A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

[Roy]

False. Aritstotle's matter as potency...

There's no such thing as Aristotle's matter as potency. Potency is a Thomistic concept.

is the cause of quantity and not the substantial form. The quantity of a body is an accident not determinative of the nature of the substance per se. The substantial form (sf), which is per se determinative of the substance does not cause quantity.

Yes it does. Using Aristotle's example of a brazen sphere, the quantity of brass is determinable from the form, i.e. the shape and size of the sphere.

That you are trivially wrong is demonstrable simply by using your argument w.r.t. a brazen sphere instead of a soul: For if sf does cause quantity then the sf of marble would always be the same sf, causing the same quantity of marble. But as marble occurs in many diverse quantities, there is another cause of marble quantity, as an accident of the substance of marble. That cause of quantity is matter. Hence the brazen sphere does not cause quantity and therefore the brazen sphere does not have mass. But brazen spheres do have mass - so your argument must be flawed. The actual flaw is left as an exercise for you.

Matter is not the primordial substance.

Aristotle disagrees: "For my definition of matter is just this-the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification"

Matter is the can be or does be. Prime matter is the first can be. Matter is not equivalent to the chemical elements and does not imply mass.

Again, Aristotle disagreed. He thought that the basic forms of matter - the primary substrata - were earth/air/fire/water rather than chemical elements, but that doesn't change the fact that his idea of matter did imply mass.

I see no reason to accept your version of Aristotle's description of 'matter' over his.

[Roy]

I don't need to read it when I already know a plant does not have senses.

A perfect example of closed-mindedness.

[Roy]

So you are a big headed hypocrite. Enjoy science when it makes you feel good, reject science when you don't understand it.

Hey! It's not that he didn't understand it, it's that he didn't even try to understand it. He rejected it unread.

[Roy]

The rejection of a creation event and a supernatural creator are assumed to be false and materialist naturalism is assumed to be true as the foundation of TE.

Codswallop.

Source: Darwin: On the Origin of Species

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

ANY alternative view is ammunition when it comes to JM, given that his "assertions are fact".

That doesn't mean you should hand him lit fuses.

[Roy]

Yup: same criteria, different side of the fence.

Ok, you win. I will concede that there is at least one atheist in this thread who uses the same standard for evidence that JM does.

[Tassman]

That doesn't mean you should hand him lit fuses.

I think there is value in getting JM to express his own close-mindedness in his own words. You are entitled to disagree.

[Roy]

I think there is value in getting JM to express his own close-mindedness in his own words. You are entitled to disagree.

I agree.

But I don't think there is any value in replying to his misunderstandings with misunderstanding of your own.

[rogue06]

Codswallop.

Source: Darwin: On the Origin of Species

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;

© Copyright Original Source

IIRC, in On the Origin of Species, Darwin used the word "Creator" on nine different and occasions and the word "God" twice.

Moreover, look at what Darwin actually wrote about life and the Creator's role in it. To start examine he wrote wrt the human eye where he makes the point that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it saying, "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" Then he pointed to the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument and added that "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

[JohnMartin]

IIRC, in On the Origin of Species, Darwin used the word "Creator" on nine different and occasions and the word "God" twice.

Moreover, look at what Darwin actually wrote about life and the Creator's role in it. To start examine he wrote wrt the human eye where he makes the point that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it saying, "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" Then he pointed to the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument and added that "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"

Dawkins is quoted as saying evolution is an intellectual edifice of his atheism.

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986, 6).

It's well known that atheists appeal to evolution as the theory that replaces the Genesis creation account. Evolution is founded upon naturalism, and denies the creator as understood by atheists.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Codswallop.

Source: Darwin: On the Origin of Species

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;

© Copyright Original Source

Which you thoroughly reject as an atheist. Amazing to see the double standard applied. The atheist now appeals to the creator to have TE accepted as a theory without naturalism, when in fact the atheist rejects the creator and embraces naturalism along with TE.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Hey! It's not that he didn't understand it, it's that he didn't even try to understand it. He rejected it unread.

I don't need to read every link to every article when I know the claims contained within the post and the relevant points in the article are false.

JM

[JohnMartin]

False. Aritstotle's matter as potency...
There's no such thing as Aristotle's matter as potency. Potency is a Thomistic concept.

False.

is the cause of quantity and not the substantial form. The quantity of a body is an accident not determinative of the nature of the substance per se. The substantial form (sf), which is per se determinative of the substance does not cause quantity.

Yes it does. Using Aristotle's example of a brazen sphere, the quantity of brass is determinable from the form, i.e. the shape and size of the sphere.

Accidental form and not substantial form. Quantity is a necessary accident of a body, and the accident is indeterminate with regard to quantity relative to substance. Hence quantity is caused by indeterminacy, which is potency (acting in union with the accidental form).

That you are trivially wrong is demonstrable simply by using your argument w.r.t. a brazen sphere instead of a soul: For if sf does cause quantity then the sf of marble would always be the same sf, causing the same quantity of marble. But as marble occurs in many diverse quantities, there is another cause of marble quantity, as an accident of the substance of marble. That cause of quantity is matter. Hence the brazen sphere does not cause quantity and therefore the brazen sphere does not have mass. But brazen spheres do have mass - so your argument must be flawed. The actual flaw is left as an exercise for you.
Matter is not the primordial substance.

False. Hence the substantial form of the brazen sphere does not cause quantity and therefore the substantial form of the brazen sphere does not have mass. But brazen spheres do have mass, from an accidental form sealed by matter.

Aristotle disagrees: "For my definition of matter is just this-the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification

Aristotle agrees. The primary staratum without qalification is the prime with indetermincay, which is prime matter. Proof that you are wrong comes from the categories, where quantity is an accident -

Of things said without any combination, each signifies either substance or quantity or qualification or a relative or where or when or being-in-a-position or having or doing or being-affected. To give a rough idea, examples of substance are man, horse; of quantity: four-foot, five-foot; of qualification: white, grammatical; of a relative: double, half, larger; of where: in the Lyceum, in the market-place; of when: yesterday, last-year; of being-in-a-position: is-lying, is-sitting; of having: has-shoes-on, has-armour-on; of doing: cutting, burning; of being-affected: being-cut, being-burned.

Quantity is an accident, which requires an accidental form and not a substantial form. Therefore the soul does not have mass or weight, for the soul is a substantial form and not the accidental form of quantity. Stanford encylcopedia also says -

quantities exist; quantities are not substances; substances are not quantities; and it is not clear what kind would stand above quantity. So, Aristotle's decision to make quantity a highest kind appears well motivated. Aristotle's treatment of quantity, however, does raise some difficult questions.

Quantity is not a substance, but is then an accident.

Matter is the can be or does be. Prime matter is the first can be. Matter is not equivalent to the chemical elements and does not imply mass.
Again, Aristotle disagreed. He thought that the basic forms of matter - the primary substrata - were earth/air/fire/water rather than chemical elements, but that doesn't change the fact that his idea of matter did imply mass.

I see no reason to accept your version of Aristotle's description of 'matter' over his.

The reason is simple. You don't get Thomas or Aristotle. Your reading of both is wrong. That's just the way it is.

JM

[tabibito]

I don't need to read every link to every article when I know the claims contained within the post and the relevant points in the article are false.

JM

And?


The idea is to examine claims which then allows you to perhaps demonstrate the points at which they fail, or perhaps to encounter points that you have not previously considered and thus to adjust your own point of view in conformity with a more solid foundation.

[JohnMartin]

And?


The idea is to examine claims which then allows you to perhaps demonstrate the points at which they fail, or perhaps to encounter points that you have not previously considered and thus to adjust your own point of view in conformity with a more solid foundation.

Most of my demonstrations/arguments are simply ignored at Tweb. The recent evidence for the material soul educed from potency, and the soul understood within hyomorphism were both ignored. So I'm currently not interested in demonstrating the semi obvious proposition that plants do not have senses to attain sense knowledge. Science makes mistakes from time to time, so I'm not interested in entertaining the notion of plant sense life that is untenable as proven in Thomistic philosophy.

It's a waste of time.

Animals have sense life and plants do not. If a plant is said to have sense life then the plant is in fact an animal.

JM