the two categroy mistake

[Griggsy]

It is a contradiction to mainiain that causaltiy and teleolgy can be conflated. Evolution is mindless and needs no help from a mind. Teleoligy presumes a mind in control . To obviate thic contradiction, Russell Stannard,physicist, and others want a two category classification of origins or contingency and creation or necessary being ,but that is begging the question as regards to the second category. It would not do to aver that the second is metaphysical whereas the first is physical, for the begged question is still there. The god notion is redundant and otiose .

[Duder]

It is a contradiction to mainiain that causaltiy and teleolgy can be conflated. Evolution is mindless and needs no help from a mind. Teleoligy presumes a mind in control . To obviate thic contradiction, Russell Stannard,physicist, and others want a two category classification of origins or contingency and creation or necessary being ,but that is begging the question as regards to the second category. It would not do to aver that the second is metaphysical whereas the first is physical, for the begged question is still there. The god notion is redundant and otiose .

Hello, Griggsy -

It looks to me as if you are using this "mindlessness of evolution" to justify the assertion that causality and teleology do not mix.

What causes you to say that evolution is mindless? Is there some evidence or argument that would incline me to agree with you, or is this a naked axiom that one must simply accept or reject a priori?

[Griggsy]

Hello, Griggsy -

It looks to me as if you are using this "mindlessness of evolution" to justify the assertion that causality and teleology do not mix.

What causes you to say that evolution is mindless? Is there some evidence or argument that would incline me to agree with you, or is this a naked axiom that one must simply accept or reject a priori?

No, just what scientists like Kenneth Miller, creationist evolutionist , maintain. He does use the fallacy though. See Amiel Rossow's essay on the Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller for his take on him , with a similiar argument to mine. I rest affirmed.

[Abelard]

The god notion is redundant and otiose .

So what do you think this redundant and otiose notion evolved from, and why?

[zorathruster]

So what do you think this redundant and otiose notion evolved from, and why?

To evolve necessitates existence. The point is that it doesn't exist!

[Griggsy]

To evolve necessitates existence. The point is that it doesn't exist!

What causes people to think that their god has the omin-attributes they give to it ? Why not a limiited god?Why would eternity apply to it? Why does there have to be just one when many people work together to make things? Perhaps, it is divided in itself that it allows the irredemiable evil . How can it have meaning when all it could explain is that it wants things the way they are, but that contradicts natural selection. So, the god notion has no real meaning . A god would be superfluous to natural selection by the rule of parsimony and contradictory to it . Zorathruster, is so right!

[Abelard]

To evolve necessitates existence. The point is that it doesn't exist!

I was speaking of the 'notion', the mental concept held by the majority of people in all times and cultures. The belief itself is certainly real. Where did the belief come from?

[Philosophickle]

Hello Griggsy,

It is a contradiction to mainiain that causaltiy and teleolgy can be conflated. Evolution is mindless and needs no help from a mind. Teleoligy presumes a mind in control . To obviate thic contradiction, Russell Stannard,physicist, and others want a two category classification of origins or contingency and creation or necessary being ,but that is begging the question as regards to the second category. It would not do to aver that the second is metaphysical whereas the first is physical, for the begged question is still there. The god notion is redundant and otiose .

I've highlighted the assumption you've made. What is your support for it? That seems to be the very issue at hand. To simply suppose that it all could've been done by chance and necessity, then use that as an argument against theism begs the question.

[Griggsy]

Hello Griggsy,



I've highlighted the assumption you've made. What is your support for it? That seems to be the very issue at hand. To simply suppose that it all could've been done by chance and necessity, then use that as an argument against theism begs the question.

No circular argument involved whatsoever. Biologists have well established that natural selection is the force behind changes whereas one has to prove a mind exists that has anything to do with natural selection and as I and Rossow have shown that is contradictory to natural selection and rests on the the begged question that we are the wanted result. Natural selection shows no ultimate purpose . One adduces the new Omphalos argument that although it looks as though natural selection is the force for change, that is a deception when really a mind is behnd it . One has to take that which is provisionally certain against that which has to be demonstrated to make an argument that stands .So without making a non sequitur ,how does one leap to a minded- designer? Minds put together watches but natural selection acts on the properties of a living thing to transform its descendants . Without a circular argument and a non sequitur , how does one adduce a creator ?One hardly begs the question in presenting as an argument in favor experience against one, one has to demonstrate as Hume did with the case of miralcles , also an argument falsely accused of begging the question . Show that natural selection is incomplete in its domain rather than begging the question of a second category and then falsely accuse someone of begging the question ! Diamond showed that the second category is begged in more detail . The argument just shown to be circular just is another reason for my signature statement! Science is causal as Weisz showed and teleology is out . Causality is one condition at a time making possible another whereas teleolgy implies the result beforehand and thus the effect before the cause as Weisz put it .Argue with scientists if one must on this. Watts r1 might have more to state about causality and teleology. Once I find Weisz's full account from "The Science of Biology , I will put it here .

[Philosophickle]

No circular argument involved whatsoever. Biologists have well established that natural selection is the force behind changes whereas one has to prove a mind exists that has anything to do with natural selection and as I and Rossow have shown that is contradictory to natural selection and rests on the the begged question that we are the wanted result. Natural selection shows no ultimate purpose .

What a sentence. May I ask, for amusements sake, what you think Natural Selection is? Define it as simply as you can.

[Griggsy]

What a sentence. May I ask, for amusements sake, what you think Natural Selection is? Define it as simply as you can.

Natural selection is the process whereby nature mindlessly selects organisms and propagates them based on their characteristics . Others here can do a better explanation,but this is the essential.

[Philosophickle]

Natural selection is the process whereby nature mindlessly selects organisms and propagates them based on their characteristics . Others here can do a better explanation,but this is the essential.

Whatever mindlessly selects means...

I don't think that this is a good definition. I think "weeding out those unfit for survival" works better. Given that, natural selection becomes a tautology- a meaningless, empty "explanation". What it comes down to is this" Natural Selection states that those organisms that have the better survival characteristics tend to survive. Not a very good explanatory tool, then.

Anyway, I think you are overstating the case for science, whatever science may be. Sure, it has done some helpful things- but the success of science can never bolster the case of your naturalism over my theism (or dualism). We both predict (and, arguably, only I consistently) the predictability of the natural order of things. To use it against us is misguided at best, dishonest at worst.

[Griggsy]

Whatever mindlessly selects means...

I don't think that this is a good definition. I think "weeding out those unfit for survival" works better. Given that, natural selection becomes a tautology- a meaningless, empty "explanation". What it comes down to is this" Natural Selection states that those organisms that have the better survival characteristics tend to survive. Not a very good explanatory tool, then.

Anyway, I think you are overstating the case for science, whatever science may be. Sure, it has done some helpful things- but the success of science can never bolster the case of your naturalism over my theism (or dualism). We both predict (and, arguably, only I consistently) the predictability of the natural order of things. To use it against us is misguided at best, dishonest at worst.

You have not shown my being misguided at all . Relgion ,at best, is just a placebo . To say that a god has voice in anything is just to say it wants what it wants and that is no explanation! No miralcles. No anwered prayers. No future state . Show that experience is wrong without question begging! Others can show that natural selection is not a tautology . See Talk Origins and Talk Reason for more on natural selection and philosophy of religion respectively . The god notion predicts nothing.It would only leech off legitimate science . What balderdash! Everybody ,read Graham Oppy's 'Arguing about God's" for solid refutation of theism .

[Philosophickle]

You have not shown my being misguided at all . Relgion ,at best, is just a placebo . To say that a god has voice in anything is just to say it wants what it wants and that is no explanation! No miralcles. No anwered prayers. No future state .

Grigsbaby, I think you are arguing a bit irrationally. You just asserted a few to many things for my liking. You say that religion is a placebo- this is a start, but now you need to give me some sort of evidence to back this up.

Show that experience is wrong without question begging! Others can show that natural selection is not a tautology . See Talk Origins and Talk Reason for more on natural selection and philosophy of religion respectively . The god notion predicts nothing.It would only leech off legitimate science . What balderdash! Everybody ,read Graham Oppy's 'Arguing about God's" for solid refutation of theism .

Perhaps we can pick this up at a later date, after you've chillaxed a bit .

[Griggsy]

Whatever mindlessly selects means...

I don't think that this is a good definition. I think "weeding out those unfit for survival" works better. Given that, natural selection becomes a tautology- a meaningless, empty "explanation". What it comes down to is this" Natural Selection states that those organisms that have the better survival characteristics tend to survive. Not a very good explanatory tool, then.

Anyway, I think you are overstating the case for science, whatever science may be. Sure, it has done some helpful things- but the success of science can never bolster the case of your naturalism over my theism (or dualism). We both predict (and, arguably, only I consistently) the predictability of the natural order of things. To use it against us is misguided at best, dishonest at worst.

Others and I here have shown the fatuity of religion so that is can only make one feel good at most . How absurd of a blatant irrationalist to insist that I am irrational here! Typical remarks from someone who refuses to understand our points and insists on fundamentalism. We end debate now .