Ham, Nihilism? You give yourself away when you have to resort to emotive language.
Marsha At 12:48 AM 12/5/2007, you wrote: >Hello, David -- > > > > > 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. > >No, I'm saying that being in existence implies a primary source. > > > 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. ... > >Nothing comes into being on its own account. The "they just happen", "they >just grow" argument doesn't hack it with me, nor with the scientists who >explore the processes of nature. How can anyone be so vain as to think he >comes into being by his own power? Does the 'sui generis' man create the >genetic constituents of his biological organism, direct the differentiation >and development of his organs and body structure, manage the complex >auto-immune system that protects him from disease, and all the myriad >processes that sustain his life -- by his own volition? > >I submit that language has more to do with the kind of nihilism you are >spewing than with explanations for the way things evolve and function. A >little reading on embryology and physiology would quickly dispel your >semiotic notion and fill some missing gaps in your knowledge. > > > 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? > >I don't understand your first question, and find the second irrelevant. >Form and sentience, or the lack of it, in inert matter is not the issue. >Craig brought up particles and bosoms, and you talk about clay. Granted, >these material entities come into being, but that is after the fact. It is >physical existence--being itself--which must be accounted for. To simply >default to the premise that the universe was created by a phenomenon known >as the Big Bang is a copout which doesn't explain anything. There would >have had to be matter in some form (energy and/or gas, for example) for such >a cosmic eruption; so it is wrong to say that the Big Bang marked "the >beginning" of existence. Energy, matter, things do not bring themselves >into existence. Science doesn't have an answer to what led to the Big Bang, >but you're not likely to find a physical scientist disputing the fact that >something did. > >--Ham > > >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/ 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/
