Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?

In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo- Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).

“Evolution is a religion,” declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. “This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today…One of the most popular books of the era was ‘Religion Without Revelation,’ by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley...As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more.” (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)

“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, Introduction)

The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).

All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, “In the beginning God...” Cosmic Humanism begins, “In the beginning Divine Matter.” Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, “In the beginning Matter.” Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:

“...matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic.…the dialectical materialist's attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, p. 58)

In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:

“We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth.” (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, p. 28)

Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million ‘subhuman’ men, women, and children.

First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.

Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his Autobiography that one who rejects God,

“...can have for his rule of life...those impulses and instincts which are strongest or…seem to him the best ones.” (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, p.7)

Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,

“...if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, pp. 138-139)

Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin’s advice. In an interview he said,

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought…I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.” (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)

With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:

“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (“Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” p. 115)

Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:

Man is “but fish made over...” declared biologist William Etkin (Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, p. 224). And his life is but a “partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states,” explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, p. xv). Furthermore, “The universe cares nothing for us,” trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, “and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” (“Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion Are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 1988)

Man... “must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself…as capable of ‘spiritual endurance,’ or nobility.” By animalizing man his “state of mind…can be ordered and enslaved.” (“Degradation and Shock,” Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, Chapter viii)

Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is “but fish made over…” there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens - by chance of course - that some lucky “species” and “races” of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are - unluckily for them - less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species - or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism - it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:

“At some future period...the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated.” (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)

In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th century’s two most blood-soaked political movements - pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism.

Hitler’s murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,

“The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice.” (p.230)

It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create - by way of eugenics - a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.

Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million “useless eaters” and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life, reluctantly concurs. Darwin’s theory, he acknowledges,

“...has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis.” (p. 13)

Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his “On the Species,” the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwin’s Origin,

“...is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.” (Conway Zirkle, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene)

Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,

“In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism.” (p. 752)

“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable.” (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, p. 9)

Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, “the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species.” It was Lenin who “decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history.” From the moment Lenin made the “scientific” decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, “its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)

Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:

“The ‘liquidation’ of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the ‘treatment’ carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought…In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other…was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of “subhumans” and “supermen”…but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered…was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice.” (ibid., p. 751)

Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, “the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage.” (Republican National Convention, Houston, Texas, 8/17/1992)

Even though he was optimistic about America’s future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s insightful analysis of the source of America’s greatness:

“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Michael Reagan, In the Words of Ronald Reagan)

As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism…the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to America’s youth in our governmentcontrolled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as “vegetable,” “non-persons,” and “uterine content.”

Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism, it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.

America, the “moral force that defeated communism” is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.

Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the “animalization of Other,” in tandem with the elevation of the “superior,” for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct “new morality,” which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.

evolutionist B.F. Skinner said: “A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual...is henceforth to be controlled...in large part by other men.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, p. 232)

Excuse me while I go back a bit and clear up some confusion:

Of course that is certainly something that was not created. We both agreed almost a week ago that ex nihilo, nihil fit.

I think all natural things in the universe follow this principle. But I happen to think not everything in super nature does. But when I brought it up, I was not asserting what I believed but trying to reach a common starting point. I had said:

Everybody seems to agree that nothing comes from nothing. Before the Big Bang theory, naturalists simply considered the universe to be eternal. Super naturalists were divided on the point.

But the Big Bang evidence suggests that the entire universe and all its laws and physical properties did not not simply always exist. It doesn't prove this absolutely, but it gives us a point at which it is hard for any science to look beyond.

Strictly speaking of coarse, the super naturalist views the "nothing comes from nothing" a natural law only. The same way as they think gravity applies to nature but not necessarily to the super natural. Sorry for the confusion this caused.

"I think all natural things in the universe follow this principle. But I happen to think not everything in super nature does. But when I brought it up, I was not asserting what I believed but trying to reach a common starting point."

All that is fine and good. The problem is that your parsing here between things that are "natural" and things that are in "super nature" is arbitrary and thus ultimately meaningless.

It is the excuse that religionists in general and you in particular use to ignore either reason or evidence. Instead, you throw up your hands and willfully abandon both in favor of "magical thinking." While people tend to maintain some level of "magical thinking" associated with their religious beliefs even as adults, operationally most of us outgrow it by late childhood. We certainly do not lead our day to day lives depending on miracle and magic. Instead we assume that cause and effect operates and that what we have deductively learned about reality is likely to be true.

This dichotomy you continue to embrace regarding the characteristics of nature vs. super-nature is the key reason why it is impossible to conclude God from either evidence or reason, and why no argument that even pretends to begin from the premise that nothing comes from nothing can lead to any conclusion other than an eternal universe.

"Everybody seems to agree that nothing comes from nothing. Before the Big Bang theory, naturalists simply considered the universe to be eternal. Super naturalists were divided on the point."

In all candor, why should anyone give any serious consideration to what super-naturalists believed on that point? But worse, how would anyone imagine that the abandonment of ex nihilo, nihil fit by some segment of the "super naturalist" community would be any more effective at driving a conclusion of God than the already failed argument from an uncaused cause?

I have shown a willingness (you might have noticed) to allow you any starting assumptions you choose. But each time that has failed to work out for you, you come running back to the assumptions we had both seemed to agree on and demand a "do over." By now I would have thought you'd notice the pattern and realize that the starting assumptions are not your problem. Your problem is that your desired conclusion is an entity that has no advantage or explanatory power over an eternal universe. And it has vastly less evidence.

Think about it. If you begin with the assumption that God is uncreated, then you have conceded that something can be uncreated. Okay... if God can be uncreated, why can't the universe itself be uncreated? After all, we actually have evidence for the existence of a universe.

If you begin with the assumption that something can come from nothing after all, then you have conceded that effects can spontaneously arise without any cause. So again, okay. If God can arise out of nothing, why can't the universe itself arise out of nothing? After all, we actually have evidence for the existence of a universe.

No matter where you start from, the problem that you invariable have to face is the two ultimate explanations that are offered; one naturalistic, the other super-naturalistic. Why would the God explanation be superior in any way to the eternal universe explanation, when the amount of evidence for each is not within light years of parity?

"But the Big Bang evidence suggests that the entire universe and all its laws and physical properties did not not simply always exist. It doesn't prove this absolutely, but it gives us a point at which it is hard for any science to look beyond."

Your latter sentence is true. Your first is not. The Big Bang gives no more evidence that "the entire universe and all its laws and physical properties did not not simply always exist" than any point on a line is evidence that the line does not persist on either side of the point. You are arguing in a circle again.

"Strictly speaking of coarse, the super naturalist views the "nothing comes from nothing" a natural law only. The same way as they think gravity applies to nature but not necessarily to the super natural. Sorry for the confusion this caused."

I gotta tell you... I suspect you are even wrong on that point. Either that or you are IMHO certainly not an orthodox Christian by any measure. I will not speak for all the Christians here, and if one or more would like to leap in and correct me I'd appreciate it. But the orthodox view IIRC is that even in the super-natural realm nothing comes from nothing. God cuts the Gordian knot of that maxim not by violating it, but by being eternal and uncreated. Everything comes from something... ultimately the eternal God that did not "come from anything" simply because He always was.

But then again, my resulting question is why, if you have already conceded that something can be eternal and uncreated, why not the universe?

Think about it. If you begin with the assumption that God is uncreated, then you have conceded that something can be uncreated. Okay... if God can be uncreated, why can't the universe itself be uncreated? After all, we actually have evidence for the existence of a universe.

And we have evidence that ordinary nature must have a cause. YOU called exceptions "Miracles". Thus, the partition between ordinary nature and super nature is necessary.

And calling what you don't like to believe "magical thinking" is no more logical than calling it "poo-poo head thinking". Its an appeal to emotion by one who has given up logic.

Nor do your appeals to "throwing up hands" have any reasoned merit to save your position.

The first thing you said to me was that I was over-thinking. Ender, the problem is that you are under-thinking.

"And we have evidence that ordinary nature must have a cause."

Oh? What evidence is that?

"YOU called exceptions "Miracles". Thus, the partition between ordinary nature and super nature is necessary."

Not if no such exceptions actually exist. We have many labels for imaginary things, and the problem with "super naturalists" such as yourself is that you have never been able to provide any evidence that the label of "miracle" does not apply exclusively to just such an imaginary thing.

"And calling what you don't like to believe "magical thinking" is no more logical than calling it "poo-poo head thinking". Its an appeal to emotion by one who has given up logic."

I'm sorry if you misunderstood that to be a pejorative term. It's not. It is a specific technical term that describes a specific and well understood way of thinking. You will not get very far in most arguments if you are so thin skinned as to take offense every time somebody uses a word or phrase that you are unfamiliar with.

"Nor do your appeals to "throwing up hands" have any reasoned merit to save your position."

Then make (for the first time) an effort to demonstrate that that is not exactly what you are doing. I would love to see you do that.

"The first thing you said to me was that I was over-thinking. Ender, the problem is that you are under-thinking."

I gotta tell you, that post was even more disappointing than usual. You make essentially no attempt at all to defend your world view or challenge mine.

Am I to understand you are abandoning the field?

You have already defined nature for me, when you insisted that existence consisted of matter and energy only. Thus we have a partition drawn by you. You categorize things outside of it as "miracles" and "magic". Thus again you have drawn the partition. You have asserted your belief that the "magic" thinking is unsupportable, thus you have abandoned, except by pretense, any validity to your Ocham's Razor type arguments.

But then again, my resulting question is why, if you have already conceded that something can be eternal and uncreated, why not the universe?

If universe means cosmos including the possibility of a super nature in it. Then certainly the eternal thing is in that super nature. If it does not have a super nature in it, then I look at the laws of physics, and to matter and energy, and shake my head and think about it.

Frankly we don't know about the physics of God, so he could be an exception to this law we see. However the stuff we can see does not appear to be eternal, even if we assume that the second law of thermodynamics is just wrong...a pretty fancy assumption for somebody lead by science.

But we can have fun with the idea that regular matter and energy are eternal, and see what ridiculous implications we can draw.

Imagine that the big bang has happened an infinite number of times. And that each time the results are non-deterministic (which appears to be the nature of matter and energy per current state of physics).

Well, then because of the non determinate infinite sequence, every possible event physically possible must have happened already an infinite number of times!

What fun! Certainly pink horses with horns in their forehead must have evolved on some iterations! It must have happened an infinite number of times! And thus there must be an infinite number of invisible pink unicorns.

And just think, on some iterations there must have been some little folks with pointed ears and elven wings...but with tails. In some cases marvelous tails with some remarkable traits...any that were possible on some iterations.

Thus on such a view, fairy tails must be real!

Not only do you have angels...in infinite number...you have all creatures possible both in and out of mythology.

Of coarse, I think it more sensible to think of the thing beyond the beginning of the big bang as not just more of the same into eternity...but then, I'm at least as smart as a 4 year old.

"You have already defined nature for me, when you insisted that existence consisted of matter and energy only."

And... what? Do you object to that definition or not? Why do you insist on never telling us what you think until you have to disagree with what you previously said? It's getting kinda tiresome.

"Thus we have a partition drawn by you."

Yes we do. But not an arbitrary one.

"You categorize things outside of it as "miracles" and "magic". Thus again you have drawn the partition."

Yes... I have. And how do feel about that? If you disagree with it, perhaps you might find the intestinal fortitude to actually take a stand on the issue?

"You have asserted your belief that the "magic" thinking is unsupportable, thus you have abandoned, except by pretense, any validity to your Ocham's Razor type arguments."

I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

"If universe means cosmos including the possibility of a super nature in it. Then certainly the eternal thing is in that super nature. If it does not have a super nature in it, then I look at the laws of physics, and to matter and energy, and shake my head and think about it.

Was that supposed to be an answer to my question? It was not that hard a question, so I'll try it again, and perhaps this time you will actually answer it. Here is is again:

If you have already conceded that something can be eternal and uncreated, why not the universe?

"Frankly we don't know about the physics of God, so he could be an exception to this law we see. However the stuff we can see does not appear to be eternal, even if we assume that the second law of thermodynamics is just wrong...a pretty fancy assumption for somebody lead by science."

Again, you have fallen back on misconceptions that I thought we had covered several posts ago. Nothing in the universe need be eternal for the universe to be eternal. We've already talked about that. You seem to be trying to embrace the logical fallacy of composition. Since it's a fallacy, I'm not sure why you would want to do that.

But I am intrigued in how you believe that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics helps you. Want to give is the short version on that?

"But we can have fun with the idea that regular matter and energy are eternal, and see what ridiculous implications we can draw.

[snip]

Not only do you have angels...in infinite number...you have all creatures possible both in and out of mythology."

Actually... you are both right and wrong at the same time. You are wrong in that your imagination seems quite impoverished. Limiting yourself to human invented "fairy tales" misses out on the simple fact that an eternal universe is likely to produce a far larger number of things you can't even imagine than those you can. Invisible pink unicorns? Heck, you're not even trying.

But where you are right is that in such a scenario, there must be universes just like this one... in fact an infinite number of them. You are not the only Andy that has argued with an Ender about this issue on an Internet.

And all with no requirement for divine intervention.

"Of coarse, I think it more sensible to think of the thing beyond the beginning of the big bang as not just more of the same into eternity...but then, I'm at least as smart as a 4 year old."

So... let me get this straight. Allow me to paraphrase with a point. Another way of saying this is:

You think it more sensible to think of the thing beyond the beginning of the big bang as something for which have no evidence than something for which you actually do have evidence.

Is that really your position?

Which is it, Andy? Are you a naturalist who accepts that nothing comes from nothing, or are you a super-naturalist who believes that cause and effect is just a sometimes thing?

I am starting by assuming neither premise is necessarily correct. And arguing

I then consider the laws of physics and nature, and see if it makes sense that it can exist without a super natural cause.

Since I know nothing little about super nature...I am uncertain initially as to if it could exist without an external cause.

However nature, without super nature does not seem to be able to. Everything in it, in whole or in part has a cause outside of itself. It makes no sense to allow that the whole thing together is an exception.

Let me expand on my reasoning for this last assertion:

We all would accept a hamburger can not simply come into existence by natural law with no external or internal cause (albeit a naturalist would also reject external causes as non existent). Simarily we would agree about any finite subset of nature as well. This we know as a very well established principle of nature.

So now, consider all of an eternal nature rather than a subset--which I think is the only part of this argument that is not immediately obvious--I say that logically, it would need an external cause as well:

Going back to infinity in time (or if you like in a cause and effect chain or web) just postpones and multiplies the inevitable need of an initial cause to an infinitely large balance. Every iteration just results in more stuff that needed to be caused by something external. Does one really have to be a competent mathematician to know what that limit adds up to? Mathematicians aren't asked to add up the limit of 1 over n as n approaches infinity. Philosophers need not bother to do the same. Every iteration back to earlier causes makes merely more stuff that can not exist without an external cause.

I am a very skeptical person, and great lover of reason. Which caused me to reject naturalism. I regret that not everything in the Heavens is something I understand. Nor even everything in nature. But that gives me no excuse to refuse to accept what I do understand about nature. Including that she can not be the whole picture.

"However nature, without super nature does not seem to be able to. Everything in it, in whole or in part has a cause outside of itself. It makes no sense to allow that the whole thing together is an exception."

And there you go. That's the classic fallacy of composition. You are trying to attribute to the whole the characteristics of its components parts. The "whole thing together" is not an exception, and it contains no exceptions. It is the sum of all causes and all effects. It is not itself an effect, so it demands no cause.

But more importantly, look what you have done here. You have started with the premise that you keep vacillating over. You have alternately embraced and rejected that all effects have causes, yet here you are again embracing it.

Having embraced it (again) for a moment, how can you justify a conclusion (God) that denies it, thus contradicting yourself again?

Joining you argument in progress:

"So now, consider all of an eternal nature rather than a subset--which I think is the only part of this argument that is not immediately obvious--I say that logically, it would need an external cause as well."

Reflect back on our previous discussion of time. I described time (and you ended abandoning the discussion and up making no ultimate objection) as not actually existing. "All of an eternal nature" is bounded by the universe that exists "now." All the causes of all the effects that constitute the universe "now" all existed in previous instances of now, and no longer exist. Boiling it down to the universe itself as a comprehensive entity and treating it as single "effect" (though we know it actually is not one), the "cause" of the universe that is "now" is the universe that immediately preceded it. Thus your intuitive need for "an external cause" is met perfectly.

That entire prior instance of "now" is external to this one. Thus the cause of this "now" is external to it. And this "now" is the external cause of the next.

And again, it requires no embrace of an entity for which we have no evidence in favor of one for which we have overwhelming evidence.

"Going back to infinity in time (or if you like in a cause and effect chain or web) just postpones and multiplies the inevitable need of an initial cause to an infinitely large balance. Every iteration just results in more stuff that needed to be caused by something external. "

Actually, no. The conservation laws actually solve that concern quite neatly. The sum total of energy and matter in the universe is constant. So there actually is no multiplication effect of the sort you describe here.

But more to the point of the discussion, you are offering here a near complete admission that you are arbitrarily inserting God into the chain of causality. What difference does it make if you insert that God 4 billion years ago or five minutes ago? In either case you have no actual evidence that demands it... you simply have already decided that there must an external cause. And rather than demonstrating a genuine need for such a cause, you are merely deciding where to put it.

If every instance of "now" finds its "external cause" in the immediately prior instance of "now" there is neither a place nor a reason to insert something different.

"Does one really have to be a competent mathematician to know what that limit adds up to? Mathematicians aren't asked to add up the limit of 1 over n as n approaches infinity.

Excuse me? Mathematicians do that all the time. The study of "infinite series" is a huge part of mathematics. Archimedes was doing infinite series thousands of years ago.

"Philosophers need not bother to do the same. Every iteration back to earlier causes makes merely more stuff that can not exist without an external cause."

We know better than that now. Conservation laws make such a phenomenon impossible.

"I am a very skeptical person, and great lover of reason. Which caused me to reject naturalism. I regret that not everything in the Heavens is something I understand. Nor even everything in nature. But that gives me no excuse to refuse to accept what I do understand about nature. Including that she can not be the whole picture."

And so you replace that gap in your own knowledge with a particular sectarian version of God as reflected in the Bible? Do you understand why I see that as more than a mere intuitive leap?

Your posts make a stronger case that you have reasoned in exactly the opposite direction from your claim here. You did not reason to God from any skeptical review of nature. You accepted God as dogma, and rationalized your rejection of naturalism accordingly.

There is certainly no genuine effort here to justify the abandonment of the premise that you (sometimes) accept regarding cause and effect.

Reflect back on our previous discussion of time. I described time (and you ended abandoning the discussion and up making no ultimate objection) as not actually existing. "All of an eternal nature" is bounded by the universe that exists "now." All the causes of all the effects that constitute the universe "now" all existed in previous instances of now, and no longer exist. Boiling it down to the universe itself as a comprehensive entity and treating it as single "effect" (though we know it actually is not one), the "cause" of the universe that is "now" is the universe that immediately preceded it. Thus your intuitive need for "an external cause" is met perfectly.

I'm sorry, but I thought we had rejected this notion of "now" as the only thing that exists when you allowed that a thought and an author were entities with a duration, but yet existed. Also you volunteered that thoughts had no particular beginning or end but were a process of thinking.

Certainly than in the same sense larger systems exist. Or is there a particular way the cosmos must be partitioned?

You are taking many rabbit trails, which I accept as possibilities for the sake of argument until I show that they can't be true. But then you seem to think I have accepted them.

I'm wondering if you are simply consciously muddying the water.

At this time I declare victory, and the field is mine.

Seemingly you won't recognize this by sheer force of will. But I can not help that. I have a life I need to get back to. I sincerely hope God blesses you.

"I'm sorry, but I thought we had rejected this notion of "now" as the only thing that exists when you allowed that a thought and an author were entities with a duration, but yet existed. Also you volunteered that thoughts had no particular beginning or end but were a process of thinking."

Nope. You apparently did not understand that discussion at all. You can of course go back and reread it, or we can simply have it again. My point then was that thoughts are just like every other actual thing, and exist only "now." Since mind is what brain does, the illusion of time in thought is no different from the illusion of time in every other material thing. It is a convention we use to understand the sequence of "nows." Nothing else.

"Certainly than in the same sense larger systems exist. Or is there a particular way the cosmos must be partitioned?

There is no obvious partition of the actual cosmos that is not arbitrary.

"You are taking many rabbit trails, which I accept as possibilities for the sake of argument until I show that they can't be true. But then you seem to think I have accepted them."

I'm still waiting for you to show that they can't be true, instead of merely asserting that they are not true. You certainly have made no effort to challenge the core assertion I have made that if the premise that all effects must have a cause is true, then the only logical conclusion is an eternal uncreated universe.

In every case so far you have reached a point in the discussion where you arbitrarily insert God for no reason that can be distinguished from your child's assertion that God put milk in the store.

You took great pride in your child's assertion, even though you know it was wrong. You know for a fact that the chain of causality that placed that milk in the store did not commence with a direct creative act of God in the dairy section. Your child simply got tired with following the true pathway and arbitrarily punted... calling it God. Nothing you have done in this thread can be distinguished from that arbitrary and false choice of a 4 year old.

"I'm wondering if you are simply consciously muddying the water."

There is no mud. There is no water. There are simply two different conclusions, one reached linearly from premises and logic, and the other reached in a circle by intuitively leaping to an already predetermined result.

Both conclusions terminate in an entity that is eternal and uncreated. Mine is the universe, yours is God.

I consider the former as a superior conclusion if for no other reason than because we actually have evidence that a universe exists.

I am still completely in the dark as to why you think that your conclusion is in some way better.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.