(July 23, 2015 at 1:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I also made the following argument in the past:
An effect needs a cause.
...unless it's a conveniently-defined "uncaused cause" or "prime mover" who is exempt from the rule. My point is that I can simply apply the rule to the universe itself. If we continue to apply the exemption to our reasoning, then the whole endeavor has been poisoned. I can simply modify my reasoning to allow for an eternal universe via explanations that consist of nothing but claims. I can try to ward off investigation of my approach by appealing to "obvious truths" and "submissive hearts." Reason does not consist of a bunch of imagined steps and convenient rules. That works well for myths and religion, but not if we're making an honest effort at finding out what really happened.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould