Thomas Aquinas Part 1

[NotreDame]

First of all, the human brain “proves” nothing as regards evolution. But the science of evolution is certainly not circular. It is quite linear in that the most primitive life forms are found in the relatively oldest strata of Earth, with increasing complexity of life throughout the eons of the geological record. As such, the human brain is considered by biologists (and medical science) as yet another organ, just like the liver or lung, and as such is indeed the product of evolution.
Anyone can insert God into evolution if they so desire, given that this is a “free country”, but that then moves it out of strictly the realm of science and into theological philosophy, which is why the courts have ruled that it cannot be taught in a scientific classroom in the public schools,

This is off to an inauspicious start. “First of all” I did not say or imply “ the human brain “proves” nothing as regards evolution.” It is helpful if you address my comments.

But the science of evolution is certainly not circular. It is quite linear in that the most primitive life forms are found in the relatively oldest strata of Earth, with increasing complexity of life throughout the eons of the geological record. As such, the human brain is considered by biologists (and medical science) as yet another organ, just like the liver or lung, and as such is indeed the product of evolution.

Right, with demarcation by four kinds of speciation events, which result in a new species. I’m very familiar with the science of evolution.

But your comments miss the point, as I said your use of evolution to refute Aquinas’ argument is circular, as you define circularity, “It’s circular in that it depends only on itself for “proof” rather than on any outside evidence.” But your definition of circularity is not the classical, philosophical meaning. Circular reasoning is where the conclusion is the same as a premise of the argument.

P1: All humans are mortal.
P2. Everything that is mortal has four legs.
Conclusion: Humans have four legs.

Now, this is a valid argument. This argument is not circular, despite the fact there’s no “outside evidence” to support the argument.

A circular argument is the following.

P1: To be a politician is to be dishonest.
Conclusion: Therefore, politicians are dishonest.

That is a circular argument, as the premise and conclusion make the same claim.

Your reliance upon “outside evidence” goes to the strength of the argument. The more evidence and its tendency to show the conclusion as true the stronger the argument, generally.

So observing there’s no evidence for Aquinas’ argument is to say his argument is weak, very weak, from an evidentiary point of view.

But your use of the scientific evidence to refute Aquinas’ argument meets the classical meaning of circular. This isn’t necessarily fatal, as my undergrad philosophy professor would say a circular argument, although flawed reasoning, can still be true.

Here’s where the circularity is applicable. Science assumes a natural cause as opposed to a spiritual one. Intelligence is the result of evolution. What’s the evidence there isn’t a spiritual cause? Evolution. Evolution is the evidence in and of itself for a natural cause and not a spiritual one. But to reach this conclusion is to assume there’s no spiritual cause for evolution that resulted in intelligence. That’s a circular argument. But is it false? May it be true? Yes, despite its circularity, it may be true, after all, there’s no evidence for the assumption evolution had a spiritual cause, our assumption of a natural cause is sensible, given the non-existent evidence for a spiritual one.

Science starts and rests with an assumption of a natural cause and only a natural cause. This may result in circularity but based on evidence, looks to be true.

A good example of what I reference is the debate between Meyer and other scientists. Meyer observes there’s no evidence at the moment for a natural cause for DNA, or for the vast explosion of life forms at a specific point of time in earth. Meyer concludes a supernatural cause. The scientific critics respond by saying Meyer is arguing a “god of the gaps.” Since science cannot presently provide a natural cause explanation with evidence, then god must be the cause. These scientists kindly remind Meyer that science assumes a natural cause, even when it presently cannot find one, until there’s evidence for a supernatural cause. And when they find a natural cause, it is the cause as opposed to a supernatural cause. It is evidence in and of itself of no spiritual cause. Hence, circular, but good reason to think it is true.

I need not comment on your tangent about what is or isn’t taught in schools. I’ve taken no position on this question and not interested in the red herring.

 

[NotreDame]

On the other hand, it doesn't add God to the equation either. In fact, all it does is show much explanation does not NEED God.

Sure, this is sensible. As my philosophy professor would repeat as nauseum, a circular argument, though flawed, can be true. Flawed reasoning is a good reason to be skeptical of its truth. He then dived into the circularity of the philosophy of scientific knowledge and show, while circular, we have good reasons to accept its truth, the evidence.

 

[watsup]

This is off to an inauspicious start. “First of all” I did not say or imply “ the human brain “proves” nothing as regards evolution.” It is helpful if you address my comments.



Right, with demarcation by four kinds of speciation events, which result in a new species. I’m very familiar with the science of evolution.

But your comments miss the point, as I said your use of evolution to refute Aquinas’ argument is circular, as you define circularity, “It’s circular in that it depends only on itself for “proof” rather than on any outside evidence.” But your definition of circularity is not the classical, philosophical meaning. Circular reasoning is where the conclusion is the same as a premise of the argument.

P1: All humans are mortal.
P2. Everything that is mortal has four legs.
Conclusion: Humans have four legs.

Now, this is a valid argument. This argument is not circular, despite the fact there’s no “outside evidence” to support the argument.

A circular argument is the following.

P1: To be a politician is to be dishonest.
Conclusion: Therefore, politicians are dishonest.

That is a circular argument, as the premise and conclusion make the same claim.

Your reliance upon “outside evidence” goes to the strength of the argument. The more evidence and its tendency to show the conclusion as true the stronger the argument, generally.

So observing there’s no evidence for Aquinas’ argument is to say his argument is weak, very weak, from an evidentiary point of view.

But your use of the scientific evidence to refute Aquinas’ argument meets the classical meaning of circular. This isn’t necessarily fatal, as my undergrad philosophy professor would say a circular argument, although flawed reasoning, can still be true.

Here’s where the circularity is applicable. Science assumes a natural cause as opposed to a spiritual one. Intelligence is the result of evolution. What’s the evidence there isn’t a spiritual cause? Evolution. Evolution is the evidence in and of itself for a natural cause and not a spiritual one. But to reach this conclusion is to assume there’s no spiritual cause for evolution that resulted in intelligence. That’s a circular argument. But is it false? May it be true? Yes, despite its circularity, it may be true, after all, there’s no evidence for the assumption evolution had a spiritual cause, our assumption of a natural cause is sensible, given the non-existent evidence for a spiritual one.

Science starts and rests with an assumption of a natural cause and only a natural cause. This may result in circularity but based on evidence, looks to be true.

A good example of what I reference is the debate between Meyer and other scientists. Meyer observes there’s no evidence at the moment for a natural cause for DNA, or for the vast explosion of life forms at a specific point of time in earth. Meyer concludes a supernatural cause. The scientific critics respond by saying Meyer is arguing a “god of the gaps.” Since science cannot presently provide a natural cause explanation with evidence, then god must be the cause. These scientists kindly remind Meyer that science assumes a natural cause, even when it presently cannot find one, until there’s evidence for a supernatural cause. And when they find a natural cause, it is the cause as opposed to a supernatural cause. It is evidence in and of itself of no spiritual cause. Hence, circular, but good reason to think it is true.

I need not comment on your tangent about what is or isn’t taught in schools. I’ve taken no position on this question and not interested in the red herring.

F
According to biological science, every part of the human body is the result of evolution, just like every other species of flora and fauna on the planet. And no, it's not circular because it can be traced in a LINEAR fashion based on the findings of geological strata from simplest life forms to most complex at this point, home sapiens. Every one of those found life forms of the past are EVIDENCE of evolution. If you or anyone else wants to posit a different explanation, go for it, but I will stick with the scientists and the science.

 

[NotreDame]

F
According to biological science, every part of the human body is the result of evolution, just like every other species of flora and fauna on the planet. And no, it's not circular because it can be traced in a LINEAR fashion based on the findings of geological strata from simplest life forms to most complex at this point, home sapiens. Every one of those found life forms of the past are EVIDENCE of evolution. If you or anyone else wants to posit a different explanation, go for it, but I will stick with the scientists and the science.

F

Your understanding of circular reasoning merits an F.

And no, it's not circular because it can be traced in a LINEAR fashion based on the findings of geological strata from simplest life forms to most complex at this point, home sapiens

This doesn’t mean it isn’t circular. It is circular when used to assert there is no supernatural cause, a salient point you fail to address time and time again, and the above doesn’t address this pint either.

What’s equally problematic is you can’t figure out how using the evidence to say there’s no supernatural cause is circular, but despite the circularity, good reasons exists to believe there is a natural cause as opposed to a spiritual one.

The rest of what you said isn’t much of an improvement.

According to biological science, every part of the human body is the result of evolution, just like every other species of flora and fauna on the planet.

You’re confused. This hasn’t been disputed.

If you or anyone else wants to posit a different explanation, go for it, but I will stick with the scientists and the science.

This isn’t about offering a different explanation. This is about the philosophical meaning of circular reasoning, and how there is circular reasoning when scientific evidence is used in a particular manner but this isn’t necessarily fatal.

No one is advocating an abandonment scientists and science. How yuh reached this and other bizarre notions is mystifying.

 

[watsup]

Your understanding of circular reasoning merits an F.



This doesn’t mean it isn’t circular. It is circular when used to assert there is no supernatural cause, a salient point you fail to address time and time again, and the above doesn’t address this pint either.

What’s equally problematic is you can’t figure out how using the evidence to say there’s no supernatural cause is circular, but despite the circularity, good reasons exists to believe there is a natural cause as opposed to a spiritual one.

The rest of what you said isn’t much of an improvement.



You’re confused. This hasn’t been disputed.



This isn’t about offering a different explanation. This is about the philosophical meaning of circular reasoning, and how there is circular reasoning when scientific evidence is used in a particular manner but this isn’t necessarily fatal.

No one is advocating an abandonment scientists and science. How yuh reached this and other bizarre notions is mystifying.

I don’t think that I have ever said that I even want to address whether there is “not” a supernatural cause for evolution or anything else in the universe. That’s not up to me to address. That’s for a Christian apologist to address. If someone thinks that there is a “God” who somehow interceded in some manner in building any part of the universe, then it is up to them to provide the evidence. I’m saying that there is not even any evidence for this supposed “God”, and that would need to be provided first. I’ve asked for said evidence for literally decades, and no one has yet provided any, and certainly not the circular arguments of Aquinas.
And all I’m saying about evolution is that, according to huge amounts of geological evidence, SCIENTISTS say that evolution is the manner in which life has come to its present form on this particular planet. If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s see it.