since the properties of many of the elements in the periodic table and many subatomic particles were first predicted and later discovered, predictability should also be included in your list of what is science and what is not. Also adding inductive/deductive reasoning and intuitiveness might just be considered nit-picking? Why the scientific method of inquiry? Because it is the only method that will consistently lead to the same conclusions. It works, time and time again. If it fails once, then the entire idea fails. If objects start falling away from the earth, gravity will be scrapped. If the code for the amino acid Alanine is totally different in another organism, the Theory of Evolution will be scrapped. So dependability, consistency, accuracy, simplicity, and common sense is your answer. Don

[trulyenlightened]

The moment someone says that the unmoved mover or uncased cause argument is a "god of the gaps" argument, you know they have NO UNDERSTANDING of that argument at all.

Again, where do I make these claims on this thread? Why all the straw man arguments. An argument from ignorance is not necessarily a God of the Gap argument. How you subjectively interpret the facts that I present, is up to you. I am very familiar with both arguments, so your truth claim(without evidence or examples) is false. Or, is this entire comment only your opinion? Don

[trulyenlightened]

Topic 0: I don't mean to be dismissive but I really have no clue where you're going with topics 1 thru whatever, except extreme skepticism, that is. So unless you want to admit extreme skepticism right now and save us all a boat load of time and effort, I suggest we follow a different track, one in which our senses and power of reason are reliable enough to discover the world around us.

As I mentioned in the other thread, if you think I will be arguing infinite regress, therefore uncaused cause, you could not possibly be more wrong. I just wanted to get that straight right off the bat, in case you're formulating your posts on that basis.

So from what perspective am I coming from with this PSR thing. First, the definition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is pretty basic: Everything must have an explanation. You can't get more basic than that, really so if you disagree with that we might as well just quit the conversation now. If you do agree, let's move on.

If everything must have an explanation, there are two possibilities:
1. Either the explanation is extrinsic (outside of the thing it explains), or
2. The explanation is intrinsic (self-explanatory)

So we've gone beyond the definition to list all the possibilities and, again, I don't think there's a third option here.

Now what can we say about the explanations themselves?
There are two types of explanations:
1. Either the explanation requires an explanation extrinsic to itself, in which case it is contingent on that extrinsic explanation, or
2. The explanation is fundamentally self-explanatory and, therefore absolutely necessary (not contingent on any other explanation)

And once again those are the only two possibilities.

I'm going to stop here for now and let you comment or ask questions for clarification. We'll see how things develop from there.

The point of the first topic was to demonstrate that all things that appear inherently complex, is really based on many underlying layers of simplicity. These underlying layers are seen in all biological organisms. I was also trying to demonstrate that even the most complex biological processes are trapped in Nature's cycle of birth, growth, metabolism, catabolism and death. I then applied this cycle to the information we receive from our physical senses, and then to our brain's best-guess representation to our psyche. Any way, unless there was a specific question you have about the topic, let's just move on.

I have no issue whatsoever with the idea of simple-to-complex, considering one of the most fundamental premises for God is absolute simplicity.

Speaking of skepticism, I am always skeptical of people claiming that everyone else makes the same mistake, except them. The red flag is immediately raised. Your perspective is obviously presuppositional, which clearly uses an argument from ignorance as your mantra. The flag also goes up whenever I hear that there are only two choices in any false dichotomy.

Right back at ya. You can raise all the red flags in Russia but they amount to nothing unless you back them up with a third choice, if you had one.

Since I don't hear any specific objections or questions, I'll just give my own take again on Aquinas's proofs of the existence of a God. Please correct me if I stray to far from 400BC logic(Aristotle), as interpreted by a 13th century priest, doctor, and philosopher(Aquinas).

400BC logic and a 13th century logical interpretation of the 400 BC logic is still logical today and will always be logical unless you can show where the logic fails. And I assure you neither you (as enlightened as you are) nor anyone else has done so to this day.

The first argument from motion

"Nothing can move itself.
If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God."

From the "Michelson-Morley Experiments", we've learned that motion is NOT an intrinsic property of a thing. Just what exactly does this mean? First we learned that light is not affected by objects moving through the "aether", but is the same speed for any observers, from any reference point. Secondly, space is not a fixed substrate for existence. Finally, it was Einstein's Special Relativity that conclusively put this argument for motion to rest. Unfortunately for St. Thomas, relativity means that motion is no longer a property of one thing. Motion is a property of at least two things(the observer and the object). There can be no “unmoved mover” since all motion is now known to be relative to the observer, and not to some unmoving reference. Aquinas's starts with a false premise, since everything IS in motion, and there are NO stationary reference points. Let's move on.

No let's not move on, considering the only enlightenment that is evident is through the flashlight you hold upon your face. Once again, you're arguing a straw man for an infinite regress of motion, which is absolutely NOT what the argument is. Now either you want to enlighten yourself a bit more, if at all possible, or you want to keep bathing in your ignorance, in which case we can certainly move on.

In the remote chance you want to learn something, the argument from motion concerns itself with the here and now, with an essentially ordered causal series, i.e simultaneous events, not temporal ones. I will keep hammering this point until your either get it and stop the straw man arguments or you quit.

Now this was my simple take on the arguments from Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Eddy, or anyone else who chooses to argue the existence of a Deity from ignorance, gap-filling, false equivocating, and making up false conclusions.

And your take is not only fallacious but so sophomoric that a philosophy 101 student could have poked holes in it the size of the universe. You disappoint.

Without objective evidence, the premises are statements that only sound good and sound logical. I also do not wish to continue arguing against the 4th century logic of the time. It would almost be intellectually insulting.

To dismiss out of hand logic and reason and then claim enlightenment is the absolute height of both hypocrisy and
idiocy. I have a feeling this conversation will not last very long but I'm hoping you wake up from delusion.

Since I haven't read Eddy's take, maybe you can paraphrase or contrast his position. Your basic explanation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason should be, that everything must have a reason/explanation, and a cause. But close enough! Were you making some point, or just more editorializing?

And yet again, you make am ignorant fool of yourself, or perhaps it is your wishful thinking that I restate the argument in terms of 'everything needing a cause'. Because then you will certainly fall back on the most idiotic straw man responses ever uttered, i.e. 'well if everything must have a cause, then who caused God?' Except it is not just a slip of the tongue or an attempt at avoiding such a response that the argument does not state 'everything must have a cause'. It is that an uncaused cause is the logical and necessary conclusion to a set of premises, not a presupposition or a claim. You have so much to learn grasshopper.

TE, do yourself a favor and take a step back because every sentence you wrote in your last post above proves beyond any doubt that you literally have no clue what you're talking about nor do you understand the subject matter. I am willing to spend the time to enlighten you but you must be willing to learn. I doubt you will but one can hope.

So is it Aristotle's logic that all objects falling to earth, merely YEARN to be a part of the Earth correct? Or, is it that objects slow down once in motion, not because of friction or gravity, but because they just get tired the correct answer? This 4th century logic may still be logical today for you, but it is still wrong today for me. The third alternative to any false-dichotomies is, "I don't know" or "unknown at this time". You must first prove that no other possibility CAN exist, before you can claim that none does exist. You can't also make a truth claim, and then tell others to simply prove that your claim is false. You are the one with the burden of proof for your own claim. Try actually attending the philosophy class, to avoid this confusion in the future.

It is amazing how you create the straw man, and then accuse me of using it, just to advance your own argument. This is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. Quote or demonstrate anywhere in my thread that I presented an argument that even included infinite regression, or that everything has a cause. Do you even know what a straw man argument really is? Obviously not. And while you are trying to come up with another straw man to blame on me, maybe you can answer a simple question, O' wise one. Since motion is not an intrinsic property of matter, and all matter is in motion, and all motion is relative to the observer and a function of time, how is the infinite regression of motion even applicable? You have no idea do you? Do you know why light is not affected by motion from any reference point, or even what the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment imply? Of course not. Did you even read my explanation of how particles pop in and out of reality WITHOUT A CAUSE. Do you understand why matter do NOT create matter(its energy)? So why would I want you to restate your position???

"In the remote chance you want to learn something, the argument from motion concerns itself with the here and now, with an essentially ordered causal series, i.e simultaneous events, not temporal ones. I will keep hammering this point until your either get it and stop the straw man arguments or you quit". I have no idea what all this self-absorbed gibberish even means, let alone what it is referring to. Also, "Except it is not just a slip of the tongue or an attempt at avoiding such a response that the argument does not state 'everything must have a cause'. It is that an uncaused cause is the logical and necessary conclusion to a set of premises, not a presupposition or a claim. You have so much to learn grasshopper". Still more rote learned, regurgitated, and parroted meaningless gibberish. Resorting to insulting, bullying, demeaning, distorting, misrepresentation, is the last actions of an intellectually drowning man. If your ego is this fragile, it might be best that you stick only to the other threads, and spare yourself any further grief or intellectual exposure. Because no matter how many times you beat your chest, manipulate the truth, or try and bully me, you will still be wrong. A "prime mover" cannot exist because motion is NOT an intrinsic property of matter, relativity, and the fact that the entire Universe is in motion. Either address those issues or move on. Either address the other issues I raised in the Aquinas's arguments, or move on. So spare me your sad and idle tantrums, and demonstrate why every word out of my mouth only proves that I don't know what I'm talking about? Instead of simply asserting it.

You are correct that this conversation will not last long. Especially if 90% of your post is devoted only to sarcasm, arrogance, false straw man accusations, or calling me a hypocrite and an idiot("To dismiss out of hand logic and reason and then claim enlightenment is the absolute height of both hypocrisy and idiocy"), or an ignorant fool("And yet again, you make am ignorant fool of yourself"), or just calling me delusional("I'm hoping you wake up from delusion"). I'm afraid that "huffing and puffing" and "bluff and blunder", is only a distraction to me, and says more about your character then it does about mine. Since I have never insulted you personally, I would appreciate that you afford me the same level of respect in return. Even as a skeptic, I would expect more from any Christian. Don

[trulyenlightened]

AND for the LAST time, Aquinas does NOT and has NEVER said that EVERYTHING has a cause OR that EVERYTHING "moves".

Where on my thread do I state that Aquinas said that EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE or that EVERYTHING MOVES? Spare me the straw man. But for your information EVERYTHING IS IN MOTION, moving at incredible speeds. And, all things DO have a cause. It is irrelevant who states these obvious facts. Don

And yet again, you do not truly understand what kind of motion we are truly referring to. And if everything has a cause, then what is the cause of that cause? Careful now, you don't want to get caught in an infinite regress lest you explain nothing (how's that for irony).

So, are you going to keep me in the dark, or hide behind some kind of exclusive knowledge? What special type of motion do you know that I don't? How does virtual particles popping in and out of reality lead to an infinite regression. Did you know that there are particles in you that are also theoretically on the moon and part of someone else at the same time? Did you also know that 73% of the Universe is composed of Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, 3.5% Hydrogen and Helium(stars), and guess what--all matter and us compose 0.O4% of the entire Universe. From these facts it would appear that we are only the accidental byproducts of the Universe(how's that for irony?). Don

[PaulSacramento]

If objects start falling away from the earth, gravity will be scrapped. If the code for the amino acid Alanine is totally different in another organism, the Theory of Evolution will be scrapped. So dependability, consistency, accuracy, simplicity, and common sense is your answer. Don

So, science works because it is dependable, consistent, accurate and so forht.
Which we all agree that real, true, science is.
But WHY is it that way?

[trulyenlightened]

trulyenlightened wrote:Now this was my simple take on the arguments from Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Eddy, or anyone else who chooses to argue the existence of a Deity from ignorance, gap-filling, false equivocating, and making up false conclusions.

Byblos: And your take is not only fallacious but so sophomoric that a philosophy 101 student could have poked holes in it the size of the universe. You disappoint.

That's because Truly is apparently smarter than Einstein, and many other great scientists who recognize the necessity of a God to explain what exists, their many amazing designs and functionality, who also recognize the hard limits of what non-intelligent, blind, deaf, mindless things can produce - and, BTW, no amount of time changes those incapabilities.

Paul: IMO, scientific discoveries happen because people believe something ( hypothesis) and then set about trying to prove it. Sure there are times that something gets discovered along the way and that is great.
Add to that also the fact that what may be discovered, if it be science, must be:

Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable.

And the ONLY reason the scientific method is even possible, is because of the incredible consistencies of their functionalities, processes, and parameters built into the universe - so many of which have razor-thin necessities to be able to function as they do. We see the exact opposite of random chaos across our world, and in the heavens.

Are you suggesting that only a person that is smarter than Einstein and the other prominent scientist, would not recognize, "..the necessity of a God to explain what exists, their many amazing designs and functionality, who also recognize the hard limits of what non-intelligent, blind, deaf, mindless things can produce - and, BTW, no amount of time changes those incapabilities"? If this is true, then I am smarter. Based on the fact that 99.9% of the Universe is environmentally unsuitable for human life(stars, black holes, gas planets, Quasars, lack of oxygen and water, etc.), it would be impossible for life NOT to have evolved here. All these superlatives are useless, since it is a fact that we do exist. It is also simply irrelevant to speak of possibilities, necessities, non-intelligence, and randomness, since again we do exist. Unless you are claiming that the 99.9% of the Universe was created for our viewing pleasure, I don't see the point. Since we don't have another Universe to compare ours to, our Universe is what it is.

It is true that scientific discoveries may have happened because scientist(or non-scientist) believed in something, but that something might have nothing to do with their motivation, or their discovery. How do we know that parameters were built into our Universe? Couldn't the Universe simply have evolved this way? Or is this simply a design belief? The scientific method evolved out of cultural chaos. Before the scientific method, all beliefs were culturally correct, culturally defended, and passed on from one generation to the next. The scientific method of inquiry works all the time, and in all cultures. It relied only on experimental facts and data, not personal beliefs and biases. If it was not consistent, it would be scrapped for a newer and better explanation. This is what science does. Don