Would the promotion of the First Absolute Law of Logic help establish the concept of God?

[o_mlly]

If you'd like to discuss the evidence that convinces biologists that common descent is true, I'd be happy to do so -- are you interested at all in that evidence?

Sure. As we are in the Creation & Theistic Evolution forum, kindly start with providing a statement of your position as a Theistic Evolutionist that you will evidence at true.

 

[sfs]

kindly start with providing a statement of your position as a Theistic Evolutionist that you will evidence at true.

As a Christian, I believe in God the creator, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. That is not a belief that I will provide evidence for.

As a scientist, I have concluded that, at a minimum, all animal life on Earth descends from a single common ancestral population and that the heritable differences between organisms (living or extinct) are the result of accumulated naturally occurring mutations filtered through natural selection. So... which part do you disagree with?

 

[o_mlly]

As a Christian, I believe in God the creator, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. That is not a belief that I will provide evidence for.

As a scientist, I have concluded that, at a minimum, all animal life on Earth descends from a single common ancestral population and that the heritable differences between organisms (living or extinct) are the result of accumulated naturally occurring mutations filtered through natural selection. So... which part do you disagree with?

We already know that God must be part of this on a purely metaphysical level since to go from nothing to something requires an infinite power. An infinite God could have willed creation in an infinite number of ways. He willed the most prefect way. Do you disagree with these statements?

 

[sfs]

We already know that God must be part of this

Sure.

to go from nothing to something requires an infinite power.

I'm not even sure what that means, how we could know the power required, or what units such a measurement would be made in.

An infinite God could have willed creation in an infinite number of ways.

Again, sure. Maybe he did -- all we know is this universe.

He willed the most prefect way.

I don't consider myself in a position to tell God how he has to will things. Nor do I know what constitutes the most perfect way. One might as well argue that there's one perfect beetle, and that that's what God must have created -- so why are there hundreds of thousands of less than perfect beetles out there.

You're still dealing in vague philosophical arguments -- I thought you wanted to hear about evidence?

 

[o_mlly]

Sure.

Why did you truncate my reply? You admit God the Creator ... on a purely metaphysical level.

I'm not even sure what that means, how we could know the power required, or what units such a measurement would be made in.

... materialists cannot know because science cannot (will not) examine God the Creator. But a person of faith can. Is there evidence that a finite power has created ex nihilo? No.

Again, sure. Maybe he did -- all we know is this universe.

? You've already admitted that you know that a Being exists outside the universe.

I don't consider myself in a position to tell God how he has to will things.

You already have.

Nor do I know what constitutes the most perfect way.

God does not do imperfect.

One might as well argue that there's one perfect beetle, and that that's what God must have created -- so why are there hundreds of thousands of less than perfect beetles out there.

Devolution.

You're still dealing in vague philosophical arguments -- ...

? The topic of this thread is a philosophical claim and not vague at all.

I thought you wanted to hear about evidence?

Yes. What evidence can you present without violating first principles that the variety and diversity of life evolved from lower forms to higher?

Of course the secular materialist cannot. But neither can a person of faith aka, theistic evolutionist, w/o violating the principle of economy requiring a miracle at every instance of a higher form of life. The theistic evolutionist must abandon philosophy's first principles or appear cognitively dissonant.

In the materialist's realm, you wrote that you have convincing evidence. I think not. If evidence is clear and convincing it must be better evidence than merely a preponderance of non-convincing evidence. Clear and convincing would require agreement among all those experts qualified to judge. We don't have that.

 

[sfs]

? You've already admitted that you know that a Being exists outside the universe.

I mean I don't know about any other created universes -- what they might be like.

Yes. What evidence can you present without violating first principles that the variety and diversity of life evolved from lower forms to higher?

A variety of first principles have been proposed in different threads. Please state a first principle that you think prevents evolution of higher forms of life (whatever exactly they might be).

 

[o_mlly]

A variety of first principles have been proposed in different threads. Please state a first principle that you think prevents evolution of higher forms of life (whatever exactly they might be).

? The most violated First Principle by evolutionist is the first one. See Post#4 below.

The very first of the First Principles of philosophy (which are self-evident) simply put is that a being cannot give that which it does not already possess. (The principle of Sufficient Reason).

____________________________________________

Could secondary causes explain higher orders of life? Of course they could. IFF the Creator in the lowest order of life created the potential to do so.

The assumption that evolution is driven by random mutations has been challenged by recent research. Equally assumable is that mutations are directed. "Directed mutation" solves several problems with the neo-Darwinian theory.

https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5634/Evolution-On-Purpose-Teleonomy-in-Living-Systems

"Evolution "On Purpose": Teleonomy in Living Systems" (The MIT Press).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.09.010
"Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology" (ScienceDirect).

Of course, identifying the "Director", like the "Intelligent Designer", would be problematic for secular materialists but not for Christians.

 

[sfs]

The most violated First Principle by evolutionist is the first one. [...] The very first of the First Principles of philosophy (which are self-evident) simply put is that a being cannot give that which it does not already possess.

Okay, let's start there. First issue: that doesn't appear to be a standard statement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically says that everything has a cause. Second issue: even as normally stated, it's far from self-evident, as can be seen from the many arguments about it and the many version of it in philosophical circles.

Third, and much the most important: you have a great deal of work to do to demonstrate that the principle, in whatever form you posit and assuming it's true, prohibits evolution. As you have stated the principle, it's trivially false: we routinely see being A give rise to being B with properties that A did not possess: acorns do not have leaves and roots, water vapor does not have hard pointy bits, and so on. So there's obviously more to applying the principle than is evident from your statement of it here.

Given that state of affairs, could you spell out the process by which you apply the principle to real world processes? Let's start with a simpler case than evolution. Take photons. Photons have neither mass nor charge. Can photons produce electrons, which have both mass and charge? That is, can they give them something that they don't themselves already possess?

 

[o_mlly]

First issue: that doesn't appear to be a standard statement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically says that everything has a cause.

I wrote "simply put". Normally stated, the definition is:

​

[T]he complete and necessary objective explanation of something; the full intelligibility of accounting for something. Sometimes it means proportionate cause or some other basic explanatory principle.​

Its ontological formula may be stated: "Every being has a sufficient reason for its being and every attribute and relation of its being.​

Its logical formula is: "Every statement should have reasonable evidence." ("A Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy", Wuellner, Page 261.)​

Second issue: even as normally stated, it's far from self-evident, as can be seen from the many arguments about it and the many version of it in philosophical circles.

What specific arguments can you cite?

Third, and much the most important: you have a great deal of work to do to demonstrate that the principle, in whatever form you posit and assuming it's true, prohibits evolution.

Not much work at all.

As you have stated the principle, it's trivially false: we routinely see being A give rise to being B with properties that A did not possess: acorns do not have leaves and roots, water vapor does not have hard pointy bits, and so on. So there's obviously more to applying the principle than is evident from your statement of it here.

Apparently you do not yet grasp the principle. The cognitive order is the mirror image of the ontological order. That is, we come to know the nature, essence, substance (or "species", if you like) of a thing through its observable effects (accidents). Your examples above, unlike evolution theory, are the directly observable effects of acorns, water vapor, etc. which allow the intellect to abstract the effects to determine the essences.

Given that state of affairs, could you spell out the process by which you apply the principle to real world processes? Let's start with a simpler case than evolution. Take photons. Photons have neither mass nor charge. Can photons produce electrons, which have both mass and charge? That is, can they give them something that they don't themselves already possess?

Why leave the arena of living things and their diversity? Rather, let's stay focused.

Essence confers accidents. An accident in human beings is articulate speech. You claim that the human body evolved from a non-human primate, correct? What essence in the non-human primate that lacks the accident of articulate speech provides sufficient reason for articulate speech in human beings?

 

[sfs]

I wrote "simply put". Normally stated, the definition is:
[T]he complete and necessary objective explanation of something; the full intelligibility of accounting for something. Sometimes it means proportionate cause or some other basic explanatory principle.Its ontological formula may be stated: "Every being has a sufficient reason for its being and every attribute and relation of its being.Its logical formula is: "Every statement should have reasonable evidence." ("A Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy", Wuellner, Page 261.)

A much better definition, and one that suggests no problem with evolution. Living things are imperfect replicators. Imperfect replicators change from generation to generation. Imperfect replicators that are subject to natural selection can become better at replicating. That's the essence of adaptive evolution. Those are sufficient reasons for evolution to occur, and we have an abundance of reasonable evidence that is has occurred.

Apparently you do not yet grasp the principle.

Apparently you mistake your assumptions for universal truths.

The cognitive order is the mirror image of the ontological order. That is, we come to know the nature, essence, substance (or "species", if you like) of a thing through its observable effects (accidents).

That is one view of things, but hardly the only one.

Your examples above, unlike evolution theory, are the directly observable effects of acorns, water vapor, etc. which allow the intellect to abstract the effects to determine the essences.

Nonsense. We do not directly observe water vapor. Rather, we construct a model of water vapor, and of the molecules that compose it, and infer properties based on that model. We are better able to directly observe evolution occurring than water vapor. In any case, what does observability have to do with the principle in question or your argument, anyway? Does the principle only apply to things we can't directly observe?

Why leave the arena of living things and their diversity?

Because I'm trying to understand your reasoning in a simpler arena -- as I stated. As you must be aware, the vast majority of philosophers, including philosophers of science, see no logical problem with evolution (including evolution of 'higher' forms of life) occurring. You do. That means you're not engaging in some standard philosophical argument -- it's an idiosyncratic one, and frankly one that makes not a lick of sense to me. Which means you have to explain your reasoning process. So I'll ask again: what reasoning process do you go through to determine whether photons can produce electrons?

 

[o_mlly]

Living things are imperfect replicators. Imperfect replicators change from generation to generation. Imperfect replicators that are subject to natural selection can become better at replicating. That's the essence of adaptive evolution.

Again, microevolution, or adaptive evolution, is not in dispute nor does it violate first principles.

Apparently you mistake your assumptions for universal truths.

Self--evident claims are not assumptions.

That is one view of things, but hardly the only one.

Which other epistemological views do you claim as superior?

Nonsense. We do not directly observe water vapor. Rather, we construct a model of water vapor, and of the molecules that compose it, and infer properties based on that model. We are better able to directly observe evolution occurring than water vapor.

Kindly remember how we framed this exchange:

I have concluded that, at a minimum, all animal life on Earth descends from a single common ancestral population ...

Again, let's stay within the framework -- animal life and common ancestry.

In any case, what does observability have to do with the principle in question or your argument, anyway?

Observability, or more generally sensibility, is the method we come to know about things.

Does the principle only apply to things we can't directly observe?

No, however methods of indirect observation that require specialized equipment or specialized training to operate introduce the possibility of "machine noise" or operator-confirmation-bias. So we must be more careful in accepting the validity of such evidence.

Because I'm trying to understand your reasoning in a simpler arena -- as I stated. As you must be aware, the vast majority of philosophers, including philosophers of science, see no logical problem with evolution (including evolution of 'higher' forms of life) occurring. You do.

No, I don't have a logical problem with evolution; only a problem with the modern or neo-Darwinian explanatory claims for macroevolution. And, as agreed, bounding the exchange to the evolution of all animal life as is not at all a difficult arena.

Your ad populum argument is, of course, fallacious.

As to the seeming lack of dissenting scientists, it is logical to presume that a biology scientist at the department level who departs from the "party-line" risks losing their grant money. Or at a minimum, risks professional opprobrium.

That means you're not engaging in some standard philosophical argument -- it's an idiosyncratic one, and frankly one that makes not a lick of sense to me. Which means you have to explain your reasoning process. So I'll ask again: what reasoning process do you go through to determine whether photons can produce electrons?

Yes, I am making a philosophical argument. If the argument does not make sense to you then perhaps it is not a problem with the argument.
For a more detailed philosophical argument, see:

The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

kolbecenter.org

Do you have any evidence for that missing link that would allow common ancestry for apes to humans -- the apes in the wild that engage in articulating speech?