Richard of the secular realm

31.3K posts

Richard of the secular realm banner
Richard of the secular realm

Richard of the secular realm

@LatFilosof

🇸🇪 "From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." - Darwin 🏳️‍🌈 Ally

Sverige Katılım Ekim 2014
95 Takip Edilen1.1K Takipçiler
Richard of the secular realm
Richard of the secular realm@LatFilosof·
To mirror my previous post. Of course evolution has taken place, denying it makes you look like a fool. Does this in any way, shape or form force you to deny that God exists? Of course not! Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories in all of human history!
Creation Today@creationtoday

There is ZERO evidence for goo-to-you evolution. Animals reproduce after their own kind, just the like Bible says. That is ACTUAL OBSERVABLE science.

English
0
0
0
3
Selen
Selen@writingenjoyer·
No babe I love your minimalist poem the longer ones scare me
English
2
13
165
4.3K
Nick Andrews
Nick Andrews@nick_andrws·
@LatFilosof @CounterApologis It’s more work, but one could argue that dependence is one of those special properties where an inference from part to whole is valid, without saying that this is the case for all properties. See Malpass 2022 for an example of defending such an inference, relating to the Kalam.
English
2
0
1
22
Richard of the secular realm
Richard of the secular realm@LatFilosof·
Arguably, premise 1 isnt true. It’s not clear that if every element has property X, the set has property X. The set in itself can be uncaused while all the elements of set are caused. The universe can be the set of all caused things while not being caused. Fallacy of composition.
Natural Theist@AleMartnezR1

1. A set of dependent things is itself dependent. 2. Anything dependent requires a cause outside itself 3. The universe is a set of dependent things. 4. Therefore, the universe requires a cause outside itself.

English
14
3
42
2.5K
Jonathan Davis
Jonathan Davis@LogosFunction·
@LatFilosof @SpeedWatkins Because we are inside the system while God is outside. Again to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. It isn't inconsistent.
English
1
0
0
16
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins 🇺🇸🇺🇦🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins 🇺🇸🇺🇦🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️@SpeedWatkins·
It is an invalid inference from "each member of the set is dependent" to "the whole set is dependent." That's the fallacy of composition. Every silly goose in the flock has a mother (per accidens), but it does not follow that the flock also has a mother (per se).
Natural Theist@AleMartnezR1

1. A set of dependent things is itself dependent. 2. Anything dependent requires a cause outside itself 3. The universe is a set of dependent things. 4. Therefore, the universe requires a cause outside itself.

English
12
0
26
2K
Jonathan Davis
Jonathan Davis@LogosFunction·
@LatFilosof @SpeedWatkins You cant say that the set can be uncaused while everything in the set has a causality. That is inconsistent. You're then forced to take the brute facts approach which is, "we exist simply because we do." It's rather like choosing to stick your head in the sand and play dumb.
English
1
0
0
22
Silas Brill
Silas Brill@Brilliand__·
@Footofthepath It follows therefore that if you combine something dependent with what it's dependent on into a single object - the original object's property of being dependent is not inherited (because that property transforms into "independent").
English
2
0
1
8
Nick Andrews
Nick Andrews@nick_andrws·
@LatFilosof @CounterApologis I think this response only works if Ale supports (1) by appealing to the fallacious general principle you pointed out. But, note that (1) isn’t general — it doesn’t necessarily commit the fallacy of composition, since it doesn’t rely on that general principle.
English
1
1
3
242
Justin Thomas
Justin Thomas@Footofthepath·
@Galcondude @LatFilosof The first law describes how energy behaves, not its ontological status. We observe energy as a property of physical objects ie. magnetism, kinetic energy, temperature etc. which are themselves contingent.
English
1
0
0
10
Richard of the secular realm
Richard of the secular realm@LatFilosof·
@Pirroli_ Ok then yes, we agree. It’s a case by case! And depending on what natural thrust is leaning on, P1 can be fallacious!
English
0
0
0
34
Richard of the secular realm
Richard of the secular realm@LatFilosof·
@Pirroli_ Not true either. Individual parts can look one color, but once arranged it changes. Consider water. A single drop is translucent and colorless, but once gathered in large quantities it becomes some shade of blue. (Color is a pretty bad example to begin with either way tbh)
English
2
0
4
185
το ένα
το ένα@Pirroli_·
@LatFilosof This isn't necessarily true. For instance, if all individuals bricks are red, the whole wall is red. There is no fallacy of composition in this case.
English
3
0
0
183
Richard of the secular realm
Richard of the secular realm@LatFilosof·
anything else, yet still contain elements that are dependent on there being a set, and this set being the universe. This argument doesn’t establish a cause for the universe, only a dependency relationship. How best to describe the set is a completely different question.
English
2
0
6
265
Richard of the secular realm
Richard of the secular realm@LatFilosof·
As an example. All individual bricks are small, but a wall made of bricks is not small. One could argue that size isn’t necessarily a property, its only a gradient on extension. But the analogy still holds for dependency. The ”set” that is the universe may not be dependent on
English
1
0
10
267

Keşfet

@Apocryphal_Book @writingenjoyer @nick_andrws @CounterApologis @LogosFunction @SpeedWatkins @No5mallf3at @Brilliand__