[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

C. G. Estabrook galliher at uiuc.edu
Tue Jan 15 10:50:59 PST 2008


Good, because theism is a metaphysical (that is to say philosophic) conclusion. It is the unknown answer to the question that the universe by its existence poses. To say that God is the reason/cause that the universe exists is to say nothing about how the universe exists, which science investigates.

Nor does the philosophic conclusion necessarily imply the God of the Abrahamic religions. Each of them (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) claims that God has somehow spoken. The conclusion that one of them is correct is not a philosophic conclusion but a matter of something like faith/ trust/obedience/submission etc.

Of course almost everything we know (with the exception of things like "I am in pain") we know because we were told it by someone we trust. That's why I believe in Australia, the subprime crisis, Dick Cheney's perfidy, etc. --CGE

John Thornton wrote:
> Chris Doss wrote:
>> --- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A non-physical consciousness that transcends time and gravity
>>> violates most of what we know concerning physics.
>>>
>>> No physical form, no neurons. No neurons, no thoughts. No
>>> thoughts, no consciousness.
>>>
>>>
>> There are so many unexamined presuppositions, and such lack of
>> knowledge of the history of philosophy, evident in this statement I
>> don't even know where to begin. I'm not going to bother.
>
> Good because an argument based on a history of philosophy won't solve
> the problem. Did you forget your original question? I'm showing how
> god violates our understanding of science today. Not metaphysics or
> philosophy. You claimed god didn't violate it and I demonstrated how
> it did. Perhaps you believe metaphysics is science?
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list