yes i agree totally, and also repeat my conclusion in my other post that expresses what you say in a similar way using other commonly held words and concepts....

What is an accidental cause? Could you give me an example of that? But, I did not say that an accidental cause is not a cause. How could I have? I have no idea what an accidental cause would be.

I think I understand the term, "purely accidental". Doesn't it mean that what is purely accidental was not intended? For example, suppose a waiter spilled the soup on a diner because the waiter slipped on the wet floor. Well his spilling the soup would be purely accidental, since he had no intention whatsoever of spilling the soup. What else do you think it might mean?

Non intentional will suffice.

But I was agreeing with jeeprs position: Evolutionary Scientists tend to attribute 'non-intentional causes' to the evolutionary process because to do otherwise is to equate those causes in some sense with mind or idea, which supports other theological claims.

-

Evolution is a process, the purpose of which may be novelty, creation, endless forms beautiful and wondrous. Of course, cosmology is also an evolutionary process of sorts and for me process is primary reality.

Creation is an ongoing process, not a completed event.
Man is not the purpose of creation but a result of it.
No particular event or "object" is the purpose of creation, it is creativity itself that is the purpose and process that is the means. IMHO.

i think that those of you who believe that it will be possible to prove that evolution theory shows no predestination to design, and therefore universal design cannot be implied from it, should recognise the possible implications for the many worlds/anthropomorphic theories.

Even if evolution can be tested to as such, it is undermined by the potential and very real possibility that the anthropomorphic universe undermines evolution as the fundamental theory to consider in your philosophical regard. ie in a universe that cannot be proven by science (and predicted as such by science) to be other than intentional design........ then what significance is there that evolution fails to support design?

exactly
the Universe gives life a place to exist

Why
the notion that reason intelligence and purpose may be inherent in reality is unscientific and irrational
and
The notion that the universe is blind, indifferent, and purposeless is scientific and rational

Is beyond me. They both look like rational philosopohical specualtions to me. Neither one looks scientific.

sean o connor
we do have to take in account that people think things regardless of proof or anything which we can always understand.

Non intentional will suffice.

But I was agreeing with jeeprs position: Evolutionary Scientists tend to attribute 'non-intentional causes' to the evolutionary process because to do otherwise is to equate those causes in some sense with mind or idea, which supports other theological claims.

-

I don't know what their motive is for ascribing non-intentional causes. And I don't see how you do. It might only be that they have no evidence for intentional causes. What do you think?

Wait, I don't get the distinction between non-intentional and intentional causes. Can you explain? Isn't something non-intentional... an accident. So, we're talking about something accidental or deliberated? What does that have to do with causes?

An example of a non-intentional cause would be my slipping on a banana peel. If I were a clown I could intentionally slip. You don't have to deliberate to do something intentionally. I can, for example comb my hair intentionally without deliberating about it.

The cause of my going into a restaurant may be my intention to go into a restaurant. In fact, that is usually why I go into a restaurant. Isn't it yours? That is an intentional cause. A non-intentional cause would be the cause of my spilling soup. I slipped on a wet floor.

You slipping on a banana peel is an example of an accident. The cause of you falling unintentionally was the banana peel. The cause of going into the restaurant was your choosing to go into the restaurant. The cause, itself, has nothing to do with intention or non-intention.

But I'll work with you.

How can someone assign an intentional or unintentional cause to something which is not capable of being intentional or unintentional? What does assigning a non-intentional cause to the universe, or evolution, mean? It is saying that evolution didn't intend to evolve things? :listening:

An example of a non-intentional cause would be my slipping on a banana peel. If I were a clown I could intentionally slip. You don't have to deliberate to do something intentionally. I can, for example comb my hair intentionally without deliberating about it.

In the context of this debate, 'intentionality' is intrinsic to the idea of cause. Is saying that life simply has material or physical causes ipso facto to say the origin of life is unintentional - that 'it just happened'? Most of the proponents of evolutionary philosophy on the forum will insist that this is indeed the way to understand the origin of life, and the only question is, how did the material circumstances arise which caused it to spontaneously occur. They also insist that great strides are being made in unravelling the specifics, although about that, I remain skeptical.

I suppose it is a subtle matter. I can certainly envisage the spontaneous emergence of life. But I am inclined to argue that something can emerge, only if it has first been merged. It is like the manifestation of a latent property. So if life and intelligence is after all a latent property of the Universe, it would seem to me that even if you completely support the main idea of evolutionary theory (which I do), the emergence is only possible because it is already latent within the fabric of the Universe. In which case, one can envisage both a principle of design, on the basis of the deeply embedded order within nature, and the spontaneous emergence of life. It emerges spontaneously, because the nature of the Universe is such, that this will occur whenever the circumstances are propitious.

All part of the plan, it could be said.

The problem I have with the idea of life arising 'without cause' or without intention, is where then exactly does intention start? (and the same question can be asked of reason, purpose, cause and meaning, in every single sense of those words.) Does it start with the advent of self-consciousness on the part of Homo? It is not a bad proposal and seems quite logical. However this once again points to the issue we discussed many pages back, about the relationship between our rational faculties, and the rational characteristics of an environment which can call this capacity forth, and which can only be discerned by a rational creature, such as ourselves. Again, number, in particular, and meaning, in a more general sense, seems intrinsic to nature as well as to the human mind. But in an important sense it precedes us.

No answers here, but very interesting questions, I feel.