At 9:59 AM -0500 1/5/06, Jim Guinee wrote:
> >An intelligent being who got the ball rolling seems to my
>simple mind much more logical than there was nothing
>that caused that ball to exist but yet IT DOES and
>moreover the ball keeps getting more and more
>sophisticated by a long string of "miracles"
Paul Brandon:
The problem is the next logical step:
Where did that 'intelligent being' come from;
what created the creator?
Nowhere and no one.
Aquinas and Aristotle and others argued (successfully, IMO) long
ago that the "prime mover" always existed and created everything
else.
If you look into it, it's quite logical.
Only if you start with the assumption (faith) of the existence of
prime mover, which is of course what you're trying to prove in the
first place.
It's certainly more logical than the cannard that nothing
produced everything.
By saying 'produced' you're starting with the assumption of an actor,
not a process.
> And again, evolutionary theories do not deal with primal causes.
If you want to posit something that caused natural laws to be the way
they are, most evolutionary biologists (although not Dawkins) would
have no problem with it.
All they say is that once the evolutionary process started it obeyed
(and still obeys: just look at the evolution of Creationism ;-)
certain natural laws.
Which is why many religionists (contrary to what some propose) aren't
opposed to evolution, not generally speaking, anyway.
Too much black and white on this, methinks ;)
??
--
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* 23 Armstrong Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
