Gramsci wrote:Cutting through all of this bullshit is very simple, all you have to know is that the philosophy only gets okayed if the Vatican say so.

That's an interesting point. As far as I was aware the Vatican tell their dedicated followers that evolution is a valid theory for how we all got here.

The clown doesn't agree with that does he?

(That question was really rhetorical. I have no interest in what he has to say beyond its comedic value)

Matthew wrote:Macro-evolution is quite simply preposterous......also unless you have an agenda and wish to ignore and disregard real science.

I spotted this over at amazon.com. It struck me as funny- if I understand this book's premise, the author makes a case that evolution is real, but it isn't forward progress, it's degradation of species, an accumulation of mutations that survive culling.

Oh, and I would go see a band named Genetic Entropy. Fronted by Andre The Fucking Giant.

from an amazon review:

Genetic Entropy was written by Cornel University Professor of Genetics, John Sanford. In his 25 years as a research scientist at Cornell he was granted 25 patents, the most well known one for the gene gun, better known as the ballistic process. It is as a result of this development that I first learned of his important work (I have used this technology in my molecular biology research). I agree with much in this book partly because I have come to the same conclusion as Dr Sanford, only by a very different route. This work for me only further solidified the case for evolution, only evolution the wrong way, downward instead of upward, i.e. the genome is degenerating.

Even if half of Dr Sanford's well documented arguments turn out to be incorrect, he has still made his case in this well written, yet packed full of insight, easy to read, book. He makes his case in 10 chapters, any one of which stands alone as clear evidence for genome degeneration. One point that impressed me was the fact that most mutations are not neutral, as commonly believed, but near neutral. As a result, they are not selected out by natural selection. Consequently, they accumulate in the genomes of all life forms so that, as a set, they reduce fitness for the entire species, eventually producing genetic meltdown. This may be one reason for animal extinction. The harmful mutations are not the problem because those that are dominant are usually soon selected out by natural selection. This, as is well documented in this book and elsewhere, is the main role of selection, to help maintain the stability of the genome by reducing the effects of deleterious mutations. Neo-Darwinist today believe that the major means of producing new genetic information is mutations and selection. As Sanford documents, the problem is not the survival of the fittest, though, but the arrival of the fittest because mutations as a whole clearly reduce usable information, not increase it. All other theories of the source of new genetic information, such as Darwin's pangenesis, and acquired traits as developed by Lamarckism ideas, have been discarded. The only viable theory left is mutations. This book will be important in showing that mutations are not only not the answer to the arrival of the fittest problem, but are clear evidence against Neo-Darwinism.


amazon listing for the book

matthew wrote:Well? Does God have any potentialities or as Galanter put it, "abilities"? Galanter seems to think that He does from what He has said, but this cannot be because God is Pure Act. So there's a contradiction in what He said and I was pointing it out. I hope that this is clear enough.

OK, 'Sir", a couple of real philsophical questions for you:

What is a Pure Act? You use the term but offer no explanation. Is it the act simpliciter abstracted from all causes and consequences? Or is it an act that fully realizes its intentions, a 100% successful act. These are just guesses. Please clarify the sens in which you use the term "pure".

An act, when expressed linguistically, takes the form of a verb. Should we talk of God in terms of a verb? Rather than an entity, is God an action, "to God"? What action is he? What states of affairs would have to exist in order for this verb to be correctly applied?

Please do not try and bypass this question by claiming that the noun God is simply the noun derived from the verb which corresponds to the verb "to God". This doesn't work. The noun derived from the verb "to digitize" is "digitization". Similarly, the noun derived from the verb "to God' would have to be something along the lines of "Godisation", to coin a neologism. As it is used, "God" is a proper noun, referring to an actual entity, not an abstract noun referring to an activity. Do you wish to claim that God exists only in the same way as Digitization exists, an idea referring to a certain activity? That's a pretty weak God you've got there.

My questions restated, succinctly:

- What is a Pure Act?
- How can an entity also be an action?
- How can an action have intentions?

Engage in some real philosophy, Matthew. Explain your metaphysics.

He wont and can't because what he pretends to believe in is like this:



Matty doesn't actually believe that nonsense, he believes that belief has value.

No it doesn't.

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:(...)God IS in fact limited in that He has not actualized an "ability" He qua God has, namely "making it so that we can know [H]im.". I say this much:(...)

Most Tortured English Construction Ever! Totally PWN!-ing the language. ...He qua God...(!) Priceless!

I thought you'd get a kick out of that, Mr. Steve.

simmo wrote:

matthew wrote:Well? Does God have any potentialities or as Galanter put it, "abilities"? Galanter seems to think that He does from what He has said, but this cannot be because God is Pure Act. So there's a contradiction in what He said and I was pointing it out. I hope that this is clear enough.

OK, 'Sir", a couple of real philsophical questions for you:

What is a Pure Act? You use the term but offer no explanation. Is it the act simpliciter abstracted from all causes and consequences? Or is it an act that fully realizes its intentions, a 100% successful act. These are just guesses. Please clarify the sens in which you use the term "pure".

To better understand what I mean, read St. Thomas Aquinas' little treatise "De Ente et Essentia". Another good book to read is Etienne Gilson's book "Being and Some Philosophers". That second one is pretty heavy duty, but it'll give you a good idea of where I'm coming from.

An act, when expressed linguistically, takes the form of a verb. Should we talk of God in terms of a verb? Rather than an entity, is God an action, "to God"? What action is he? What states of affairs would have to exist in order for this verb to be correctly applied?

You're turning God into an idea and a mere word. He simply IS. His action is "BE" and His action and Himself are one and the same. There is no distinction between "to be" and Himself. No mere creature can make this claim for himself.

Please do not try and bypass this question by claiming that the noun God is simply the noun derived from the verb which corresponds to the verb "to God".

Nothing of the like. The word "God" comes from ancient Germanic languages and there are cognates in other langauges as well. I had no intention of parsing the etymology of "God". I was rather saying in my response to Galanter saying that God simply IS and thus He has no "abilities".

This doesn't work. The noun derived from the verb "to digitize" is "digitization". Similarly, the noun derived from the verb "to God' would have to be something along the lines of "Godisation", to coin a neologism. As it is used, "God" is a proper noun, referring to an actual entity, not an abstract noun referring to an activity. Do you wish to claim that God exists only in the same way as Digitization exists, an idea referring to a certain activity? That's a pretty weak God you've got there.

I follow your train of thought. I never used the neologism "to God" though. I used the term "to be" and the word "act" to attempt to describe what God is: He is pure "act"/"to be"/"to exist". As far as your whole schpiel about "digitization" is concerned...yes it is best to describe God, linguistically speaking, as as verb rather than a noun. In fact all things that ARE can be best described as verbs. Furthermore "to be" is MOST DEFINITELY NOT an abstract noun or verb or any other part of speech. It is SO immediate and SO real and SO concrete that any attempt to describe it is futile and in vain. It slips out of our fingers. After all, if "to be" were an abstraction it would not "be" and merely be an idea. But we all know that "to be" is extremely, utterly real.

My questions restated, succinctly:

- What is a Pure Act?
- How can an entity also be an action?
- How can an action have intentions?

Engage in some real philosophy, Matthew. Explain your metaphysics.

Questions:

-I've already said that "To Be" and To Act" and "To Exist" are one in the same in a metaphysical context.

-I take it then you see entities or things as static ideas. I see entities as dynamic, real, existing ACTING things which have limitations and thus we can intellectualize about them because their "to be" is confined. God however is simply "to be"/"to act"/"to exist" and is not confined in any way, and thus cannot be conceptualized because He IS JUST TOO BIG FOR THE MIND. You might saying again that "to be"/"to act"/"to exist" is just an abstraction- but let me ask you this: "Do you exist?". Because if you say "no", then I'm talking to a person who does not exist.

-You've crossed the line from merely natural theology to revealed theology. That is where that question's place is, not here.


Look, the whole epistemology of "to be" comes down to this: There are those who say that "to be" is utterly abstract and thus not real, and then there are those that say that "to be" is the ultimate reality. The former of the two is a contradiction and thus invalid.

matthew wrote:God however is simply "to be"/"to act"/"to exist" and is not confined in any way, and thus cannot be conceptualized because He IS JUST TOO BIG FOR THE MIND.

if God is "too big for the mind" then why even talk about Him?

Seriously, who is going to read 2 whole fucking books just to make sense of one paragraph of your nonsense, matthew?

I mean, I think that certain people give you an unnecessarily hard time from time to time, but FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

Shut up already.

It's getting to the point where no-one remotely agree's with maatthew's opinions, and it's reasonably clear that no-one's gonna change his mind, and he's not gonna change anyone else's mind, so SURELY TO FUCK it's time for this thread to be left alone?

I can't speak for Matthew, but perhaps he is saying something similar to something I mentioned earlier. I'll take a whack at it. (No fair making "whack" jokes!)

Consider the two questions:

Do unicorns exist?

Does God exist?

The syntax of these two statements might lead you to believe very similar questions are being asked. You might be tempted to apply the same "rules of evidence" to them, and consider them in similar ways.

The problem here is that the resemblance of the questions is only grammatical and superficial.

The first question asks whether a given physical object exists among other physical objects.

The second question asks about the nature of being itself. It asks whether an ontological theory, the theory that God is the ground of all being and so on, is true or not.

The question "Does God exist?" is truly unique (yes Steve, unique!) and of a meaning that is entirely different than any other question of the form "Does ____ exist?".

Because of this it requires equally unique consideration. For example, it may not be unreasonable to apply entirely different "rules of evidence".