Ham said: Coming into being presupposes a primary cause or source. dmb says: Does it? Why?
I think you're only saying that creatures presuppose a creator. As I understand it, this quasi-theological nonsense grows out of the nature of our language, where we say trees are made of wood and mountains are made of rock, which implies a maker. But trees aren't made of wood. They ARE wood and they weren't made. They just grow. Mountains ARE rock and come into being on their own account. The idea of a maker is called something like "the ceremanic paradigm" and is common to all the early civilizations. You know, clay is shapeless and soft until its formed into something useful and fired in a furnace. The universal use of this technology and the structure of our languages (and who knows what else) has combined to make us suppose there's some divine potter behind it all. But still, its nonsense. From an empirical perspective, I can't think of a single reason to believe there is such a thing as a primary cause. Why do you suppose it is presupposed by things coming to be? Isn't that based on the assumption that the universe is shapeless and dumb, like clay? Thanks. _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_112007 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
