Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: LeGrande; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; TXnMA; allmendream; hosepipe; metmom
You can't separate 'final cause' from 'someone's purpose.' Unless you want to change your definition of final cause.

Not so, LeGrande. It is entirely possible to regard a final cause independently of its causal agency (i.e., "someone's purpose"). See Post #1007 for an example of how this can be done.

1,008 posted on 06/27/2009 10:36:14 AM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1005 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop; CottShop; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; LeGrande; allmendream; hosepipe
Not so, LeGrande. It is entirely possible to regard a final cause independently of its causal agency (i.e., "someone's purpose")

No, you are just trying to put an extra layer of confusion in between the 'final cause' and the creation.

And on an earlier post you claimed that the odds against life are huge, which is interesting. It is true that the odds are incredibly high against a dozen die all coming up 6's at once, but if you roll the dozen die and collect the 6's each time it will generally take less than a dozen rolls to get all 6's.

Perhaps the greatest disservice to science came when people started trying to compute odds of unknown variables and come up with finite results. True, math may be unreasonably effective sometimes, but it is useless without data to back it up.

1,010 posted on 06/27/2009 11:23:10 AM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson