An Argument For The Existence Of an Intelligent First Cause

[MindOverMatter2]

1. In general, there are two types of causes. There are either functional unintelligent causes, or there are intelligent causes.
2. Out of nothing comes nothing. If there is truly nothing then nothing can truly come of it.
3. Anything that is potentially real requires an existential cause in order to be real. An existential cause is that which has reality and also has the authority to give reality to new things that were at one time a non-reality. This type of cause is not to be confused with functional causes, such as the hand moving the ball. Forms have functions that our true of that particular form. I do not deny that a thing could move according to its own nature; this is a possibility, since things could conceivably move according to information as opposed the mechanical means. However, moving according to its own nature is not the same as being the cause of motion itself; since it is only the “kind” of motion that it is the cause of. The existence of change is still required before forms can perform their own kinds of motion. It is impossible for potentiality or change to come out of nothing by itself, and this is where an “existential cause” is necessary.
4. The universe is by intrinsic definition, dynamic; and that is to say it exists by a constant becoming. Its entire body of being is an expression of potentiality; each part of it evolves into reality in-so-far as each part of it is a changing entity. Thus each part of it at one point was unreal and each part of it is contingent upon that which is real. Energy, the substrate of all matter, is also a potentially real being, because change is intrinsic to the existence of energy. If there were no change it would be meaningless to speak of the existence of energy, since its being is intrinsically an expression of change.
5. Therefore, insofar as out of nothing comes nothing, and that everything changing needs an “existential cause”, we have to admit that the universe as an existential whole has a cause that is not changing. It must be a being which exists without potentiality. Also, insofar as this being is the cause of that which is potentially real, it must be perfectly real. That which is potentially real, cannot be real of its own accord, since it does not have a reality of its own making. Thus there is only one kind of cause that can share reality, and in order to share reality that cause has to be a perfect and pure reality with no cause. More importantly this cause by definition is not the physical universe.
6. According to the first, second, and third premise, the first cause cannot be an unintelligent cause, because such a cause would require change in-order to have functionality. There can be no such thing as a timeless unintelligent functionality. Thus a timeless perfect intelligence with a perfect will is the only alternative. A perfect intelligence already knows perfectly what it will do, and thus does not need the progression of change in-order to know what it wills. What it knows and what it wills exists in the same timeless instant.

 

[kk23wong]

You pointed out “Out of nothing comes nothing”. Then lives are everything. Everything “a-live”. The universe is consisted of lives in different hierarchies. One was born out of an existing live form. The origin is so close. You are inside the origin of lives.

Physical presence always takes the lead (Realism). Motion refers to physics. It changes the forms of existence, but it cannot trash it. Once it was trashed, life ends.

Energy released from physical movements. Atom (existence) is the prerequisites. Energy can be released by burning of substances e.g. the sun. Light is only an expression. It is the sole energy intake of the Earth.

The existence of the God in all religions is the Earth. It is a unity. The humankind is part of it (the biosphere). Our natural role is the “life cycles”. Then the region responsible for thinking refers to the nucleus (the core). The God should be seen as a whole – the Earth. We are indivisible and the physical differences between us have created most of the religions and so-called “miracles”.

I repeat, “The physical presence of the God is the Earth.”

If my assumption is correct, there is a Chinese idiom perfectly fit the current situation.

Calling a Stag the Horse (Pin-yin: Zhi Lu Wei Ma)
Our world (the Earth) is a classic in this universe.

*Maybe Our World is too small ~ *Teru Wong

 

[Anselm33]

1. In general, there are two types of causes. There are either functional unintelligent causes, or there are intelligent causes.
2. Out of nothing comes nothing. If there is truly nothing then nothing can truly come of it.
3. Anything that is potentially real requires an existential cause in order to be real. An existential cause is that which has reality and also has the authority to give reality to new things that were at one time a non-reality. This type of cause is not to be confused with functional causes, such as the hand moving the ball. Forms have functions that our true of that particular form. I do not deny that a thing could move according to its own nature; this is a possibility, since things could conceivably move according to information as opposed the mechanical means. However, moving according to its own nature is not the same as being the cause of motion itself; since it is only the “kind” of motion that it is the cause of. The existence of change is still required before forms can perform their own kinds of motion. It is impossible for potentiality or change to come out of nothing by itself, and this is where an “existential cause” is necessary.
4. The universe is by intrinsic definition, dynamic; and that is to say it exists by a constant becoming. Its entire body of being is an expression of potentiality; each part of it evolves into reality in-so-far as each part of it is a changing entity. Thus each part of it at one point was unreal and each part of it is contingent upon that which is real. Energy, the substrate of all matter, is also a potentially real being, because change is intrinsic to the existence of energy. If there were no change it would be meaningless to speak of the existence of energy, since its being is intrinsically an expression of change.
5. Therefore, insofar as out of nothing comes nothing, and that everything changing needs an “existential cause”, we have to admit that the universe as an existential whole has a cause that is not changing. It must be a being which exists without potentiality. Also, insofar as this being is the cause of that which is potentially real, it must be perfectly real. That which is potentially real, cannot be real of its own accord, since it does not have a reality of its own making. Thus there is only one kind of cause that can share reality, and in order to share reality that cause has to be a perfect and pure reality with no cause. More importantly this cause by definition is not the physical universe.
6. According to the first, second, and third premise, the first cause cannot be an unintelligent cause, because such a cause would require change in-order to have functionality. There can be no such thing as a timeless unintelligent functionality. Thus a timeless perfect intelligence with a perfect will is the only alternative. A perfect intelligence already knows perfectly what it will do, and thus does not need the progression of change in-order to know what it wills. What it knows and what it wills exists in the same timeless instant.

:thumbsup:Nicely reasoned. However, I’m not sure I would agree with your statements about energy. Energy is a construct of physics, and whether it is an ontologically real entity is something else again. You can talk about energy about a property of matter, but energy is really an entity in the mathematically based theory we use to describe what we call matter (and that would include entities with no mass–photons, etc.). One talks about the conservation of energy, but that can be shown to result from time-invariance in physical laws. (One illustration of how conservation laws are related to symmetry considerations; conservation of angular momentum is related to rotational symmetry, etc.
anselm

 

[grannymh]

According to Aristotle, there are four aspects of causality. Don’t know if that impacts your OP. Just saw it on a blog and am not sure what it all means.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

According to Aristotle, there are four aspects of causality. Don’t know if that impacts your OP. Just saw it on a blog and am not sure what it all means.

That why i was talking about causes in general rather than in particular. I merely intended to make a distinction between intelligent causes and unintelligent causes; but there are of course subcategories and variations that can some times intertwine with one another. But all these causes, despite the different types, are either intelligent or they are not. There is no third option.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

:thumbsup:Nicely reasoned. However, I’m not sure I would agree with your statements about energy. Energy is a construct of physics, and whether it is an ontologically real entity is something else again.

So scientists are not talking about a real ontological thing when they speak about energy?

You can talk about energy about a property of matter, but energy is really an entity in the mathematically based theory we use to describe what we call matter (and that would include entities with no mass–photons, etc.).

Can you explain this a bit more please?

One talks about the conservation of energy, but that can be shown to result from time-invariance in physical laws. (One illustration of how conservation laws are related to symmetry considerations; conservation of angular momentum is related to rotational symmetry, etc.
anselm

Sorry, but this going way over my head man. Have you ever heard of laymans terms

 

[kk23wong]

That why i was talking about causes in general rather than in particular. I merely intended to make a distinction between intelligent causes and unintelligent causes; but there are of course subcategories and variations that can some times intertwine with one another. But all these causes, despite the different types, are either intelligent or they are not. There is no third option.

An intelligence first cause (or Creationism) does not exist.
“All lives come from existing lives.”
The nature of lives explains everything in the universe.
You (human beings) are one of them.
You were born unintentionally. Nobody has informed you beforehead.
That is the reason why our world (the Earth) was created out of “intelligence first causes”.

Creationists create(d) our future.
Creationists that make sense are inventors.

The minds of the God are limiting our progresses.
The God (or such a subject equivalent) are indivisible with all of us and have overwhelming gifted power from birth (a higher level of lives).
Evolution has given us higher intelligence. It did not change our natural role.

Try to relate it with Galileo.
It is a joke at first, one of the greatest discoveries at last.

I repeat, “The physical presence of the God is the Earth. Religions are (valuable) heritages derived from our physical differences. The nature role of humankind is the life cycle of this planet.”

You think I am now a joke, but I am telling you the nature of lives (as well as our universe).

Discovery is a rebellion to the rests ~ Teru Wong