RE: Creationism
August 12, 2020 at 5:20 pm
(This post was last modified: August 12, 2020 at 5:21 pm by Belacqua.)
(August 12, 2020 at 8:58 am)brewer Wrote: Why do you think science has to address
Science doesn't have to address this or any other metaphysical argument. Metaphysics is not something science can address.
If, however, someone is claiming that science has falsified the argument or made it irrelevant, he should be able to say why. And to say why he'd have to know what the argument really says.
Quote:the flawed argument
You haven't shown that it's flawed. You've just asserted it.
Quote: that was designed from the outset to shoehorn god into the beginning of the universe?
When Aristotle came up with the argument, he wasn't trying to shoehorn God into anything. He was trying to figure out how the world worked.
Nor was he talking about the beginning of the universe. That's been explained twice on this thread already.
If you feel you can read the mind of a man who has been dead for millennia, and discern that he had secret motivations which he never said or wrote, then you are drawing you conclusions from supernatural mind-reading, not scholarship. If we're talking about the history of ideas, it's better to avoid fake ESP.
Quote:It could just as easily be applied to any other god/creator concept
No, it could not apply to the Greek gods, who were not seen as first causes. Aphrodite is wholly unlike a first cause. Nor could it apply to Shinto kami, etc.
It could apply to any monotheistic God which was described as a first cause. I've already addressed that in this thread. To show that the first cause is the God of any specific religion requires further argument.
Why do I have to repeat this?
Quote:, and still remain a flawed justification.
Second time for this unsupported assertion.