How do we know the First Cause is a Mind?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholic1seeks said:
There MUST be a unique first cause of all reality, this I’m quite convinced.

The arguments for God’s existence are quite good and persuasive to me… to an extent. I see the necessity of a first cause, unconditioned reality that is totally unique and unrestricted.

But that’s not ALL God is. It is essential that the definition of God includes “personal” – or is intelligent/is a MIND.

So how do we argue for a First Cause with a Mind??
Click to expand...
The metaphysical underpinnings of the first cause argument leads to certain logical consequences.
  1. The nature of the first cause is essentially and ontologically distinct from the universe.
  2. The first cause is a necessary being (its actuality is intrinsic to its nature; it is its nature to be actual and thus it cannot not be actual) and is ontologically distinct in that it actualizes potential realities that are absolutely distinct from its own nature and sustains their being in reality. That which is potentially real is not identical in nature to the necessary nature of the first cause and neither is it the cause of its own being, and neither is its actuality intrinsic to its own nature. This is the difference between physical processes and God.
  3. We see that physical nature acts to specific ends. The natures we see have final causes. They have laws of behavior.
  4. Those laws of behavior are an expression of their natures.
  5. Since those natures only potentially existed and are not necessary, they cannot be the existential-cause of their natural ends (the end to which they are in act; the law of their natural behavior).
  6. Physical beings do not derive their parts from the first cause. So the law of their particular behaviors are not necessary insomuch as their natures are not necessary.
  7. Therefore the first cause is the cause of their natural behavior and natures. And since their particular behavior, laws, and natures do not occur naturally and do not derive their nature from the necessary nature of the first cause, their existence is only possible if an intellect is causing and determining their behavior, laws, and natures; because in and of themselves there is no reason for them to exist or behave the way they do precisely because they are not ontologically necessary like the first cause. The first cause is determining the end to which a potential being is in act. In this regard physical reality is very much like an artifact because something out side of it has determined its actual nature and behavior. This is clearly teleological and not natural.
Conclusion: The First cause necessarily has an intellect otherwise potential natural phenomena and the laws of physical behavior should not actually exist. If the first cause did not have an intellect only necessary reality would exist and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
If you dont believe the question is difficult and you dont want to think deeply about your assumptions then maybe just stick to reading the Bible in faith rather than seeking simplistic anwers to less than well considered questions on a philosophy forum.
 
Last edited:
The question may be difficult, I’m not sure. But I didn’t think it was difficult to understand the question (what I was asking), is what I meant.

I also don’t appreciate your condescending tone :confused:
 
Last edited:
Thank you for this response!

I will reflect over it and see what questions I have. Please stay near!
 
I probably will not have time to go over the argument, but I recommend Ed Feser’s book “Five Proofs for the Existence of God.” His discussion of the Aristotlean Proof covers how “pure actuality” must also be an “omniscient mind” in a very understandable way, in both a informal and formal presentations.
 
Last edited:
It is no more condescending than your question is a presumption that questions can be answered without identifying the meaning of your terms.
 
But that would mean creation is necessary, which means the first Cause wouldn’t be independent in the true sense and self fulfilling.
 
Last edited:
Is it really that difficult to understand what he is asking? He is asking how we can know that the first cause is intelligent.
 
Last edited:
I agree. It is obvious what he is asking, and is to anyone who has made a first cause argument to a nonbeliever. It’s their first objection.
 
“Its obvious” is more often than not an indication to me that parties to a philosophic discussion are unaware of their different understandings…which inevitably means they soon start disagreeing and end having heated arguments over principles about 5 days later.

Or they are both unaware of their simplistic assumptions.

Experience obviously varies.
 
Regardless, both Wesrock and IWantGod both replied in a way that indicated they indeed understood exactly what I was asking.
 
Deleted my comment. I’ll drop the dispute. I’m glad you have some resources now.
 
Last edited:
We know from personal experience that something as simple as a doghouse requires thought and planning-requires intelligence-in order for its relative complexity to arise from the basic materials, unassembled into any kind of logically formed structure, that make it up.
 
Last edited:
fhansen said:
We know from personal experience that something as simple as a doghouse requires thought and planning-requires intelligence-in order for its relative complexity to arise from the basic materials, unassembled into any kind of logically formed structure, that make it up.
Click to expand...
This is the watchmaker argument. I don’t think it works.
 
Last edited:
I think it does because we also know that watches don’t make themselves. So we need an uncaused primary “causer”, equipped with the appropriate intelligence to design and create those things which are too complex to be undesigned, i.e. to be created without personal intelligence, and yet not complex enough to make themselves, which would be a logical incongruity anyway.
 
Last edited:
Here’s the problem. If i go to a planet and find what looks like a house, it makes sense to conclude that it is such a thing. But i recognize it as such because its foundation is on the backdrop of a natural world with natural processes. I know that physical reality acts according to its nature, and i know that normally physical reality doesn’t self-organize into houses. Its easy to see the irreducible complexity in a skyscraper or city building. I know that intelligent beings make houses. On the other-hand its possible for complex mechanistic functional processes to arise out of natural processes even though i would not expect it to build a house. As far as complex systems are concerned there is not much incentive here for an atheist to think that an intelligent being built it and must be at the root of it. If there is even the slightest possibility that a complex system can arise naturally then all you have is a probability argument, not a proof.

I just think it makes more sense to focus on what nature cannot possibly do or account for. Aquinas focuses on what is metaphysically possible or impossible in order to arrive at a first intelligent cause of all things. His arguments work only because in order to doubt them you must doubt reason itself. You have to call into question the foundation of all possible knowledge.

When an experienced Thomist argues with an atheist it usually ends with the atheist concluding that perhaps the metaphysically impossible can happen. In other-words the atheist is cornered into a fundamentally irrational position and usually retreats into some kind of principled epistemological agnosticism like scientism so as to avoid facing the conclusions of the Thomist… This has been going on for years.
 
Last edited:
How could the First Cause give a power (intellection) if it didn’t possess it itself?
 
Very good observation.

Another question i ponder; If a process is only natural, what part of it is intentional?
 
Last edited:
Ah, can A give to B something that A does not have? I would respond, No. I have a mind. Can a non-intelligent “thing” give me intelligence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top