Replies

Alamo-Girl wrote: The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature."

To which Agamemnon replied: Let's not forget "why." ... Why do life forms exist at all? ... Why do they exist as they do?

Aristotle famously propounded the thesis that "All men desire to know."

But a man who does not ask the question, "WHY?" does not exhibit the least desire "to know" anything at all. For the simple reason that he must believe he already knows everything worth knowing, so there is nothing further "to know." "WHY???" questions are therefore redundant, irrelevant.

Plus we must recognize that every "WHY???" question necessarily involves the explication of a Final Cause — a purpose or goal, a "limit" that Nature is seeking to realize.

Ever since Francis Bacon, "WHY???" questions of this type have been banished from science, as being too "metaphysical." And thus was the scientific method born.

Bacon wanted to expunge all of philosophy from the practice of science. But he certainly didn't succeed. Ironically, philosophy is foundational to the practice of modern science, in the measure in which it holds materialism (or physicalism) as its fundamental explanatory paradigm.

For materialism is nothing more nor less than a philosophical DOCTRINE of very ancient vintage.

Of course, in accepting such a doctrine, all scientific progress instantly ceases. Under the materialist presupposition become scientific "paradigm," there is absolutely no way to discover the answers to your two great (and historically persistent) questions, Agamemnon:

"Why do life forms exist at all?.... Why do they exist as they do?"

So you simply STOP asking such questions. (Which to me is like performing something like a self-lobotomy....)

You stand in an estimable, honorable line of human thinkers going back to Leibniz at least, who framed your very questions similarly:

WHY are things the way they are, and not some other way? And WHY does anything exist at all, why not nothing?

Such questions are totally unanswerable, absent the idea of Aristotle's Final Cause — purpose, goal, logical limit: Aristotle tells us that Final Cause is that cause for which all the other causes — formal, material, efficient — exist in the first place.

Certain scientists nowadays — on the one hand — will have nothing to do with final causes. Indeed, final causes are to be categorically "banned" from "science."

But on the other hand, in proposing Darwinism as an explanation of how living species evolve without God being involved in any way shape or form — they are working towards justifying a final cause — in other words, a "result," purpose, or goal, conducive to showing that God is "unnecessary" to the understanding of our world.

In yet other words, the purpose or goal of this exercise is to show that God has nothing to do with Nature, or with existents living or non-living, in any way shape or form.

Ergo: God is "unnecessary" to the "scientific" explication of Nature.

The next step is to declare that "God is dead."

Or I gather that is the entire point of the exercise, at least in certain scientific circles. (C.f. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Lewontin, Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, et al.)

Fortunately, such a prejudice did not operate with some of the greatest scientific thinkers the world has ever known; e.g., Aristotle, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, just to mention a few....

And we humans have benefited most spectacularly from their insights....

Thank you ever so much, dear Agamemnon, for your outstanding observations!

[ But on the other hand, in proposing Darwinism as an explanation of how living species evolve without God being involved in any way shape or form — they are working towards justifying a final cause — in other words, a "result," purpose, or goal, conducive to showing that God is "unnecessary" to the understanding of our world. In yet other words, the purpose or goal of this exercise is to show that God has nothing to do with Nature, or with existents living or non-living, in any way shape or form. Ergo: God is "unnecessary" to the "scientific" explication of Nature. The next step is to declare that "God is dead." ]

So true... there is an "Agenda" there.. plain to any thinking person..
The same agenda the proposed "fallen angels" according to biblical lore had...

Which brings me to my "Vision" I had.. (part of it)
THAT... why humans exist in the first place; is to give "certain" fallen ones an attempt at redemption from their fallen estate.. AkA fallen angels getting a second chance..

The duality remains rebellion against God or subservience to "IT"..
Pretty much the two camps of human thinking as well..
What changed?.. not a Hell of a lot.. d;-)...

What changed is "humans" offered a choice..
Could be the old devil(Satan) is whom you look at in the mirror.. your flesh!!..

Do you WANT the flesh or the spirit?...
Which do you identify with?.. seek to pursue?.. or am longing for?.. Which?..
The duality dreams are made of.... and no I don't have a Jesus fetish,..