Why must the Uncaused Cause be intelligent?

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

I understand the cosmological argument and how it leads to the conclusion that there is a First Cause or Uncaused Cause or Unmoved Mover.

The question is, how do you go from uncaused cause to an intelligent being? Why does the uncaused cause require intelligence or any other personal quality of God?

 

[Linux]

I understand the cosmological argument and how it leads to the conclusion that there is a First Cause or Uncaused Cause or Unmoved Mover.

The question is, how do you go from uncaused cause to an intelligent being? Why does the uncaused cause require intelligence or any other personal quality of God?

When talking about causality in its most general sense, logically speaking there can be only two kinds: Natural causes and intelligent causes. If all natural causes require a cause, then you cannot account for all natural causes by pointing to a natural cause. Therefore the only kind of cause that is left that can account for all natural causes is an intelligent cause.

If you really understand the first cause argument by Aquinas, then you should see that the above follows logically and necessarily.

 

[hicetnunc]

I understand the cosmological argument and how it leads to the conclusion that there is a First Cause or Uncaused Cause or Unmoved Mover.

The question is, how do you go from uncaused cause to an intelligent being? Why does the uncaused cause require intelligence or any other personal quality of God?

The Unmoved Mover, by definition must be self-moved (movens seipsum) and not moved by something else. This means that the activity of the Unmoved Mover springs from its own essence. The principle of self-motion is intelligence, since intelligence is the principle of freedom of activity (there can be no free movement of the will without intelligence, otherwise we would have to seek another cause for the movement of the action of the Unmoved Mover).

Also, every cause is greater than its effects: intelligence cannot be produced by non-intelligence (for example, just as something cold cannot produce something hot, or something lacking order cannot produce order).

St Thomas has other arguments too, but this is the bare bones. If you would like to read more, check out chapter 44 of the Summa Contra Gentiles here:

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#44

 

[ngill09]

Also, every cause is greater than its effects: intelligence cannot be produced by non-intelligence (for example, just as something cold cannot produce something hot, or something lacking order cannot produce order).

The pebble which starts the avalanche would disagree.

 

[JerryZ]

The pebble which starts the avalanche would disagree.

Aha! but the pebble by being at the top of the mountain has higher potential energy, therefore it can make a greater impact on the maybe bigger but lower PE cousins.

 

[ellzeena]

The pebble which starts the avalanche would disagree.

It is not a pebble that starts an avalanche. One pebble/rock might be the immediate result (followed by tons of debris), but that is the result of another first cause: the weight of snow, for instance, and one cannot blame the “last snowflake” for that, either.

 

[polytropos]

Aha! but the pebble by being at the top of the mountain has higher potential energy, therefore it can make a greater impact on the maybe bigger but lower PE cousins.

More accurately, part of the cause is the potential energy of the other rocks.

 

[Ion]

More accurately, part of the cause is the potential energy of the other rocks.

Anyway, it doesn’t move by itself.

 

[hicetnunc]

The pebble which starts the avalanche would disagree.

I think you just illustrated the point. The pebble started the avalanche. The avalanche didn’t start itself; hence, the pebble is the primary cause of the avalanche. “Greatness” has nothing to do with size but priority of the relationship between cause and effect.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The pebble which starts the avalanche would disagree.

Doesn’t fly. If the snow were on a near level incline, the moving peble would move ( or displace ) only the amount of snow equal to or less than its own mass. So other causative factors are at work in your example, the velocity of the stone’s movement, the condition of the snow pack, the steepness of the incline, the force of gravity, the factor of a small mass of snow moving more snow in a multiplier effect.

Your argument has no force. Linus2nd

 

[abon12]

I don’ get the whole “considering Catholicism” thing. Faith is not intellectual. Besides, nobody can fathom God.

 

[Cartesian]

Anyway, it doesn’t move by itself.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

I understand the cosmological argument and how it leads to the conclusion that there is a First Cause or Uncaused Cause or Unmoved Mover.

The question is, how do you go from uncaused cause to an intelligent being? Why does the uncaused cause require intelligence or any other personal quality of God?

When an inanimate object spawns an entire universe the claim that an unintelligent being could have been the unmoved mover will become legitimate. Until then we have every reason to believe that an act of creation requires intelligence.

 

[empther]

I don’ get the whole “considering Catholicism” thing. Faith is not intellectual. Besides, nobody can fathom God.

Bishop Sheen, in Peace of Soul ( 1949 ) said that since both faith and reason come from God there can be no contradiction between them.

Someone who “sees” through the eyes of a God-given faith, instilled by the Holy Spirit, knows the truth of reason. Such a person needs no Catholic.com Philosophy section. Tell him that there had to be an intelligent Uncaused Cause and he immediately knows the truth of that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I understand the cosmological argument and how it leads to the conclusion that there is a First Cause or Uncaused Cause or Unmoved Mover.

The question is, how do you go from uncaused cause to an intelligent being? Why does the uncaused cause require intelligence or any other personal quality of God?

Be sure to read the link in post # 3. It can be summarized this way. The First Cause, being source of all the actions, existence and directedness and order of the limited universe upon which it acts must, per force, be intelligent.

Linus2nd

 

[Rete]

I wonder if this line of reasoning would comport with Catholic theology:

The first cause must choose to initiate the chain of causality of contingent things. Otherwise, the first cause itself cannot be the first cause, since it would have to be induced by something else to create the universe. Choice entails intelligence of some kind, as well as some form of personhood and agency.

 

[JerryZ]

I wonder if this line of reasoning would comport with Catholic theology:

The first cause must choose to initiate the chain of causality of contingent things. Otherwise, the first cause itself cannot be the first cause, since it would have to be induced by something else to create the universe. Choice entails intelligence of some kind, as well as some form of personhood and agency.

furthermore the intelligence is shown throughout the creation from the microcosm to the macro.

 

[polytropos]

I don’ get the whole “considering Catholicism” thing. Faith is not intellectual. Besides, nobody can fathom God.

My Faith is almost solely intellectual. I don’t “feel” God - at least not with confidence. But I can know through reason that God exists and can understand how I have to practice Faith.

 

[abon12]

Bishop Sheen, in Peace of Soul ( 1949 ) said that since both faith and reason come from God there can be no contradiction between them.

Someone who “sees” through the eyes of a God-given faith, instilled by the Holy Spirit, knows the truth of reason. Such a person needs no Catholic.com Philosophy section. Tell him that there had to be an intelligent Uncaused Cause and he immediately knows the truth of that.

I could know every fact that ever existed, and be the smartest guy in the world, but still be very unreasonable and have poor judgement… for example thinking abortion is just fine and dandy and a necessary evil… Thats why we have the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, fortitude, and piety, and awe (fear of the Lord). SO yea, faith and reason do complement each other, but thats only if one has, like you said, “the truth of reason.”

btw love Fulton J Sheen!

 

[abon12]

My Faith is almost solely intellectual. I don’t “feel” God - at least not with confidence. But I can know through reason that God exists and can understand how I have to practice Faith.

Sounds like you’re just going thru the motions then.
Faith to me is more from the heart than from the mind. Have you ever heard of the most sacred “brain” of Christ?.. No.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. Like you said, faith isnt a feeling… its a supernatural gift, and greatly surpasses our intellect.
One’s intellect can be a source of pride also. Satan for example was the smartest and greatest of all angels. Look how he turned out…

Meditating upon the Crowning of thorns sometimes makes me think of this prayer… Lord, close the wings of my intellect, and open my heart to you.