Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[IWantGod]

I don’t think I ever said we cannot determine causes. Of course some causes are more proximate than others, and therefore their effects easier to isolate. When science says A causes B it does not rule out the possibility that A is contingent on the existence of C, and B on D.

There are two possibilities. Either there is an infinite regress or cycle of change (cause and effect), or there is ultimately a being upon which all changing things are dependent for their existence.

Perhaps you prefer and infinite cycle or infinite regress or an infinite multiverse of cause and effect. But at the very least, with the notion of an uncaused-cause we in principle have a metaphysical conclusion to a series of contingent events, and that makes more sense than a never ending series of cause and effect that is essentially occuring for literally no reason, especially when it is the fact of wondering about the reason (the cause) that compels us to look for a reason in the first place…

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t think I ever said we cannot determine causes. Of course some causes are more proximate than others, and therefore their effects easier to isolate.

What this discussion shows is how daft it is to talk about cause and effect as though they were discrete and isolated.

Thank you for clarifying.

So reason that discerns causes and effects is not daft if the cause is proximate to its effect. So does it follow that speciation, never proximate to the many remote genetic mutations preceding it, cannot be reasonably determined as caused by natural selection?

 

[guanophore]

Genesis 18-19 describes how three “angels” ate food with Abraham. How coud they eat food if they didn’t have physical bodies? Perhaps they were humans

How does Jesus eat after the resurrection? His resurrected body could pass through walls and ascend into heaven. There is so much that we just don’t know and understand about heavenly bodies, and the forms of angels.

And what does it have to do with the evolution of species?

 

[rossum]

There are two possibilities. Either there is an infinite regress or cycle of change ( cause and effect ), or there is ultimately a being upon which all changing things are dependent for their existence.

Why “being”? All you can say for the first option is that there is some cause. There is nothing about a cause that requires a being. Gravity can cause things, but is not a being.

Given a universe that is infinite in time then there is no cause required; the Kalaam argument only requires a cause for things that have a beginning. A beginningless, eternal, universe does not require a cause.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Gravity can cause things, but is not a being.

Gravity describes a relationship between real things. It’s occuring in reality. If there is no reality, it makes no sense to speak about gravity. It makes no sense to speak about gravity without also talking about beings.

 

[IWantGod]

Given a universe that is infinite in time then there is no cause required;

An Infinite regress of intermediate causes is nonsensical. There is no reason for x to exist if every cause in the series is an effect, because there is no real cause for the series if there are only effects in the series; which makes no rational sense.

If you have an infinite quantity of contingent beings, what you essentially have is a quantity of beings that exist for no reason. It’s just a brute fact in disguise because the notion of causality in the series is rendered meaningless insofar as the existence of the series as a whole is concerned, although it is a clever disguise.

 

[Richca]

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

If a 5 foot man generates a son who becomes a 6 foot man, does this mean that the son is greater than the father?

In the above example, there is nothing in the effect that we cannot trace to its cause. Indeed, that we call the larger change in current the effect means that it has a cause which produces the effect. So I think that in the statement that no effect is greater than its cause may simply mean that we can’t get something from nothing. And I don’t think by the word ‘greater’ in this statement, we are just talking about material quantitative differences which are accidents. The effect in the above example, namely, electrical current, is substantially the same as the producing cause, namely, electrical current. Changes in electrical current are accidental changes. So, in this respect, it is said that every effect is like its cause in some way though not necessarily of the same species as the sun produces a lot of effects on earth which effects do not become stars.

At any rate, I think I look at the statement ‘no effect is greater than its cause’ as meaning we don’t get something from nothing. And this statement may have something to do more with what is called the ‘principle of sufficient reason’ which I think may be a more recent formulated principle and which is not exactly the same thing or carry the same meaning as the principle of efficient causality and the distinction between act and potency in Aristotlelian/Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics. Accordingly, if you want to respond to this post that’s fine but presently I don’t think I’m going to argue over or belabor over what the statement ‘no effect is greater than its cause’ may mean or its application even though I’m the one who brought it up. And again, at least in one respect, I’m just interpreting it as we don’t get something from nothing.

 

[PickyPicky]

I think you are indeed considering a “series” while I think a “network” is closer to reality. And I don’t see why an infinite network should be considered to make less sense.

… a never ending series of cause and effect that is essentially occuring for literally no reason, especially when it is the fact of wondering about the reason ( the cause ) that compels us to look for a reason in the first place

Yes, I think the conclusion to a series is what you are looking for, and anything else therefore makes little sense for you.

 

[PickyPicky]

Take another look at what I said. After all, you’ve quoted it! “As though they were discrete and isolated”.

 

[IWantGod]

There is no point looking for any cause if the conclusion most preferable to you is that there is no ultimate cause. The whole point of looking for an explanation presupposes that there is ultimately an explanation; reason tells us this, and that’s the very reason we search, because a thing that is not necessarily actual makes no sense without a cause for it’s actuality.

Kind of like your arbitrary notion of a network, as if such a network is not made of changes, cause and effect relationships that define the very existence of that network. An infinite regress of change (or cause and effect) arbitrarily removes the reason why the series exists and pretends it does not need an explanation as if an infinite series of effects is sufficient. Clearly it’s not, that is if reason is the goal.

 

[PickyPicky]

Of course a network of changes is made up of changes. Of course, being human, we seek a reason for the network’s existence. But it may be there is no reason, just as, apparently, there is no reason for your uncaused cause.

 

[Richca]

IWantGod:

There are two possibilities. Either there is an infinite regress or cycle of change ( cause and effect ), or there is ultimately a being upon which all changing things are dependent for their existence.

Why “being”? All you can say for the first option is that there is some cause. There is nothing about a cause that requires a being. Gravity can cause things, but is not a being.

Given a universe that is infinite in time then there is no cause required; the Kalaam argument only requires a cause for things that have a beginning. A beginningless, eternal, universe does not require a cause.

rossum

Why being? Because only that which is or exists can be a cause. Nothing or non-being cannot cause anything as it doesn’t exist. That which doesn’t exist cannot be a cause. A cause necessarily requires that it is, it exists, is a being.

‘All you can say for the first option is that there is some cause’. I don’t think it follows necessarily in an infinite regress of cause and effect that there is some cause. In an infinite regress there is no first or first cause so in what sense can it be said that there is or must be a cause? It seems that this whole series can be conceived as an infinite series of effects without a cause which, of course, is irrational. Without a first cause there is no final cause or intermediate causes either. But, we observe in the world around us final causes or ends everywhere. For example, the final cause or end of an acorn is an oak tree.

I think everybody admits that gravity is something real and if it is real it is a being for what exists is a being of some kind. I don’t think gravity is a substance or has substantial being but it is an accident (accidental being or form) of a substance which naturally follows material substances or bodies. Or, according to Einstein’s theory, gravity is an accidental form of the body of space or the heavens. At the same time though, scientists utilize Newton’s universal law of gravitation and the gravitational constant which is derived from bodies which corresponds to gravity being an accidental form of material substances and bodies which are distinct from space or the heavens such as the earth or anything composed of the elements or what is called baryonic matter.

 

[IWantGod]

Of course a network of changes is made up of changes. Of course, being human, we seek a reason for the network’s existence. But it may be there is no reason, just as, apparently, there is no reason for your uncaused cause.

Accept an uncause cause is not changing, is not a potentiality that becomes actual, or is not made up parts that were once only potentially actual. Thus to speak of an uncaused cause that is necessarily actual makes sense because that which is necessarily actual requires no explanation for it’s actuality other than the fact that it is it’s very nature to exist (This is a deductively necessary conclusion); whereas your network arbitrarily exists, despite the fact that it is essentially made up of contingent parts; and you entertain this idea so that you don’t have to reason about it’s existence at all even if the irrationality of it’s solitary existence is pointed out to you. You are just excusing yourself from the problem.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

buffalo:

LeafByNiggle:

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

The power supply has the power available. Some of this current is lost in heat and noise. It amplifies a small (name removed by moderator)ut, but does consume power to do so and outputs less than 100%. The power supply has to have the available designed in output capability. The transistor is not creating more energy.

Right, the electricity itself, right from the start, is the greater cause.

Sure, if that is how you want to define “cause.” So when the President flips the switch to light the national Christmas tree, he is not the cause of the lights going on. It is Niagra Falls.

Yeah…that’s a good way to put it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Certainly. In a transistor, the a very small change in electrical current between the base and the emitter (the cause) produces a much larger change in current between the emitter and the collector (the effect). That is the foundation of all amplifiers.

If a 5 foot man generates a son who becomes a 6 foot man, does this mean that the son is greater than the father?

Yes, if by greater you mean taller. Since I don’t know in what sense the claim “No effect can be greater than its cause” was made in this evolution debate, I really don’t know in what sense I’m supposed to provide a counter-example. If you redefine the question after I’ve answered it, that hardly seems fair. But if you want to have another go at it, please start by stating how this relates to the subject of the thread - evolution.

So I think that in the statement that no effect is greater than its cause may simply mean that we can’t get something from nothing.

I agree there are many senses in which that statement could be true. The real question is, which of those senses relate to the argument about evolution?

 

[PickyPicky]

But if the universe exists without being contingent, as it would if it were infinitely existing, it too would be necessarily actual and requiring no reason to exist.

 

[IWantGod]

as it would if it were infinitely existing

If the universe is essentially a description of contingently existing relationships, something that is comprised of beings or states that are not necessarily actual but instead became actual, then that idea is not logically feasible as an uncaused-cause regardless of how long these contingent relationships have been occuring for. Adding length to something does not equate to existential-necessity.

 

[Edgar]

If God is omnipresent, then there should be signs of life (i.e. of the living God) on every other planet.

Which Law of God says that?

 

[Edgar]

Some would have it that they could have physical bodies only if they evolved them. Since God, we are told, must follow the laws of physics, these would then either be myths, simple human beings or hallucinations.

Genesis 19:1 describes two of the three as “angels”, so I assume they really were angels, not humans. As for the nature of the third, many commentators suggest it was God; perhaps an early incarnation (if that’s the right word) of Jesus.
Also, the homosexual mob in Sodom demanded that the two visitors (the two angels) be handed over to them in order that they might “know” them - which suggests the appearance of these two visitors was very appealing, due maybe to a perfect angelic countenance. Then there is the power these two visitors had which struck the mob blind, which suggests they were more than just human messengers.

 

[Edgar]

How does Jesus eat after the resurrection? His resurrected body could pass through walls and ascend into heaven. There is so much that we just don’t know and understand about heavenly bodies, and the forms of angels. And what does it have to do with the evolution of species?

Good queston: I forget.