RE: New guy with questions
January 24, 2014 at 11:20 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2014 at 11:25 pm by orogenicman.)
(January 24, 2014 at 11:18 pm)The Last Lamenter Wrote:(January 24, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:"A common linchpin of theistic arguments is the idea of Aristotle’s Causal Axiom, which seems to logically require a demiurgic entity to have flipped the switch to set things in motion.
Aristotle lived in the 4th century BC. We've come a long way since then.
Now wait a second, In my post, I agreed that the Causal Axiom had become irrelevant because of the implications of the Timaeus in most models, in this we agree. However, can we really be so dismissive of one of the greatest minds who has ever lived? The problems of humanity that the ancients pose are still relevant right?
Can we dismiss Aristotle based on what we know today? Yes. If you want to understand the universe as we know it today, I suggest you set Aristotle aside and read Lawrence Krauss instead.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
