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:
But what if intelligence is a sort of secondary result from creation (a contingent reality)? Like, the ability to reproduce sexually is a result from biological creatures, but this power to do so does not belong to God as such.
Click to expand...
Think of it like this. Sexual Reproduction is only possible because of our metaphysical limitations, we are finite beings so i would not expect this to be an attribute of the first cause because the first cause has no metaphysical limitations in its being. So we cannot really say this means that we have an attribute that is greater than the first cause since its potential is an expression of our limitations and our power to reproduce comes from the first cause.

However to be aware of objects, to have knowledge of them, is to be greater than an object, to be more than just an object. In other words you do not share the limitation of a mere object. Thus if the first cause is completely devoid of knowledge and is just an object (a limitation), this would mean we have a nature or power that is greater than the first cause because the first cause doesn’t have that power at all, so how can it produce that power in other potential beings when it has a limitation that we don’t have? This is like getting something from nothing at all. I think this is contradictory.

To put it simply, to say that God cannot reproduce is to speak only of the fact that God has no metaphysical limitations. Whereas to say that God has no self-knowledge, is just an object, would be to place a genuine limitation on the nature and power of the first cause while expecting it to produce something greater than itself… In other words the first cause cannot be a sufficient cause of an intellect if itself does not have the power of intellect.
 
Last edited:
Creation isn’t only a “what?” But is a “why?”… the “why?” Is the reason for it… therefore creation isn’t only a thing but has a reason… therefore whatever unmoved mover set things into motion had a reason in mind for doing this… if things happen for a reason instead of chaotic without reason, then a mind thought about creation
 
johnjacob2004 said:
Creation isn’t only a “what?” But is a “why?”… the “why?” Is the reason for it… therefore creation isn’t only a thing but has a reason… therefore whatever unmoved mover set things into motion had a reason in mind for doing this… if things happen for a reason instead of chaotic without reason, then a mind thought about creation
Click to expand...
You have to show that there is a “why” before you can conclude that there is a mind behind creation.
 
Last edited:
Things happen for a reason, not “pop” theory where things come into existence out of nowhere for no reason at all…

There is order in the universe, there is reason for the ordering of things…

Human beings can ask “why?” Because they have a conscience… conscience had to come from something than can give it, not from a rock or atom… this something that gave it should have similar but greater properties…
 
johnjacob2004 said:
Things happen for a reason, not “pop” theory where things come into existence out of nowhere for no reason at all…

There is order in the universe, there is reason for the ordering of things…

Human beings can ask “why?” Because they have a conscience… conscience had to come from something than can give it, not from a rock or atom… this something that gave it should have similar but greater properties…
Click to expand...
An atheist would say that things just exist. There is no ultimate purpose behind it.

But you are right. You cannot get intellect from something that fundamentally lacks the power of intellect.
 
Last edited:
The perfect cubes made by nature above…also very complex.
Yet made without a mind and randomly. A power inherent in matter. Why must some forms of chaos be called “order” and then signify “intelligence” then somehow necessitate a mind.

Its very likely so, but I fail to see why it necessarily must be so.
Why can their not be the equivalent of spiritual bots?
 
Last edited:
So, what’s a “power inherent in matter”? Or, maybe more importantly, what’s the source of this “power”? The cubes don’t form or spring forth magically or spontaneously as if they could do so randomly and autonomously. We can determine and explain why and how pyrite crystals form the way they do, what conditions must be present. This means that consistent rules are already in place governing their formation. And this implies intent and reason and knowledge. Knowledge that a creator has; knowledge that we can gain understanding of as we observe.

Again, I think we miss the forest for the trees by assuming that events resulting in increasing degrees of order and complexity which perhaps unfold over time, mean that no intelligence need be behind them for some reason, because they’re “natural”, whereas much less complexity, such as that in the design of a doghouse, does require intelligence.
 
IWantGod said:
Proving Christian revelation has never been the intention of the first cause argument. Can i prove that God is 3 persons in one? No i can’t. However proving that there is a first cause that has all the general metaphysical attributes we assign to God is the goal of the first cause argument and i think it succeeds. I don’t think its possible to doubt the first cause argument without doing away with logic.
Click to expand...
Nothing of what you’ve stated is relevant to the OP’s question. The OP is asking how do we know the first cause is a mind. I delved further into the issue being not about “mind” but about whether there is an argument that proves the first cause is a personal god. It doesn’t. We simply believe our God IS the first cause, just as a pagan might believe that their god IS the sun.

Stay oriented to the topic.
 
Lol. I perceive the topic to be about whether or not the first cause has an intellect, mind, self-knowledge, intentionality, or anything that implies the existence of an intelligent cause. In that regard i think i have done pretty well staying on topic.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by order and why do you call it relative?

What do you mean by disorder and why is it impossible?

And what do these concepts represent that one can say it must ‘exist?’

Right now it sounds like you are making a circular argument. Not to mention, you are just asserting that the metaphysical arguments for an omniscient God are convoluted, inaccurate, and illogical which doesn’t give me much confidence in your reasoning skills.
 
lisaandlena said:
After examining these three texts, can you explain to me how you can look at any system and determine the degree to which it’s ordered or disordered. An interesting dilemma…isn’t it?

As for my assertion that the metaphysical arguments for an omniscient God are convoluted, inaccurate and illogical…I could write a book. Which is an interesting idea, but I haven’t got the time. I barely have the time to write a post.
Click to expand...
I will take this as evidence that you have no argument.
 
So what you are saying is that order and disorder has no objective reality? Or perhaps you are saying there is only order, and the concept of disorder is subjective and relativistic; there is no chaos?

Either way it’s irrelevant. I’m not going to argue with this point because, even if your argument achieves the conclusion you think it does, all this means is that you cannot use complexity in nature as a basis for proving the existence of an intelligent designer.

Here’s the problem with that…
  1. The intelligent design argument is not the object of this thread.
  2. Your argument doesn’t prove that the first cause argument (the object of this thread) is invalid.
Your argument is irrelevant. If someone else wants to debate the intelligent design argument with you that’s fine. Come back to me when you actually have an argument to back up your assertions in regards to first cause argument…
 
Last edited:
The “person” imposing or designing “order” of a system or being, etc., is the one and only one who can truthfully declare what is in a state of order or disorder - because he defined the order.
One observing the order imposed by another on that other’s creation might guess (utilizing reason) what is ordered or disordered in the other’s creation, but cannot define the order or disorder without confirmation from the creator as to the correctness - The object observed and its creator are the verifiers of my reason; my observation and reason do not define the object.

The presence and actuality of order do not depend on whether observers Lisa and Lena recognize the order of a system equal to the order definition of the system’s creator, wherein the “first cause” is actually the “principle cause”, and actually is the “final cause”.
 
Why don’t you simply explain what you think the first cause argument is and why you think its wrong.
 
I do not believe I would be keying in words on a computer if I had a computer that had no creator necessary, who busied himself imposing order on silicon chips and plastic and many other things. I would say a creator is absolutely necessary, and I turn to the creator of my PC (the one providing the final cause of it) to let me know all the facets (all the ORDER) of its features and functions.
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
Actually, although I believe that Aquinas’ first two Ways are fundamentally flawed, I’ll accept them for the sake of this discussion, for two reasons…one, they have nothing to do with whether or not the first cause is a mind…and two, they support my position that an intelligent designer is unnecessary just as much as they support the Catholic position that one is.
Click to expand...
Well there’s your problem. If you really had any understanding of the first 2 ways and their metaphysical underpinnings you would know that they provide a very important foundation for Aquinas’’ teleological argument. Understanding the first 2 arguments is very important. I don’t feel comfortable continuing if you are not willing to debate the first 2 arguments. Also, Aquinas’ teleological argument is not the intelligent design argument. Understanding the difference is very important and you don’t seem to realize the difference.
 
Telling me that you know this or that is not very convincing. If you are not willing to discuss why you think the first 2 ways are flawed i am not interested in continuing this discussion with you. Thats the bottom line.
 
I know what you mean I am having trouble with this as well. I mean why can’t the first cause be caused by mere randomness? I mean why couldn’t it be that an atom just randomly appeared and randomly broke up or something like that? I honestly don’t get it. Why couldn’t all matter just randomly have appeared in existence? Obviously I believe in God but I see a fault in the First Cause argument I can’t resolve. Simply put why couldn’t something randomly come up in existence and then cease to even exist after a while and that is your first cause? Or your first cause is an unimpressive atom or something, why not?
 
Eeeeek. Some of this is getting intense 😮

The Augustinian proof from Ed Feser’s new book is very interesting. I still need to reflect over it more. Basically, it goes from arguing for the objective reality of universals [i.e., realism] to the conclusion that there must be a Mind that forms the basis of the universals. After all, some universals like 2+2=4 would still exist even if there were no material world or human mind. Of course the argument is deeper and more complex than this, but again it’s an interesting one that I’ll need to look back into.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top