Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
goout:
You have a responsibility to educate yourself if you are going to blog publicly.
It Seems to me that yesterday you were being annoyingly condescending too. Nobody needs to conform to your standards. Go eat a cookie and take a nap. Perhaps then you’ll be civil 🤨
How about I repeat some good solid advice, and you can take it from there:
You (anyone…, not you) have a responsibility to educate yourself if you are going to blog publicly.
The fact that the Church allows her children freedom of scripture interpretation and belief does not excuse ignorance, nor it does not given one license to ignorance, nor license to promote ignorance. Do you know the difference between freedom and license?
This is a common fallacy subscribed to by fundamentalists: "“the Catholic Church allows…blah blah blah”
The Catholic Church in no way promotes ignorance of the sciences or ignorance of good solid reasoning.

It is no different that refusing to get your child medical treatment based on biblical principles that do not incorporate reason/science.
It is also no different than the promotion of gay marriage equality or gender insanity.
Those are all IGNORANCE. Catholics are not excused from ignorance.
 
Last edited:
the cause comes before the effect.
Let me give you a summary of my take on this:

In terms of physics, there is no such thing as a true cause and effect. Everything happening on a material level is analogous to a trajectory, like a satellite travelling around the earth. The moon does not cause tides so much as it is a component in a series of interrelated events that include great shifts in the oceans’ waters. What we call cause and effect are events that follow one another in time. I’m not going to get into what quantum mechanics and relativity teach us about the reality of time. Suffice to say that past, present and future happenings occur in four-dimensional space-time, some in which we have participated, that which is occuring right here and now, and some that we have not yet reached. This is because matter acts predictably; it has a structure that being what it is, is invariant. Matter of course, is brought into existence by God, so that it is ultimately all happening in accordance to His will, and its course can be altered should He will to do so.

In the midst of all this physical world, determined by God, we have ourselves as causal agents. We are sort of gods in that way, which is why we easily confuse ourselves with being God. We think of there being cause and effect because we cause things to happen. In science we speak of dependent and independent variables, the former being what results and the latter that which we manipulate. We can discern the laws of nature, predict what will happen as a result of our actions. When we lose sight of what we are and what we are doing, we think there exists cause and effect, when in fact all we are doing is determining where we can intervene to make something happen.

The past-present-future in which we dwell during the entire course of our existence is actually the human spirit as a relational being consisting of a knower, a knowing and a known. We are not merely passive recipients of perceptions and knowledge, but we also can act on that which is other to the actor or self. As causal agents we change ourselves-in-the-world in the moment; once done, an action cannot be undone, and the past is fixed. What is future to the moment in which everything happens depends on a myriad of factors including the ripples of our actions. The future hasn’t happened because we have not yet acted on what life has brought us; it is there however in eternity, including those actions which we have yet to perform. It should be pointed out that this does not negate our basic freedom to act as we will at any point in our lives until the very last.

All that exists does so because it is brought into being by God, transcendent to time and space - in every moment and encompassing all moments, from the beginning to the end. Ontologically the cause comes “before” the effect, but as all time and space are one in Him, temporally speaking this is not necessarily the case. The sacrifice of the Innocent Lamb happened at the foundations of the earth, simultaneously with, preceding, and also consequent to our original sin in the garden at our creation.
 
Last edited:
In terms of physics, there is no such thing as a true cause and effect.
I suggest you have a look at the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. Your use of the word “true” is a big clue.

Can you point to an objective, independent definition of what you mean by “true cause and effect” here? If not, then it is in effect “Aloysium’s personal definition of cause and effect”, which I do not find to be useful in this sort of discussion. If we use our personal definitions then it is just a series of Humpty Dumpty arguments, which waste everyone’s time.

rossum
 
40.png
Aloysium:
In terms of physics, there is no such thing as a true cause and effect.
I suggest you have a look at the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. Your use of the word “true” is a big clue.

Can you point to an objective, independent definition of what you mean by “true cause and effect” here? If not, then it is in effect “Aloysium’s personal definition of cause and effect”, which I do not find to be useful in this sort of discussion. If we use our personal definitions then it is just a series of Humpty Dumpty arguments, which waste everyone’s time.

rossum
Physics 101 dude.
Try:

It’s usually a waste of time to make personal comments, but I have said it before and it bears repeating that I do believe you are wasting your time here. And, we never know when the thief will come in the night. Better you should be mediating; be the best Buddhist you can be. Thanks for being the “cause” of many of my comments, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Better you should be mediating; be the best Buddhist you can be.
That is what I am doing. Nargajuna starts his Mulamadhyamakakarika with a chapter on causation:
Neither from itself nor from another
Nor from both
Nor without a cause
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

MMK 1:1
Far too much Christian analysis of causation fails at the “from itself” stage. The Indian equivalent of Platonic/Thomist essences were Nagarjuna’s target there.

rossum
 
Neither from itself nor from another
Nor from both
Nor without a cause
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

MMK 1:1
Let’s take this seriously and not as some nonsense; assuming that there is some truth to this, in other words.

Cancelling out the negatives as a statement of fact, it would logically mean that things are uncaused and caused, which is a bit weird.
I disagree. In causality the cause comes before the effect. If the cause does not yet exist then it cannot have had any effects. In the absence of time we cannot tell “before”, which depends on the existence of time. If there is no “before” then we cannot distinguish between cause and effect. Causality requires time; in the absence of time causality is meaningless.
Reading this in light of the quote above, written later, suggests either a contradiction in the poster’s opinion or that he believes time does not exist.

But, if we forget about what that person thinks and focus on the Buddhist message, the negatives are important because it is a negation intended to get the student to stop searching and just “be”. Once you “are”, al this does make rational sense; one can know and speak the truth as it reveals itself in one’s very existence grounded in Existence itself.
 
Last edited:
Let’s take this seriously and not as some nonsense; assuming that there is some truth to this, in other words:

Cancelling out the negatives as a statement of fact, it would logically mean that things are uncaused and caused, which is a bit weird.
Nagarjuna is not easy to understand. The “Not from itself” denies Platonic essences, where there is no real change in the essence between cause and effect. “nor from another” asserts that there must be some connection between cause and effect: they cannot be completely unrelated. “Not from both” is because the joint option has both the faults of the two earlier options. “Nor without cause” denies acausality.

Nagarjuna’s second verse talks about conditions. When the necessary conditions are present the effect arises.

The four options are a standard of Indian logic:
  • A
  • not-A
  • both A and not-A
  • neither A nor not-A
For example, the third option applies to a chessboard. It is both black and not-black.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top