Phil Forum : Intelligent Design Evolution

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p7

That's an assertion based on presupposition. How do you establish a first cause beyond asserting it? Even if you are granted a first cause premise there's no justification presented for it being a supernatural cause. — CeleRate

It's based on the same assumption that Plato and Aristotle made. In my thesis, I refer to the necessity of a First Cause as an Axiom (self-evidently true). Look it up. The "supernatural" aspect is merely logical inference. That's what philosophers do; this is a philosophical forum. You should know better than to ask for scientific evidence & arguments for something that is not available for empirical measurements. Supernatural causes are excluded from modern Science on the basis of Methodological Naturalism. Look it up. But as a non-scientist, I am not bound by that arbitrary (but useful) limitation. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread : Metaphysics.

Meta-Physics : "Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Plato/Aristotle First Cause : The Cosmological Argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

If it was a supernatural agent, then what caused the supernatural agent? — CeleRate

You missed the stipulation in the earlier posts : both G*D and Multiverse are necessarily eternal and self-caused. No need for any other cause.

I asked for the reason that it was limited to two. It's not my job to support your claim. — CeleRate

I gave you my reasons via links in previous posts. It's not my job to read them for you.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... riously/p7

If you won't construct a philosophical argument, and you won't rely on science to substantiate the truthfulness of any of your claims, then there's nothing to debate. Making bald assertions is not philosophy. Better luck next time. — CeleRate

I enjoyed the opportunity to respond to skeptical questions about a topic that is important to me (existence; ontology), and which is not addressed by pragmatic Science. That's the only reason I allowed you to continue to demonstrate your superior sophistry. But I could tell from the beginning that you weren't serious about hearing any "pro" assertions, as in my Enformationism "philosophical argument". Apparently you were only interested in trolling some Intelligent Design "idiots". This philosophical forum is important, because it allows us to "dialog" (not debate) with others who hold different worldviews. So, despite your anti-philosophy attitude, you have done us a service. Thanks.

PS___FWIW, I don't accept the Bible-based Intelligent Design theory. My theory is called Intelligent Evolution, and is science-based.
PPS___I apologize for responding in kind, with personally directed statements.