jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (71 posts)

Causality---the tie that binds.

  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
    A.Villarasaposted 5 weeks ago

    The classical definition of causality states that a cause and its effect(s) can be different types of entity.  In equational terms a cause is considered necessary:->>  if x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x however does not imply that y will occur. A cause is considered sufficient:->> if x is a sufficient cause of y, then  the  presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y.

    If as empiricists have proposed, our universe started via the Big Bang,  implying that it was caused,( thus an effect of a cause),  then the question arises:  What caused it? Certainly the universe could not have caused itself to exist. Theorists suggest that there was some kind of an entity, with energy so dense, that it could have occupied a space so small, but when that space expanded, for whatever reason, the energy it contained was released... energy that subsequently initiated the formation of mass (matter)  since as per Einstein's formulation E=Mc2.

    On its own could or would energy be an entity that produced every material forms in the universe including life? Sentient life in fact. IMO the appearance of sentient life on earth (and maybe somewhere else) implies intent and purpose, and energy on it own certainly does not have those 2 properties.  Life comes from life; Sentience comes from sentience.

    Going back to the equation above it would read: If a sentient entity, call him GOD (x) is a necessary cause of sentience, call him Homo Sapiens (y) , then the presence of  humans  necessarily implies the presence of God. If God(x) is a sufficient cause of humans(y) , then the presence of God(x) necessarily implies the presence of humans(y)

    1. lovetherain profile image72
      lovetherainposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      You're making a lot of assumptions.

      Life comes from life? Prove it.

      Sentience comes from sentience? Prove it.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        Those are not assumptions... those are facts. Now if you believe otherwise, then you have to prove it. ie  life and sentience being cause by non-life and non-sentience. If you believe nature dunnit, can you tell me how nature designed the DNA... the basic property of life. If you believe nature dunnit, can you tell me how nature designed the brain--  the most integrative connections there is on earth that undergirds  intelligence and sentience.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          "Now if you believe otherwise, then you have to prove it. ie  life and sentience being cause by non-life and non-sentience."

          You know better; you made the statement and are responsible for either supporting it or letting it lie as opinion and nothing more. 

          As far as the other requests to explain how nature dunnit, study up on evolution and abiogenesis.  Always bearing in mind that whether an understanding of what happened is available or not does not mean it did not happen.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            Oh I have studied evolution and abiogenesis alright. And these two theories certainly could not and would not explain the emergence of life.... and intelligent life. If you think they do, then you must be in another sphere of the empirical perseveration.

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              Nonsense.  Many rational, intelligent and sincere people, both religious and not, find the evidence sufficient.  You can't just insult that fact away.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                Whats facts are you referring to? My facts revolve around the logical  and sensible idea that the universe could not have created itself. If you think it did, what proofs do you have. The only reason why you might think that the universe was not created is if you believe that it is eternal. Empiricists certainly don't think that the universe is eternal.

                The universe had its start, as per empirical theory, with the Big Bang. So  whatever or whoever started it  designed for the universe to proceed in a manner that we are now discovering and unraveling , via what we label Laws of Nature.  It is in the nature of the universe to proceed the way it did, because it was designed to proceed the way it did and continues to do. There is nothing willy-nilly about the process, because it is in the nature of the universe to proceed along the lines of the "laws" we now call laws of nature.

                Design implies intelligence and sentience. If you don't agree to that statement then I suppose nothing will ever unhinge you from the "nature dunnit" scenario, which implies no design , thus no intelligence.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              Odd.  Most, if not all, scientists familiar with the concept accept both as quite possible.  About the only ones that don't are those that prefer the Religious explanation but they can provide no other explanation but the god theory...without ever producing a god.  At least those that understand evolution can produce thousands of examples of it.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                Evolutionary theory does not and certainly can not tell us with absolute certainly why, how and what started life on earth except to say that the materials to produce life was available in abundance for it to occur. Evolutionary theory mainly involves itself with the process of  what "life" went through after it was formed. Abiogenesis is just a theory that implies that life was willi-nilly produced without any design intent to it. Which as you already know nature could not do on its own because nature was, is and will never be intelligent and sentient. The only reason why you might think that nature is intelligent is becasue it follows, "laws" that we now call Laws of Nature.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  "Evolutionary theory does not and certainly can not tell us with absolute certainly why, how and what started life on earth except to say that the materials to produce life was available in abundance for it to occur. "

                  If you have studied evolution at all you completely understand that this sentence is an exercise in nonsense, for evolution has exactly zero to say about the origins of life.  Not even what the environment was like prior to life.  Suggest you continue those studies.

                  "Abiogenesis is just a theory that implies that life was willi-nilly produced without any design intent to it. Which as you already know nature could not do on its own because nature was, is and will never be intelligent and sentient."

                  Fascinating conclusion, and very true...IF the assumption that life required a sentience to produce it is true.  As there is no evidence to support that assumption, the statement is as lacking in reason as the first couple of sentences.  We know of nothing whatsoever that indicates at all that random chemical reactions could not produce both DNA and cells: life as we know it.  It is also completely impossible to definitively state that a different form of life did not arise and then mutate to become what we consider life today.

                  As far as nature being intelligent, I'll just point out that homo sapiens are a part of nature and let you decide just how intelligent nature is.

        2. lovetherain profile image72
          lovetherainposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          Nature "designs" through natural laws and mathematics. These underpin everything. That's why the growth of cities follow the same mathematical laws as the growth of galaxies. It's all numbers. Number, forces and fields, nothing else.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            Only an intelligent/sentient entity is capable of creating design because designing implies intent and purpose, 2 predispositions that can only be ascribed to intelliegence and sentience.

            Since nature is non-intelliegnt and non-sentient, it is incapable of being predisposed to having intent and purpose. Nature can only produce (not create) patterns(not designs).

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      Your post is full of assumptions you have no reason to make, save to produce the answer desired.

      First, the assumption that there was a cause somewhere in the strange and unknown "universe" of a singularity.  The only thing you have to found that assumption on is that most (but not all) events in our much different universe (with it's much different physical laws) requires one; obviously insufficient to form the conclusion.

      Then you assume that the universe could not be it's own cause - again based on nothing at all as you have never witnessed the formation of ANY universe, let alone the large number required to formulate the conclusion.

      Next comes the assumption (stated as such) that sentience requires intelligence to provide intent and purpose.  And once again it is founded on nothing but the desire for a god - nothing else points to that conclusion as there is exactly zero observation of the rise of sentient life.

      The we come to "Life comes from life; Sentience comes from sentience.", but the first half is known to be false and the second is nothing but another unsupported opinion. 

      The equations then: "If a sentient entity, call him GOD (x) is a necessary cause of sentience, call him Homo Sapiens (y) , then the presence of  humans  necessarily implies the presence of God."  Fine, but we don't know if the "IF" section is true or not.  As a result even though we know humans exist there is no reason for there to be a god.

      "If God(x) is a sufficient cause of humans(y) , then the presence of God(x) necessarily implies the presence of humans(y)"  Notice that the "IF" section is unknown. There is at this time nothing whatsoever to support such a statement that a god is sufficient cause of humanity.

    3. Oztinato profile image83
      Oztinatoposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      Here we go again. The local hp maths geniuses are out again. God help us.

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 weeks ago

    Why couldn't the universe have caused itself into existence?

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      Because it couldn,t... Even science say so.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        No it doesn't.  Our laws of physics relate to physical laws that came into being only after the big bang.

  3. Oztinato profile image83
    Oztinatoposted 5 weeks ago

    Once again we see brand new theories emerging from the wilderness. This time it's evolutionary theory "made up on the go." A bit like Macdonalds takeaway science.
    "Evolution has zero to tell us about the origins of life"(? ) wow.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      You really do need to study it a bit more.  Or a lot more, if you think evolution concerns itself with the origins of life.

      1. Oztinato profile image83
        Oztinatoposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        Please stop it. Now you're tweaking to get out of your own bind. "Think before you leap". Evolution has a lot to say about the beginnings of life, not "nothing to say". More tweaking to get out of your own tangles is expected!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          So?  Which species did the first life evolve from? 

          "Evolutionary theory mainly involves itself with the process of  what "life" went through after it was formed.

          Abiogenesis is just a theory that implies that life was willi-nilly produced without any design intent to it."

          It is difficult to understand how any one person could possibly make these two statements and then claim that evolution is the study or concept of how life was formed in the first place.  Perhaps you need to study the very first thesis on evolution: "Origin of Species" and the man the proposed it.  Nowhere will you find anything about the origin of life - indeed he was adamant that he DID not have anything to say about creation of life.  Nothing has changed since that time, although abiogenesis was formed in an attempt to understand just how life came about in the first place.

          It IS interesting, though, to watch as those believing in intelligent design go to such efforts to discredit a well understood concept (evolution) - to the point of changing it in order to "prove" it wrong.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

            As I said evolutionary theory is mainly involved with how different  living entities (with varying  specie specific genetic markers)  proceeded to interact and react to variegated environmental impositions that they encountered during their respective life spans. Evolution is of course a scientific fact, but it has nothing to say about how life started, and that is why the myth  of abiogenesis have to be invented by Darwinists who could not quite accept the idea that life was created by a sentient being.

            An article,   written by John Morgan in the magazine Scientific American which he  titled "Pssst!!!! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began" ,  rather quickly debunked the idea that abiogenesis has serious/impeccable  scientific underpinning. In the article, he detailed why abiogenesis can never be empirically proven despite all the attempts to chemically mix various protein precursors ie amino acids to produce self-replicating proteins. First there was DNA, but DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic enzymes. Then there was  RNA, which might be able to replicate itself without help from enzymes, but RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. The RNA scenario is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much far out, -literally- speculation ie panspermia, --- the notion that microbes arrived on our planet via asteroids, comets or meteorites. Of course this idea merely push the problem of life's origin into outer space. Which begs the question: If life didn't begin here, how did it begin out there?

            1. lovetherain profile image72
              lovetherainposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

              You don't know how it started, so Goddidit.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                We can all wait till kingdom for science to provide us with impeccable and verifiable evidence that nature dunnit. In terms of why and how life started on earth, even Einstein said that  science can not unravel everything that needs to be unraveled about the universe and life's existence in it.

                So is "God-dunnit" a reasonable position to put our one-cents worth of belief on?  Absolutely. Even Einstein said so. So even if his idea of God did  not jibe with the biblical narrative, he still believed  that the universe was created by a supernatural, sentient entity. Thus nature "not
                dunnit".

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

              Darwinists yet, that "invented" abiogenesis!  You are no doubt aware that Darwin took considerable effort to explain that he did NOT express any opinions about the creation of life?  That he said NOTHING about abiogenesis (although the term was unknown then)?  Yet they are "Darwinists" in your mind.

              Of course abiogenesis will not be empirically proven: that would require a time machine to go back and watch it happen.  But the possibility can and (IMO) will be proven one day when life is created from shelf chemicals.  Which is far, far more evidence than any claims of an invisible god that did it.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                My error... Darwinists  had nothing to do with abiogenesis,  but atheistic  empiricists started the ball rolling on that hypothesis, which up to this day have not found its niche in the scientific community.

                Only those folks who are emotionally attached  to the persistent  but inconsequential attempts to prove that  inchoate chemistry led to  consummate biology can say with straight face that abiogenesis will one day find that niche. An so it goes.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Or perhaps it is people actually looking for an answer as to how it happened, rather than making up a god that answers all questions and performs all actions.

                  Personally, I think the those searching for answers have the right idea: that making one up and never going any further to verify it is true will never teach us anything at all.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I believe in God but I agree with you 100%

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I am not saying that humans should stop asking question and looking for answers about the universe and their existence in it. It is man's destiny to unravel the universe and its mysteries, but are we going to unravel it all in one big scientific bonanza? I doubt it. Even Einstein said so------ to paraphrase him: there is so much to learn and know about the universe, but our human minds are feeble compared to the one that created us  and the universe.

  4. Oztinato profile image83
    Oztinatoposted 4 weeks ago

    We've come along way since Darwin. Of course there are now evolutionary ideas about how early life evolved.

  5. Oztinato profile image83
    Oztinatoposted 4 weeks ago

    Wilderness
    Newton remained a firm believer in God all his life and saw his theories as proof of God.
    You need to urgently read up on the latest science news. The multi universe theories are starting to prove anything can exist including God. Maybe spend a few minutes each day catching up on it?

 
working