[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Ham Priday]

Hello, David --



> Ham said:
> Coming into being presupposes a primary cause or source.

> dmb says:
> Does it? Why?
>
> I think you're only saying that creatures presuppose a creator.

No, I'm saying that being in existence implies a primary source.

> As I understand it, this quasi-theological nonsense grows out of the
> nature of our language, where we say trees are made of wood and
> mountains are made of rock, which implies a maker. But trees aren't
> made of wood. They ARE wood and they weren't made
> They just grow. Mountains ARE rock and come into being on their
> own account. ...

Nothing comes into being on its own account.  The "they just happen", "they 
just grow" argument doesn't hack it with me, nor with the scientists who 
explore the processes of nature.  How can anyone be so vain as to think he 
comes into being by his own power?  Does the 'sui generis' man create the 
genetic constituents of his biological organism, direct the differentiation 
and development of his organs and body structure, manage the complex 
auto-immune system that protects him from disease, and all the myriad 
processes that sustain his life -- by his own volition?

I submit that language has more to do with the kind of nihilism you are 
spewing than with explanations for the way things evolve and function.  A 
little reading on embryology and physiology would quickly dispel your 
semiotic notion and fill some missing gaps in your knowledge.

> Why do you suppose it is presupposed by things coming to be?
> Isn't that based on the assumption that the universe is shapeless
> and dumb, like clay?

I don't understand your first question, and find the second irrelevant. 
Form and sentience, or the lack of it, in inert matter is not the issue. 
Craig brought up particles and bosoms, and you talk about clay.  Granted, 
these material entities come into being, but that is after the fact.  It is 
physical existence--being itself--which must be accounted for.  To simply 
default to the premise that the universe was created by a phenomenon known 
as the Big Bang is a copout which doesn't explain anything.  There would 
have had to be matter in some form (energy and/or gas, for example) for such 
a cosmic eruption; so it is wrong to say that the Big Bang marked "the 
beginning" of existence.  Energy, matter, things do not bring themselves 
into existence.  Science doesn't have an answer to what led to the Big Bang, 
but you're not likely to find a physical scientist disputing the fact that 
something did.

--Ham