Argument from First Cause

[Mmarco]

But you’ve completely ignored the point that comsciousness shows all indications of a gradually evolved characteristic. Unless, as I have asked twice, you think it has simply been switched on in it’s various forms at some point? Is that your position?

I totally disagree on your assumtion that " comsciousness shows all indications of a gradually evolved characteristic".
You must understand that animal behavior can be explained as the result of an automatic (which means totally unconscious) algorythm implanted in their nervous system. The fact that we are already able to reproduce animal behavior using software proves that the idea that animals are conscious is a non-necessary assumption.
What you call " indications of a gradually evolved characteristic" is simply the result of a gradually improved unconscious algorythm, which does not imply any kind of consciousness.
Of course you are free to believe that animals are conscious, but, according to our scientific knowledges, this hypothesis would imply also the hypothesis that animals must have some kind of soul, because consciousness is not a product of the physical reality.

 

[Wesrock]

I’ve seen this argument in various forms whenever this topic comes up. In an attempt to deny that consciousness has evolved and hence is entirely natural and we simply express it in the highest form, it’s expanded to include intelligence. And when it’s pointed out that other animals are very intelligent it expands to include intellect. And we all patiently wait for someone to point out that chimps or dolphins have never composed a symphony. Which is mean to be the coup de grace as far as the argument goes.

In this case you disagree with 2+ different people who also don’t agree with each other.

If you’re saying my formulation is a recent innovation in response to the origin of species through evolution, you’re mistaken. This was the classical western position prior to Descartes, going back to the ancient Greeks. Descartes argued that the qualia we experience, feelings, and so on, could not stem from the physical world and so he located strictly in the mental, and (for Descartes) only in human beings. The more ancient position did not see it that way. The classical position regarding the distinction between human beings and other animals (rationality) was defined in the problem of universals. Qualia, feelings, etc… were seen as material faculties (sensitive faculties), things we shared with other animals.

That’s a bit of an oversimplified history, for the most part you can probably find someone who articulated any point of view at some time in the past, but I’m just referring to broad philosophical trends.

If you hold to the position that we are just exceptionally intelligent apes then that view doesn’t get much traction (especially when it’s tied specifically to the posession of a soul).

We’re certainly exceptionally intelligent primates when compared to the apes we share recent evolutionary history with, but the position that knowing is just a matter of increasing physical complexity comes with its own problems of epistemology.

 

[stoplooklisten]

But WHY can only God be the first cause?

WHY not? Would you prefer someone else?

Is God not good enough? Are His demands too high? Do you have an alternative? Do you expect that you could rebel and prosper? Do you have reasons to doubt the impeccable attributes and qualities of the Creator? Do you deny that the Almighty Creator has already revealed Himself in Nature, Providence, Scripture, the historical Person of Jesus Christ and the people of God? Would it not be better to love and serve the Creator?

 

[Freddy]

Of course you are free to believe that animals are conscious, but, according to our scientific knowledges, this hypothesis would imply also the hypothesis that animals must have some kind of soul, because consciousness is not a product of the physical reality.

Ah yes. Many animals show examples of consciousness and intelligence and even self awareness. But they can’t be conscious because they don’t have a soul. And we have a soul so we are conscious and it’s a mystery. QED I guess.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

Of course you are free to believe that animals are conscious, but, according to our scientific knowledges, this hypothesis would imply also the hypothesis that animals must have some kind of soul, because consciousness is not a product of the physical reality.

Ah yes. Many animals show examples of consciousness and intelligence and even self awareness.

The point is that your idea that “Many animals show examples of consciousness” is only your interpretation of their behavior, and not a demostrable fact. From my point of view, you are simply anthropomorphizing the animals.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’ve seen this argument in various forms whenever this topic comes up. In an attempt to deny that consciousness has evolved and hence is entirely natural and we simply express it in the highest form, it’s expanded to include intelligence. And when it’s pointed out that other animals are very intelligent it expands to include intellect. And we all patiently wait for someone to point out that chimps or dolphins have never composed a symphony. Which is mean to be the coup de grace as far as the argument goes.

In this case you disagree with 2+ different people who also don’t agree with each other.

If you’re saying my formulation is a recent innovation in response to the origin of species through evolution, you’re mistaken. This was the classical western position prior to Descartes, going back to the ancient Greeks. Descartes argued that the qualia we experience, feelings, and so on, could not stem from the physical world and so he located strictly in the mental, and (for Descartes) only in human beings. The more ancient position did not see it that way. The classical position regarding the distinction between human beings and other animals (rationality) was defined in the problem of universals. Qualia, feelings, etc… were seen as material faculties (sensitive faculties), things we shared with other animal

Rationality as being some function of the soul.

The problem has always been that most people considered us separate from other animals. And quite often (certainly prior to Darwin) don’t even now consider us animals. That we are different, and not just in degree. And the argument always ends up with a claim that what separates us is rationality. And when I pursue what that might entail it ends with being described as ‘that which separates us from the animals’.

At which point I go and get a beer.

 

[MPat]

Ummm, yes. Observation is the foundation of all science.

But this your “seeing” and “not seeing” is not really observation.

Just look:

‘Consciousness’ is not well-defined but to the extent that it is defined I can see nothing to indicate that it is non-material in origin or that anything can be ‘non-material’ in origin.

That obviously makes no sense for literal seeing with your eyes. (Did you check if you hear anything to indicate this? Taste? Smell? )

So, if you were not talking complete nonsense, gibberish (and, hopefully, you were not), you must have meant “see” in another sense. And there are suitable senses, as “recognise” or “suppose”.

Those senses indicate informal, perhaps intuitive understanding.

So, is there any reason for us (or even for you yourself) to think that those faculties of yours are sufficiently reliable for this “scientific understanding”? Do you even want to claim that they are?

Think carefully about your answer, for it will be used against you.

And quite often (certainly prior to Darwin) don’t even now consider us animals.

Um, the standard definition of “human” has been “rational animal” for a very long time.

So, it is one of the things you supposedly “know” that are not really true. One of the things you have to “unlearn”.

And when I pursue what that might entail it ends with being described as ‘that which separates us from the animals’.

Have you considered a possibility that you are just not good enough at understanding those things?

What rationality is is not a great secret.

Someone is rational when one has an ability (perhaps undeveloped, damaged, potential) to understand things in abstract.

That is, to take an example, a “normal”, non-rational pony can be a friend, while a rational pony (the kind that is usually found in cartoons) can also talk about friendship in abstract.

 

[IanAG]

I sense that you’re expressing a little frustration here which isn’t necessary.

I am a devout Christian, playing devil’s advocate with what I believe would be a logical riposte from an atheist so that I can develop my understanding and a valid argument.

I think that ‘why should that first cause be defined as God’ would be a reasonable challenge.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And quite often (certainly prior to Darwin) don’t even now consider us animals.

Um, the standard definition of “human” has been “rational animal” for a very long time.

Very Aristotelian of you. So I have two questions.

Firstly, without using a circular argument, explain why, whatever your definition is of ‘rational’ is, it didn’t evolve. And part two of the same question: If it didn’t, when did we get it?

And secondly, do you think that putting ‘Umm’ at the start of a sentence carries more weight than using a rolling eyes emoji?

 

[MPat]

Very Aristotelian of you.

So, you did know.

(Not that there was much doubt.)

Firstly, without using a circular argument, explain why, whatever your definition is of ‘rational’ is, it didn’t evolve. And part two of the same question: If it didn’t, when did we get it?

Irrelevant for now.

Your claim was:

And quite often (certainly prior to Darwin) don’t even now consider us animals.

Well, that claim is clearly false. As we can see, people (for example, Aristotle and his followers) did consider humans a subtype of animals long before Darwin.

And, as we see, you actually know that, which is all you needed to find out that your claim is false.

That leaves several possible explanations:

1. Something went wrong with your thinking - you reached a false conclusion.
2. Something went wrong with your will - you reached a correct conclusion, but chose to say something different.
3. Something went wrong with interface between your thoughts and computer - you wrote things badly, in the way that does not correspond to the things you were thinking.

In all three cases a correction is needed.

So, why should I answer any further questions until it happens?

Either explicitly concede that this claim was false, or explicitly modify it.

Then we can talk about the new claim.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Very Aristotelian of you.

So, you did know.

(Not that there was much doubt.)

Firstly, without using a circular argument, explain why, whatever your definition is of ‘rational’ is, it didn’t evolve. And part two of the same question: If it didn’t, when did we get it?

Irrelevant for now.

Your claim was:

And quite often (certainly prior to Darwin) don’t even now consider us animals.

Well, that claim is clearly false. As we can see, people (for example, Aristotle and his followers) did consider humans a subtype of animals long before Darwin.

As do all biologists. And almost everyone who has read almost anything about evolution. Prior to Darwin (as I said) I would suggest that hardly anyone had even considered us animals (note the ‘hardly’). Most people, at least most Christians, held to the view that we were created separately. And as I said ‘quite often’ you will still find a lot of people - even within this forum, who hold to that. We have quite a few evolution deniers here.

And when it comes to exactly when consciousness arose, it generally slides over into intelligence and then intellect. Which is invariably correlated with the soul.

So we have two options. Either consciousness/intelligence/intellect was given to us (Homo sapien) at a specific time OR it evolved.

Which is your preference?

 

[Beryllos]

because consciousness is not a product of the physical reality.

In my opinion, Catholics need to be more careful about using this argument, because most, if not all, aspects of consciousness have been shown to be susceptible to impairment by drugs, disease, and brain injury.

This has been discussed here at CAF in many threads which ask what exactly the soul does, if perception, memory, personality, and even reason are so strongly dependent on biology.

My faith is not weakened by the hypotheses that consciousness in this life is biological and the product of evolution. “God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.” I can take it on faith that the human being is a unity of material and spirit (traditionally, body and soul). However I’m still trying to figure out how that works.

 

[IWantGod]

It is said that the fact that the universe was created out of nothing means that there must have been a first cause. And that therefore God must have been the first cause.

But WHY can only God be the first cause?

If is true that the beginning of the universe represents the beginning of all physical things from nothing, then it must also be true that the laws of physics began to exist. If that is true then it follows that you would need an intellect to create the laws of physics since in-order for things to follow an unnecessary law of behavior something would need to determine what things do

 

[Freddy]

IanAG:

It is said that the fact that the universe was created out of nothing means that there must have been a first cause. And that therefore God must have been the first cause.

But WHY can only God be the first cause?

If is true that the beginning of the universe represents the beginning of all physical things from nothing, then it must also be true that the laws of physics began to exist. If that is true then it follows that you would need an intellect to create the laws of physics since in-order for things to follow an unnecessary law of behavior something would need to determine what things do

The laws of physics are descriptive, not proscriptive.

 

[IWantGod]

The laws of physics are descriptive, not proscriptive.

They describe the consistent behavior of physical things. If the behavior of physics is not metaphysically necessary, then something is determining the behavior (Laws) of physics.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The laws of physics are descriptive, not proscriptive.

They describe the consistent behavior of physical things. If the behavior of physics is not metaphysically necessary, then something is determining the behavior (Laws) of physics.

If something exists then it can be described. That in itself does not determine if ‘something’ is metaphysically necessary.

 

[IWantGod]

If something exists then it can be described. That in itself does not determine if ‘something’ is metaphysically necessary.

I don’t disagree.

 

[Rubee]

My faith is not weakened by the hypotheses that consciousness in this life is biological and the product of evolution. “God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.” I can take it on faith that the human being is a unity of material and spirit (traditionally, body and soul). However I’m still trying to figure out how that works.

Which faith do you mean? Catholicism certainly doesn’t allow us to hold that spirit derives from matter. For one thing, matter is complex: made of many parts joined/forming bigger things; whereas spirit is simple/indivisible. So if you were to hold one came from the other, from the faith’s perspective, it’d be biology/matter deriving from the consciousness/spirit, not the other way around.

 

[Beryllos]

You’ve obviously misunderstood me.

 

[AlNg]

Catholicism certainly doesn’t allow us to hold that spirit derives from matter.

If so how do you explain near death experiences when supposedly the soul leaves the body and yet perceives things around it. Even without NDE, at death, supposing that the soul has left the body, how would the soul perceive or sense anything in the real physical world if it does not have physical eyes or ears or some relation with matter. Bill Clinton said that his mother was watching over him and similarly did a priest say such at a funeral. How would the soul, totally separate from the dead material body, be able to see what was happening on earth if the soul does not have any physical faculties such as a material eye enabling it to observe the physical world.