Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: PE 2.2.1 Naturalism ... `Nature is all there is' (was PE 1.3.2 ... Shifting definitions of `evolution' & PE 6.1 ... `Fitness of the environment' ...)

Expand Messages
  • Donald McLaughlin
    ELF: Hah. The from of the argument is valid (it a Sorites by name). SO, if the Premesis are true (and they re each either Christian doctrine or can be found
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ELF:
      Hah.

      The from of the argument is valid (it a Sorites by name). SO, if
      the Premesis are true (and they're each either Christian doctrine or can
      be found expressed as true in writings of Christian philosophy, Protestant
      and Catholic, from the most conservative to all but the most "liberal, so
      if any one of them is false, you have a lot of doctrine to rewrite), then
      the conclusion necessarily follows.

      That you're reduced to insults/ fallacy of ridicule is a good
      indication that if the argument isn't flawless, then at least it exceeds
      your ability to find a flaw anywhere.

      Donald:

      I've already told you where the flaw lies. You confuse "being" with
      "nature". So, yes, your argument is totally flawed because it misrepresents
      the terms, thus collasping the validity of your premises. Give it up!
    • elf
      ... ELF: If I do, then so do Christian philosophers, since it s *their* definitions I m using: Essence and Existence (Lat. essentia, existentia) Since they are
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 08:00 AM 1/15/2004, you wrote:

        >ELF:
        > Hah.
        >
        > The from of the argument is valid (it a Sorites by name). SO, if
        >the Premesis are true (and they're each either Christian doctrine or can
        >be found expressed as true in writings of Christian philosophy, Protestant
        >and Catholic, from the most conservative to all but the most "liberal, so
        >if any one of them is false, you have a lot of doctrine to rewrite), then
        >the conclusion necessarily follows.
        >
        > That you're reduced to insults/ fallacy of ridicule is a good
        >indication that if the argument isn't flawless, then at least it exceeds
        >your ability to find a flaw anywhere.
        >
        >Donald:
        >
        >I've already told you where the flaw lies. You confuse "being" with
        >"nature". So, yes, your argument is totally flawed because it misrepresents
        >the terms, thus collasping the validity of your premises. Give it up!
        >

        ELF:
        If I do, then so do Christian philosophers, since it's *their*
        definitions I'm using:


        Essence and Existence

        (Lat. essentia, existentia)

        Since they are transcendentals, it is not possible to put forward a strict
        definition of either of the subjects of the present article. Essence,
        however, is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is.
        Existence is that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being.

        ESSENCE

        Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is, an
        equivalent of the to ti en einai of
        <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm>Aristotle (Metaph., VII, 7).
        The essence is thus the radical or ground from which the various properties
        of a thing emanate and to which they are necessarily referred. Thus the
        notion of the essence is seen to be the abstract counterpart of the
        concrete entity; the latter signifying that which is or may be (ens actu,
        ens potentiâ), while the former points to the reason or ground why it is
        precisely what it is. As furnishing in this manner an answer to the
        question What? (Quid?) ­ as, e.g., What is man? ­ essence is equivalent to
        quiddity; and thus, as St. Thomas remarks (I, Q. iii, a. 3), the essence of
        a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.

        Synonyms

        Nature

        Essence and nature express the same reality envisaged in the two points of
        view as being or acting. As the essence is that whereby any given thing is
        that which it is, the ground of its characteristics and the principle of
        its being, so its nature is that whereby it acts as it does, the essence
        considered as the foundation and principle of its operation. Hence again
        St. Thomas: "Nature is seen to signify the essence of a thing according as
        it has relation to its proper operation" (De ente et essentia, cap. i).

        Form

        Furthermore, essence is also in a manner synonymous with form, since it is
        chiefly by their formal principle that beings are segregated into one or
        other of the species. Thus, while created spiritual things, because they
        are not composed of matter and form, are specifically what they are by
        reason of their essences or "forms" alone, the compounded beings of the
        corporeal world receive their specification and determination of nature, or
        essence, principally from their substantial forms.

        Species

        A further synonym of essence is species; but it is to be carefully noted
        that essence in this connexion is used rather with a logical or
        metaphysical connotation than with a real or physical one. This distinction
        is of considerable importance. The real or physical essence of compound
        entities consists in, or results from, the union of the constituent parts.
        Thus if we consider man as a being composed of matter and form, body and
        soul, the physical essence will be the body and soul. Apart from any act of
        abstraction, body and soul exist in the physical order as the constituents
        of man. On the other hand, we may consider man as the result of a
        composition of genus proximum and differentia ultima, i. e. of his
        animality and his rationality. Here the essence, humanity, is metaphysical
        or logical. Thus, while the real essence, to speak still only of composite
        beings, consists in the collection of all those physical component parts
        that are required to constitute the entity what it is, either actually or
        potentially existent, without which it can be neither actual nor potential,
        the logical essence is no more than the composition of ideas or notions,
        abstracted mentally and referred together in what are known as "second
        intentions".

        [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm%5d

        I remain,

        Logically yours,

        elf



        Is an essential (as in inherent, "involved in the constitution or
        essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit")
        part of the nature of a human person to be a contingent (as in not
        logically necessary) being?

        That would seem to be part of our constitution.

        But God, so say the Christian theologians, is a logically
        necessary being.

        So Christ, in the hypostatic union, must be wholly logically
        necessary and wholly logically unnecessary. X and not-X.

        But Christ *is* God by the Trinitarian formula.

        So God is both X and not-X.

        Which makes the Christian God a logical impossibility.
      • pk4_paul
        ... logically ... logically ... Paul: If Elf is so sure God does not exist then why does he devote so much of his time and energy to the task of trying to
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 15, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, elf
          >
          > But God, so say the Christian theologians, is a
          logically
          > necessary being.
          >
          > So Christ, in the hypostatic union, must be wholly
          logically
          > necessary and wholly logically unnecessary. X and not-X.
          >
          > But Christ *is* God by the Trinitarian formula.
          >
          > So God is both X and not-X.
          >
          > Which makes the Christian God a logical impossibility.

          Paul: If Elf is so sure God does not exist then why does he devote
          so much of his time and energy to the task of trying to prove it?
        • elf
          ... ELF: Although it requires a certain amount of background to understand the full force of the argument (essences and nature and the doctrines of the trinity
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 15, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            >Paul: If Elf is so sure God does not exist then why does he devote
            >so much of his time and energy to the task of trying to prove it?

            ELF:
            Although it requires a certain amount of background to understand
            the full force of the argument (essences and nature and the doctrines of
            the trinity and the hypostatic union itself )-- the whole of the argument
            itself is only seven sentences long.

            Thus a more reasonable question is why do you continue to defend a
            religion which is internally contradictory as well as inconsistent with
            science and archeology? Why do you spend so much effort in a futile effort
            to refute the most successful single theory in science?

            ciao

            elf


            Is an essential (as in inherent, "involved in the constitution or
            essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit")
            part of the nature of a human person to be a contingent (as in not
            logically necessary) being?

            That would seem to be part of our constitution.

            But God, so say the Christian theologians, is a logically
            necessary being.

            So Christ, in the hypostatic union, must be wholly logically
            necessary and wholly logically unnecessary. X and not-X.

            But Christ *is* God by the Trinitarian formula.

            So God is both X and not-X.

            Which makes the Christian God a logical impossibility.
          • pk4_paul
            ... Thus a more reasonable question is why do you continue to defend a religion which is internally contradictory as well as inconsistent with science and
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 15, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, elf
              <mischief.haler@c...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > >Paul: If Elf is so sure God does not exist then why does he devote
              > >so much of his time and energy to the task of trying to prove it?
              >
              > ELF:
              Thus a more reasonable question is why do you continue to defend a
              religion which is internally contradictory as well as inconsistent
              with science and archeology? Why do you spend so much effort in a
              futile effort to refute the most successful single theory in science?

              Paul: The most successful single theory in science being Newton's
              Laws of Motion? Newton's Law of Gravity? Maxwell's Electromagnetic
              Theory? Pauli's exclusion principle? Einstein's Special or General
              Theory of Relativity? Thermodynamics? Quantum Physics? I have
              great respect for them all. You're confused Elf.
            • elf
              ... ELF: And evolution ties them all together in one grand vision. ciao
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 16, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > > ELF:
                >Thus a more reasonable question is why do you continue to defend a
                >religion which is internally contradictory as well as inconsistent
                >with science and archeology? Why do you spend so much effort in a
                >futile effort to refute the most successful single theory in science?
                >
                >Paul: The most successful single theory in science being Newton's
                >Laws of Motion? Newton's Law of Gravity? Maxwell's Electromagnetic
                >Theory? Pauli's exclusion principle? Einstein's Special or General
                >Theory of Relativity? Thermodynamics? Quantum Physics? I have
                >great respect for them all. You're confused Elf.

                ELF:
                And evolution ties them all together in one grand vision.

                ciao
              • pk4_paul
                ... science? ... Electromagnetic ... General ... Paul: Evolution belongs in Disney Land where one can sit back and enjoy the fantasy. The above is serious
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 16, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, elf
                  <mischief.haler@c...> wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > > > ELF:
                  > >Thus a more reasonable question is why do you continue to defend a
                  > >religion which is internally contradictory as well as inconsistent
                  > >with science and archeology? Why do you spend so much effort in a
                  > >futile effort to refute the most successful single theory in
                  science?
                  > >
                  > >Paul: The most successful single theory in science being Newton's
                  > >Laws of Motion? Newton's Law of Gravity? Maxwell's
                  Electromagnetic
                  > >Theory? Pauli's exclusion principle? Einstein's Special or
                  General
                  > >Theory of Relativity? Thermodynamics? Quantum Physics? I have
                  > >great respect for them all. You're confused Elf.
                  >
                  > ELF:
                  > And evolution ties them all together in one grand vision.

                  Paul: Evolution belongs in Disney Land where one can sit back and
                  enjoy the fantasy. The above is serious science repeatedly verified
                  precisely and in accord with mathematical description. The
                  brilliant work of the above does not deserve the put down of being
                  mentioned alongside a theory fraught with scientific difficulties
                  and supported by people like you because it offers a philosophical
                  prop for atheism.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.