Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

[rossum]

A cause is not explained by its effects, rather the effect is explained by its causes.

However in order to be a cause, there must be an effect. You cannot be a parent unless you have had children. You cannot be the creator of the universe unless there is a universe.

Being a cause is contingent on there being an effect. Otherwise how can you tell a false claim from a true one?

However, the cause exists simultaneously or before its effects.

But it is not yet a cause. We talk about a mother-to-be, who is not yet a mother. Until such time as the effect exists, then the future cause is only a cause-to-be, not an actual cause. Being a cause is a contingent property, not inherent.

In eternity, the past and the future are in the present. God is, always has been, and always will be creating.

God acts outside eternity. Or are you telling us that the sea is still parted where Moses crossed? Did He eternally part the sea, or did He temporarily part the sea? That “temporarily” shows that God was acting in time, not timelessly.

Similarly, the creation of the material universe was within time, not outside it. Otherwise the material universe would be eternal and not need creating.

An effect requires a cause, but a cause also requires an effect before it can legitimately be called a cause. The two concepts are mutually contingent; you cannot have one without the other.

 

[buffalo]

He also pronounced a part of it “not good”, and that was before the fall. See Genesis 2:18.

Genesis 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective. Gen 2 is complementary and shows the importance of man. God continued His work of creation by giving Adam a helpmate, since His work was still incomplete. “Not good” in this case is not the same as you are claiming. You know better.

 

[o_mlly]

However in order to be a cause, there must be an effect. You cannot be a parent unless you have had children. You cannot be the creator of the universe unless there is a universe.

Being a cause is contingent on there being an effect. Otherwise how can you tell a false claim from a true one?

A “creator of the universe” describes an activity, not the being of God.

I think your argument only concludes that God does not need to be acting (creating) to be God. I agree.

But it is not yet a cause. We talk about a mother-to-be, who is not yet a mother. Until such time as the effect exists, then the future cause is only a cause-to-be, not an actual cause. Being a cause is a contingent property, not inherent.

Experience in time shows that a cause never produces an effect except on a body that exists.

Let us call such altered beings as transformationally contingent.

Matter which exists through creative causes via exnihilation is radically contingent.

Radically contingent beings require different conclusions than transformationally contingent beings.

The existence of a creative cause, therefore, is not contingent on the being of its effects as one effect of those contingent beings is necessarily their non-being.

God acts outside eternity. Or are you telling us that the sea is still parted where Moses crossed? Did He eternally part the sea, or did He temporarily part the sea? That “temporarily” shows that God was acting in time, not timelessly.

Similarly, the creation of the material universe was within time, not outside it. Otherwise the material universe would be eternal and not need creating.

An effect requires a cause, but a cause also requires an effect before it can legitimately be called a cause. The two concepts are mutually contingent; you cannot have one without the other.

From beings locked in time, there was a time that the sea was not parted, parted, and then ceased to be parted. We cannot know how a mind in eternity perceives events in time, but it is plausible to think that all events are present to that Mind.

The present universe is only one of many possible universes as a logical possibility. The physical reality of such universes is not necessary, only their logical possibility.

If the present universe is not the only possible universe then the present universe has only possible existence; it does not have necessary existence.

Therefore, the present universe exists contingently and requires a necessary cause.

If this cosmos might be otherwise might then this cosmos might not exist at all.

For the cosmos to cease to exist, it must be annihilated and not merely transformed.

Apologies to the OP. Probably need a new thread to continue.

 

[rossum]

“Not good” in this case is not the same as you are claiming. You know better.

If God says one thing and some internet poster says another thing, who do I believe? Hmmm… let me think now…

Is your name Francis and are you posting from Rome? That might affect my answer.

 

[rossum]

A “creator of the universe” describes an activity , not the being of God.

Correct. The designation “creator” is contingent. Just as a female may exist for many years before she can be called a “mother”.

From beings locked in time, there was a time that the sea was not parted, parted, and then ceased to be parted.

Then the immediate cause of the parting was also inside time. It was inactive or not present before the parting. Present and active during the parting and then again either not present of inactive afterwards. Hence that immediate cause was neither timeless nor unchanging.

This is a general problem with an eternal unchanging God causing non-eternal effects within time. Kabbalah uses the Sephirot, while the Gnostics used various Demiurges to try to get round the problem.

Trying to connect an eternal unchanging cause at one end of the chain with a temporary changing effect at the other will always cause a problem at some point in the middle.

 

[buffalo]

Is your name Francis and are you posting from Rome? That might affect my answer.

Another error - papal infallibility only applies to faith and morals while speaking from the chair in communion with the Bishops.

Catholics look to the constant teaching and understanding of these verses.

Now who should I believe? A non believing internet guy who consults the SAB to make his argument?

 

[o_mlly]

Correct. The designation “creator” is contingent. Just as a female may exist for many years before she can be called a “mother”.

A designation, as a faculty or power, is not contingent; it either exists or it does not. However, the beings which are caused by that power are contingent.

Begetting and creating are categorically different acts, as posted earlier.

Then the immediate cause of the parting was also inside time. It was inactive or not present before the parting. Present and active during the parting and then again either not present of inactive afterwards. Hence that immediate cause was neither timeless nor unchanging.

This is a general problem with an eternal unchanging God causing non-eternal effects within time. Kabbalah uses the Sephirot, while the Gnostics used various Demiurges to try to get round the problem.

Trying to connect an eternal unchanging cause at one end of the chain with a temporary changing effect at the other will always cause a problem at some point in the middle.

What was the immediate cause(s) that parted the sea? Winds, currents or some other physical disturbances or combination acting within the natural laws. I agree that the " immediate cause[s were] neither timeless nor unchanging."

I do not see a logical problem with an eternal being as a primary cause for non-eternal effects. The temporal nature of the effects are not greater than their eternal primary cause. The principle of sufficient reason is satisfied. What principle of logic do you see violated?

 

[rossum]

A non believing internet guy who consults the SAB to make his argument?

I have consulted that site in the past, some years ago. In this specific case I merely read Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[rossum]

I do not see a logical problem with an eternal being as a primary cause for non-eternal effects.

Here is Genesis by an eternal unchanging God:

On the first day, God said, “Let there be light.” And on the second day, God said, “Let there be light.” And on the third day, God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fourth…

That is the problem with being unchanging, you cannot change.

The God of the Bible is not unchanging; He performs different actions at different times. He cannot do that unless He changes.

 

[edwest211]

That is an incorrect view of the Christian God. Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind and cleansed the lepers. None of that involved a change on His part.

God can operate in time. And create time. From EWTN:

"Time began to be when changing creatures came into being. Time is a restless continuous set of changes. Ahead is a moment we call future — it quickly changes into present — then quickly changes into past. God could have created from all eternity, and the world would have been eternal. For there is no point in eternity (if we may use such a word) at which He did not have the power to create. But Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And Christ told His Father :“You loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).

 

[o_mlly]

That is the problem with being unchanging, you cannot change.

The God of the Bible is not unchanging; He performs different actions at different times. He cannot do that unless He changes.

We do not interpret Genesis literally. Here is the English translation for Gen 1:1-7.

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters

Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Evening came, and morning followed—the first day.*

Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.

God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

Rather than indicating time, the “when/then” construction indicates states of non-existence and existence. "When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state.

 

[rossum]

That is an incorrect view of the Christian God. Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind and cleansed the lepers. None of that involved a change on His part.

Jesus spoke. Speech requires change. Jesus walked. Walking requires change. Any muscular action requires change in the nerves controlling the muscles and in the muscles themselves. Walking requires changes in the position of the bones. Talking requires changes in the positions of tongue and lips. An unchanging Jesus would be an immobile statue.

What you suggest is very obviously incorrect. Jesus’ action as described in the Bible required change.

 

[rossum]

Rather than indicating time, the “when/then” construction indicates states of non-existence and existence. "When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state.

Which is not relevant to God’s actions inside time. The sea existed before God acted in time to part it. It is not a non-existence/existence action.

 

[o_mlly]

Which is not relevant to God’s actions inside time. The sea existed before God acted in time to part it. It is not a non-existence/existence action.

While the creatures’ mode of existence is dependent on the Creator, the Creator’s mode of existence is not dependent on His creatures. Time has two meanings; one for temporal beings and another for the atemporal Being.

New thread needed if you wish to continue.

 

[Aloysium]

God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

Rather than indicating time, the “when/then” construction indicates states of non-existence and existence. "When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state.

The premordial chaos, would be a relative term, to what was to follow. It might be something that we might conceptualize as being along the lines of primal matter in Aristotelian philosophy, or undifferentiated energy in modern physical terms. The cosmology of the times when Genesis was written is not clear to me, but the words do create an impression of what occurred, which I translate for myself in modern terminology, as equally odd as it may sound to others hundreds of generations from now, and what I imagine are the heavens.

As we can trace back the unfolding of the universe in time, based on what exists in the present, we can similarly see in existence a hierarchy of being, of information, if you like, becoming more complex and exhibiting new properties as we travel up from the atom to human relations. This ontological structure, of course, was developed in time. The subatomic level of the physical world was required in order to create atoms, which in turn were necessary for the creation of something totally new, a cell. And from there all this was brought into existence, with the beauty, wonder and interrelated complexity, that includes our very selves.

 

[rossum]

New thread needed if you wish to continue.

Agreed. (up to ten characters.)

 

[o_mlly]

The premordial chaos, would be a relative term, to what was to follow. It might be something that we might conceptualize as being along the lines of primal matter in Aristotelian philosophy, or undifferentiated energy in modern physical terms. The cosmology of the times when Genesis was written is not clear to me, but the words do create an impression of what occurred, which I translate for myself in modern terminology, as equally odd as it may sound to others hundreds of generations from now, and what I imagine are the heavens.

As we can trace back the unfolding of the universe in time, based on what exists in the present, we can similarly see in existence a hierarchy of being, of information, if you like, becoming more complex and exhibiting new properties as we travel up from the atom to human relations. This ontological structure, of course, was developed in time. The subatomic level of the physical world was required in order to create atoms, which in turn were necessary for the creation of something totally new, a cell. And from there all this was brought into existence, with the beauty, wonder and interrelated complexity, that includes our very selves.

Remembering that the substance of the text tells us about a timeless God, we may treat as peripheral incidentals that are peculiar to the time of composition if doing so unveils the central themes: the enduring attributes of God and His plan for humanity.

Taking the accidents of time and place away, the creation story in Genesis tells us about the nature of time, reaching its climax in the Sabbath. The text tells us about the nature of the world, reaching its perfection in God’s pleasure with what God had created, God’s blessing and sanctifying creation. It also tells us about the character of humankind, man and women, perfect in God’s image, like God, but tragically, unlike God, in that they abused their free will.

 

[Aloysium]

we may treat as peripheral incidentals that are peculiar to the time of composition if doing so unveils the central themes: the enduring attributes of God and His plan for humanity.

Yes, but for the purposes of this thread, which addresses reasons why we would reject the abiogenesis hypothesis, we can interpret the text historically. In today’s terms, the creation of the first forms of life involved a structuring of what had been previously brought into existence, space-time, atoms and molecules, into a new type of being, one that was alive, able to transform what was outside itself into itsels, to procreate, and to react within its environment, detecting what was food and what was dangerous, a rudimentary psychology. These organisms as themselves with a set of relationships that defined them did not previously exist. What followed were plants and animals of different kinds, each again a novel creation, utilizing what would be chaotic to the harmonious, coordinated structure and functioning of multicellular life. The complexity and diversity we see around us, while requiring the determined reactions inherent in simple material forms, demands a Creator. What is basically a belief in the primacy of matter, that its random activity from a primordial chaos led to the development of the human body capable of expressing the spirit which God has bestowed upon us, just doesn’t cut it.

 

[o_mlly]

What is basically a belief in the primacy of matter, that its random activity from a primordial chaos led to the development of the human body capable of expressing the spirit which God has bestowed upon us, just doesn’t cut it.

Amen. Absent an organizing principle, matter may aggregate but matter cannot integrate. Matter cannot give itself what it does not already possess – life.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[edwest211]

Well said.