Why must the Uncaused Cause be intelligent?

[polytropos]

Sounds like you’re just going thru the motions then.

We all go through the motions. It’s a problem when it’s done without belief. I understand and accept why Catholic practice is necessary as a practice of Faith. I rationalize that I submit to the Church’s Magisterium… and then I do. It doesn’t mean that I don’t pray or try to establish a spiritual connection with God, but it’s just not something I emotionally feel.

If it’s required to be - then I don’t know what to do about that.

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.

Perhaps I shouldn’t say that my Faith is solely intellectual. I suppose part of what I ask God for is Faith that surpasses the intellect. But my Faith still largely consists in intellectual belief.

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…

Agreed. But that seems more with respect to those who think they know better than God. I ground my Faith in intellect because I’ve been unable to ground it elsewhere. I spent several years as an atheist, during which time my family members would ask me things like “But don’t you just know that God exists?” - and the only honest answer could be “No.” Faith as something that just happens has never worked for me. It has to be an exercise, and for me it is an exercise of intellect.

 

[abon12]

We all go through the motions. It’s a problem when it’s done without belief. I understand and accept why Catholic practice is necessary as a practice of Faith. I rationalize that I submit to the Church’s Magisterium… and then I do. It doesn’t mean that I don’t pray or try to establish a spiritual connection with God, but it’s just not something I emotionally feel.

If it’s required to be - then I don’t know what to do about that.

Perhaps I shouldn’t say that my Faith is solely intellectual. I suppose part of what I ask God for is Faith that surpasses the intellect. But my Faith still largely consists in intellectual belief.

Agreed. But that seems more with respect to those who think they know better than God. I ground my Faith in intellect because I’ve been unable to ground it elsewhere. I spent several years as an atheist, during which time my family members would ask me things like “But don’t you just know that God exists?” - and the only honest answer could be “No.” Faith as something that just happens has never worked for me. It has to be an exercise, and for me it is an exercise of intellect.

Its not required… many saints like St Teresa of Lisieux and Mother Teresa had spiritual dry spells that would last a long time… St Teresa of Lisieux would pray Our Fathers and Hail Mary’s very very slowly, meditating upon each word. She said it was one of the few ways to nourish her soul…
It sounds like the foundation for your faith is the Church, and thats awesome! Very strong, grounded, foundation there… I pray the Holy Spirit eventually lights a fire under your butt

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

We all go through the motions. It’s a problem when it’s done without belief. I understand and accept why Catholic practice is necessary as a practice of Faith. I rationalize that I submit to the Church’s Magisterium… and then I do. It doesn’t mean that I don’t pray or try to establish a spiritual connection with God, but it’s just not something I emotionally feel.

If it’s required to be - then I don’t know what to do about that.

Perhaps I shouldn’t say that my Faith is solely intellectual. I suppose part of what I ask God for is Faith that surpasses the intellect. But my Faith still largely consists in intellectual belief.

Agreed. But that seems more with respect to those who think they know better than God. I ground my Faith in intellect because I’ve been unable to ground it elsewhere. I spent several years as an atheist, during which time my family members would ask me things like “But don’t you just know that God exists?” - and the only honest answer could be “No.” Faith as something that just happens has never worked for me. It has to be an exercise, and for me it is an exercise of intellect.

Out of interest, how did you go from atheism to theism intellectually? What was it that convinced you? Was it a particular argument?

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Thanks for the answers everyone. It makes a lot more sense now.

Are there any other qualities of God that can be discerned from the uncaused cause?

 

[hicetnunc]

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.

This is very well put. I think you have summed up St Thomas’ argument perfectly.

 

[polytropos]

Out of interest, how did you go from atheism to theism intellectually? What was it that convinced you? Was it a particular argument?

It has been gradual and I probably could not say that I’m wholly there yet. I also do not have full confidence in any singular hard proof for God’s existence - although taken in sum and disregarding a few that I think make faulty arguments, I think that they make a reasonable case. The argument from contingency I find particularly appealing.

What I have also done is admit to myself where I was making untenable materialistic philosophical assumptions. I would insist, for instance, that the mind had to be wholly material, which really just followed from a materialist worldview. I had a lot of confidence in “random” abiogenesis, particularly in believing that modern biology was somewhere close to replicating it or creating a plausible model. I did a bit of research on quantum physics, which is sometimes used as a counterpoint to free will or the law of causality, and found that it is a counterpoint to neither.

I have some tentative Faith in the historicity of Jesus (although this is something that I need to research more). I think, at least, that belief in Jesus’s miracles and divinity are not unreasonable, considering the realities of the early church. Departures from those beliefs of the early church can be traced and are, in my opinion, historically contingent.

Part of my Faith is based in Catholicism being, in my opinion, a “functional” worldview, ie. I think a lot of what it prescribes makes a “good” society. As an atheist I found abortion logically incompatible with humanism, yet others were willing to twist logic to allow it. I like Catholic social doctrine; I’ve always been bothered by the polarity of the political spectrum and I think Catholicism strikes a nice balance. I also am convinced that some line between voluntary poverty and reasonable, moderate property ownership would actually be sustainable for an extended period, while it seems to be a necessary corollary of naturalism that material excesses are permissible (or even good, as many modern philosophers have argued). I do not have confidence that the human race will discover substantial ways to reduce its energy usage (through alternative energy sources or more efficient products) to continue “the American way of life,” so to speak, before the condition of the earth becomes a big problem. The issue, which is demonstrably rooted in the Protestant Reformation and the dissolution of Christendom, is consumerism.

Those of course are not positive reasons to believe in God or to follow the Catholic Church. My becoming Catholic is not going to change the course of human history; abortion will probably become increasingly normalized (infanticide and eugenics may someday be commonplace), and we will continue to destroy the earth while trying to patch it up with greater efficiencies rather than less consumption and greed. Most Catholics living today, in fact, are probably contributing more to the problem than to the solution. But I think that Catholicism itself does at least advocate a way of life that is sustainable and important.

Perhaps that was not as intellectual than you were hoping. It’s a kind of nebulous body of “evidence.” No hard proofs, or at least none that I am fully confident in. But I can be as confident in Catholicism as I can be in strict naturalism. The final step, I think, is one of Faith (and further research). I could answer more specifically about anything (or let you know what I have been reading if a particular subject interests you), but that’s it for an overview.

 

[DrTaffy]

The Unmoved Mover, by definition must be self-moved (movens seipsum) and not moved by something else.

Shouldn’t the unmoved mover not be moved at all?

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).

Highly debateable. Apart from anything else if you accept the argument “otherwise we would have to seek another cause for the movement of the action of the Unmoved Mover” then it could be applied to anything.

But intelligence is arguably a quality, not a thing in itself, and furthermore a quality of a thought process, or of something that intrinsically requires a thought process. And a thought process naturally implies a process, i.e. cause-and-effect, so cannot be an intrinsic quality of the prime cause.

I’ve not seen intelligence defined as “the principle of freedom of activity” before that I can recall. Is that from a particular philosopher? It seems to have that formal phraseology.

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).

Define ‘greater’. Is intelligence ‘greater than’ a black hole? Or ‘greater than’ an entire lifeless universe? Or ‘greater than’ the laws of mathematics?

As ngill09 points out:

The pebble which starts the avalanche would disagree.

The pebble may not be the only ‘cause’, depending on how you define ‘cause’, but as the immediate proximate cause it is the only one that could be defined as the cause (as far as I can see). So while you could widen the definition of ‘cause’ to include the weight of the snow or the laws of gravity, you cannot sensibly narrow it so as to exclude the pebble. So the pebble that is dropped and triggers the avalanche is always going to be a cause, and can hardly be argued to be ‘greater than’ the avalanche.

So the pebble is still a counterexample to the claim that ‘every cause is greater than its effects’.

Although some will always try:

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.

Nope. Unless the pebble is a very large and massive pebble being dropped from the orbit of Pluto, it will have a lower potential energy than the avalanche itself. (At least to begin with, by the end when the avalanche ploughs through a village of overpaid vacationing bankers it will have low potential energy and very high kinetic energy, and yes I am enjoying that mental image. )

 

[hicetnunc]

Thanks for your comments DrTaffy.

Shouldn’t the unmoved mover not be moved at all?

By ‘shouldn’t’ do you mean not allowed? Or not consistent with being an ‘unmoved mover’? I am assuming you mean the latter, in which case two things need to be said: first, that ‘Unmoved’ in ‘Unmoved Mover’ means not moved by anything other than itself. The Unmoved Mover is not a static entity; God possesses will and love, both of which ‘move’. We also speak of the Holy Spirit as a procession, which also implies a kind of movement. Secondly, all language about God is analogical; and so movement should not be confused with physical movement, or anthropomorphically.

Highly debateable.

As it seems everything and anything is when one speaks of God.

Apart from anything else if you accept the argument “otherwise we would have to seek another cause for the movement of the action of the Unmoved Mover” then it could be applied to anything.

That’s the whole point of the cosmological argument, that there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes. But the OP’s question is presuming the Unmoved Mover and the non-reality of an infinite regress of efficient causes, and is asking why the Unmoved Mover is intelligent. Anything which is self-moved operates under its own principles, and not the principles of another, otherwise it would not be Unmoved, but moved by another.

But intelligence is arguably a quality, not a thing in itself, and furthermore a quality of a thought process, or of something that intrinsically requires a thought process. And a thought process naturally implies a process, i.e. cause-and-effect, so cannot be an intrinsic quality of the prime cause.

First of all, a quality is a thing in itself otherwise we wouldn’t be able to speak about it. Secondly, I would have to ask what your definition of a quality is before I comment on that: do you mean quality in the Aristotelian sense, or Kanitan, or otherwise? But that aside for the time being, as I said above, words like ‘mover’ and other words applied to God are said analogically. There is an internal procession of thought in God, and if you want to call that cause and effect, I don’t see how it changes the substance of the argument. If there is internal ‘cause and effect’ among a ‘quality’ in God, God is both the cause and effect of his own intelligence. In philosophy and theology we would say that God’s existence and essence are the same, but that’s a topic for another thread.

I’ve not seen intelligence defined as “the principle of freedom of activity” before that I can recall. Is that from a particular philosopher? It seems to have that formal phraseology.

It’s an expression of Mortimer Adler’s in reference to the philosophy of St Thomas. Reason is the principle of free will, and grace is the principle of freedom says St Thomas. Everything is grace, because everything is given to us.

Define ‘greater’. Is intelligence ‘greater than’ a black hole? Or ‘greater than’ an entire lifeless universe? Or ‘greater than’ the laws of mathematics?

“Maior” is a Scholastic term which is often translated into “greater” although this may not be the best translation (you’ll sometimes see it translated in this context as major, or prior). It refers to the priority of order among kinds of causes and effects. For example, a series of orders passed down from a general to a captain to a sergeant would characterise the general as ‘greater’ in the chain of command. It does not refer to size or any physical attribute. A cause is always greater than its effect, in that the cause is necessary and the effect is contingent.

Hope that helps. Do let me know if you want any further clarification. I can see that you are due some sunshine on Saturday over your way.

Pax.

 

[DrTaffy]

Thanks for your comments DrTaffy.

And thank you for your response.

By ‘shouldn’t’ do you mean not allowed?

No, I meant that I thought the ‘Unmoved mover’ was literally Unmoved - that is to say: not changed by his/her/its interaction with the universe. Apparently not true, at least as you use the term. I would be interested to hear what others think.

DrTaffy;10808156:

Apart from anything else if you accept the argument “otherwise we would have to seek another cause for the movement of the action of the Unmoved Mover” then it could be applied to anything

.

That’s the whole point of the cosmological argument, that there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes.

I think you miss my point. You could substitute anything for the word ‘intelligence’ in that argument without effecting its validity. e.g: there can be no free movement of the will without gravy, otherwise we would have to seek another cause for the movement of the action of the Unmoved Mover. The mere fact that if -]gravy/-] intelligence is not the cause then you would have to seek another explanation does not explain why you picked -]gravy/-] intelligence for that role, or prove that -]gravy/-] intelligence is the cause.

That being said I have for a long time now been looking for a good explanation of why an infinite regress of efficient causes is allegedly impossible. I would love to hear yours.

Anything which is self-moved operates under its own principles, and not the principles of another, otherwise it would not be Unmoved, but moved by another.

But that is not what I would mean by ‘intelligence’ - apart from anything else, does intelligence not necessarily operate under the principles of logic? So is ‘moved’ by logic?

First of all, a quality is a thing in itself otherwise we wouldn’t be able to speak about it.

I can speak about a lot of concepts that are not existent things. Velocity, for example.

Secondly, I would have to ask what your definition of a quality is before I comment on that: do you mean quality in the Aristotelian sense, or Kanitan, or otherwise?

I mean merely that ‘Intelligence’ cannot exist on its own, but only as a quality or attribute of something else. Just as ‘velocity’ cannot exist as a thing in its own right - you cannot have a mug full of ‘intelligence’ or ‘velocity’, whatever Red Bull advertising execs might try to claim.

There is an internal procession of thought in God, and if you want to call that cause and effect, I don’t see how it changes the substance of the argument.

How can the ‘first cause’ be ‘intelligent’ if at that point there can be no ‘intelligence’ as intelligence is reliant on a process of cause and effect that cannot at point exist?

“Maior” is a Scholastic term which is often translated into “greater” although this may not be the best translation (you’ll sometimes see it translated in this context as major, or prior). It refers to the priority of order among kinds of causes and effects. For example, a series of orders passed down from a general to a captain to a sergeant would characterise the general as ‘greater’ in the chain of command. It does not refer to size or any physical attribute. A cause is always greater than its effect, in that the cause is necessary and the effect is contingent.

If a cause is defined as being ‘greater’ than its effect, simply by being prior in the chain of cause-and-effect, then the claim that a cause is greater than its effect is trivial but gets us nowhere. It certainly does not support the claim that “intelligence cannot be produced by non-intelligence” - which I gather you claimed it to do(?)

 

[hicetnunc]

I think you miss my point. You could substitute anything for the word ‘intelligence’ in that argument without effecting its validity. e.g: there can be no free movement of the will without gravy, otherwise we would have to seek another cause for the movement of the action of the Unmoved Mover. The mere fact that if -]gravy/-] intelligence is not the cause then you would have to seek another explanation does not explain why you picked -]gravy/-] intelligence for that role, or prove that -]gravy/-] intelligence is the cause.

I apologise for missing your point. Let me try again: a rational agent, unlike gravy, is the principle of its own free operation (unless you are a determinist…I which case, that’s a discussion for a whole new thread!). As for colour, this is “accidental” to a subject and must inhere in a subject.

I think Rete, above, summed it up very well:

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.

That being said I have for a long time now been looking for a good explanation of why an infinite regress of efficient causes is allegedly impossible. I would love to hear yours.

Simply put, if everything had to have a cause, then nothing would exist. Imagine a group of people sitting around in a circle waiting to clap. No one in the circle can clap until the person to their right claps first. Clearly, no one will ever clap. But that said, I do not want to side track the OP’s thread on this… there are many discussions of infinite regress on the forum.

But that is not what I would mean by ‘intelligence’ - apart from anything else, does intelligence not necessarily operate under the principles of logic? So is ‘moved’ by logic?

Logic is not the principle of intelligence, but vice versa. Logic is a discursive method of argumentation. Intelligence does a lot more than simply “logic”.

I mean merely that ‘Intelligence’ cannot exist on its own, but only as a quality or attribute of something else. Just as ‘velocity’ cannot exist as a thing in its own right - you cannot have a mug full of ‘intelligence’ or ‘velocity’, whatever Red Bull advertising execs might try to claim.

In that sense, I would agree with you: intelligence is not something “disembodied” apart from a person, whether human or Divine.

How can the ‘first cause’ be ‘intelligent’ if at that point there can be no ‘intelligence’ as intelligence is reliant on a process of cause and effect that cannot at point exist?

I’m not sure I follow. Could you rephrase?

If a cause is defined as being ‘greater’ than its effect, simply by being prior in the chain of cause-and-effect, then the claim that a cause is greater than its effect is trivial but gets us nowhere. It certainly does not support the claim that “intelligence cannot be produced by non-intelligence” - which I gather you claimed it to do(?)

This is a fair point. It’s one of the perils of trying to summarise philosophical theses in sound-bites. Sometimes they just don’t work! But let me try an put it another way: “cause” is used in philosophy in several different ways. Aristotle identifies four kinds of cause; St Thomas identifies five. The deficiency of the pebble analogy is that it reduces all causes to just one: the efficient. But the Latin term “major” or “greater” in the order of causes include all four (or five). So that which is simply the efficient cause of something, like the pebble causing an avalanche, is not as “great” as the material, formal, efficient and final (and exemplary) cause of a thing. The greatest cause is that which governs all causes of a thing. There is a lot more which could be said, but hopefully this does at least some justice to your point. St Thomas dedicates a whole commentary to this very question in his Book of Causes.

 

[DrTaffy]

Let me try again: a rational agent, unlike gravy, is the principle of its own free operation (unless you are a determinist…I which case, that’s a discussion for a whole new thread!)…]

I think Rete, above, summed it up very well:
Rete;10800777:

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by “principle of its own free operation” so I am basing this mainly on Rete’s comment.

It is far from clear that that assertion is true. Why is the process of making a choice not a sequence of cause and effect? To me, intelligence per se is about having certain information processing and decision making abilities, not any immunity from the laws of cause and effect.

Nor is it clear that (if intelligence has this quality) that it would be alone in this.

An example: a favorite of causality discussions, spontaneous decay of a subatomic particle, as described by Quantum Mechanics. A particle floats in space for an arbitrarily long period, then decays. Not because it was ‘made to decay’ by an external factor (such as a collision with another particle) nor due to some internal process (like a fuse or time bomb clock ticking down) but in a genuinely indeterminate probabilistic fashion, as more or less proven by the various tests of hidden variable theories.

This does look to me like something initiating a chain of cause and effect on its own, that is to say ‘caused’ by nothing more than its own nature. No internal cause-and-effect process or external influence. Yet this is clearly (I hope) not intelligence.

Simply put, if everything had to have a cause, then nothing would exist. Imagine a group of people sitting around in a circle waiting to clap. No one in the circle can clap until the person to their right claps first.

You appear to be imagining the linkage of cause and effect as a dynamic thing, and applying intuition about events in real time to that image. Both are faulty, in my view.

If you have a group of people sitting in a circle, each will be to the right of one person and to the left of another. There is no need for one to ‘start’ being at the left of one person and for a wave of geographical location to sweep around the circle, it just is. In the same way a causal loop ‘just is’ - it makes no sense to talk about ‘something’ starting to travel around the loop. Likewise for an infinite chain of causality.

Logic is not the principle of intelligence, but vice versa. Logic is a discursive method of argumentation.

So you don’t think that logic has some intrinsic validity? I would say that the discursive methods of logic and mathematics allow us to reason about (I am crippled by language here) ‘things’ that are real, meaningful, transcendant and not contingent. Pythagoras’ theorem is true and applicable whether or not there is a mind to perceive that validity. And true even if there is no euclidean space in which it would apply.

So ‘logic’ (or ‘maths’) can refer to the discursive methods we use to explore these transcendent realities, or can refer to the realities themselves. I mean the latter.

If you make logic contingent, and specifically if you make God ‘not subject to logic’ you can conclude whatever you want. Indeed, under those conditions ‘gravy’ makes as good a proof of God as any. So that is a sterile area for debate.

DrTaffy;10811934:

How can the ‘first cause’ be ‘intelligent’ if at that point there can be no ‘intelligence’ as intelligence is reliant on a process of cause and effect that cannot at point exist?

I’m not sure I follow. Could you rephrase?

OK, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that ‘intelligence’ can only apply to a process of cause and effect, then ‘intelligence’ as a direct consequence cannot exist before there is a chain of cause and effect. Yes?

So ‘Intelligence’ cannot exist before the first cause, as before that there is no chain of cause and effect. At best you can try to argue for an ‘intelligent’ causal process that includes the first cause creating itself, with the ‘intelligent’ first cause being its own cause and its own effect and intelligent and all this coming into existence similtaneously … but that is both dubious, intellectually unsatisfying and (as far as I understand) contrary to Catholic doctrine which would have had the first cause (or ‘God’, assuming that that is what we are talkign about) having existed eternally.

The deficiency of the pebble analogy is that it reduces all causes to just one: the efficient. But the Latin term “major” or “greater” in the order of causes include all four (or five). So that which is simply the efficient cause of something, like the pebble causing an avalanche, is not as “great” as the material, formal, efficient and final (and exemplary) cause of a thing.

No - we don’t need to rule out the other ‘causes’ (although some of them are barking mad) we just need to agree that the pebble is a cause, and is not ‘greater than’ the avalanche in any normal sense of that phrase. That disproves the assertion that “every cause is greater than its effects” (your words, my emphasis).

You can rework the claim to things like “every effect must have at least on cause greater than itself” or whatever, but the challenge of defining ‘greater than’ sensibly, and of proving the assertion, remains considerable.

 

[hicetnunc]

Hi Dr Taffy;

Here’s an answer to your question. I’ve had to edit out your comments for the sake of the post length apart from a couple of key words to let you know what I’m addressing, but let me know if you think I’ve missed anything key.

I’m not sure what you mean by “principle of its own free operation”

Freedom of action flows from free will, which is an operation of the intellect. Back to our pebble analogy, the pebble does not chose to start an avalanche, and so is not an principle of its own operation: the pebble will have been moved by something else.

Also, I’m not sure what you’re arguing for here. Are you arguing for determinism? Or simply that there is a process of cause and effect in a libertarian notion of free will? If the latter, I don’t have a problem with that, at least as far as the internal operation goes, as you suggest. But at the same time, if God exists, there would be no such temporal discursive operation of cause and effect in the act of intellection.

An example: a favorite of causality discussions, spontaneous decay of a subatomic particle, as described by Quantum Mechanics.

A particle does not decay “for no reason.” Sure, there may not be any determinable efficient reasons, but there is always a formal reason for its decay, namely its own nature. So particle behaviour is never totally indeterminate, as the likes of physicists Paul Davies and Werner Heisenberg have pointed out. This is where I think it is useful to keep the distinctions between efficient cause and other kinds of causes in mind. Most people tend to think of cause simply in terms of the former.

This does look to me like something initiating a chain of cause and effect on its own, that is to say ‘caused’ by nothing more than its own nature. No internal cause-and-effect process or external influence.

I think this is a case of “special pleading”. All science is based on the treatment of the relationship between cause and effect; we have no experience of non-caused entities. To claim that there “might” be uncaused contingent natures is an appeal to ignorance. Surely you’re not asking me to believe that somehow a totally unknown, improbable scenario of uncaused contingent beings is somehow more plausible than to go along with experience and empirical observation, that every contingent thing has a cause.

You appear to be imagining the linkage of cause and effect as a dynamic thing, and applying intuition about events in real time to that image. Both are faulty, in my view.

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. What is the meaning of “dynamic thing” and why is this naughty of me if I am making such a link? And whatever it is you’re objecting to: so what if it seems “faulty”? Lots of things seem faulty to lots of people: I don’t see how that constitutes an argument.

As I said, I do not want to side-track the thread with (yet another) thread on infinite regress. I gave you a quick answer with the understanding that it was just that. If you really want to start another thread on infinite regress, I will join you on that, and explain this in further detail.

So you don’t think that logic has some intrinsic validity?

Did I in fact say that? I don’t think so.

If you make logic contingent, and specifically if you make God ‘not subject to logic’ you can conclude whatever you want.

I think this is a straw man. You’re putting words in my mouth. I think if you reread my last post, I have said none of this.

OK, if we accept, for the sake of argument, that ‘intelligence’ can only apply to a process of cause and effect, then ‘intelligence’ as a direct consequence cannot exist before there is a chain of cause and effect. Yes?

Again, I have not said this.

…but that is both dubious, intellectually unsatisfying…

Again, this is not an argument. People find all kinds of arguments dubious and unsatisfying, most often because they do not like the conclusions. This could just as equally be a statement of a person’s ideology as an objective criticism.

No - we don’t need to rule out the other ‘causes’ (although some of them are barking mad) we just need to agree that the pebble is a cause, and is not ‘greater than’ the avalanche in any normal sense of that phrase.

I am having a hard time understanding why this is posing a problem for you. It seems evident to me that the builder of a house is qualitatively superior in terms of cause and effect than the house he builds. Nor am I certain in what sense the different senses of causes are “barking mad”: the material cause of the house is the bricks; the formal cause is the kind of house he builds (two up, two down); the efficient cause is the builder himself; the final cause is the reason he built it—to live in, or to sell. And Aquinas’ 5th, the exemplary, would be equivalent to the blueprint from which the house was designed. Which of these is “barking mad”? They seem quite ordinary, everyday concepts to me, which we use all the time. Each of them in some way contribute to the cause of the house. The efficient cause determines the other causes and is thus ‘greater’. But if you don’t like that word, swap it for ‘determines’. But there is clearly a priority involved in the order of cause and effect.

Pax. All good fun.

 

[CandideWest]

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?

I am going to follow along reading this thread as its a topic that really interests me. I’ve asked this question a couple times before myself. Alas the only answers I’ve seen this far are not terribly useful. Usually those I’ve seen are nothing more than two unrelated statements with the word “therefore” in between them, or arguments which are dependent on bald assertions. For example:

“The first cause must be infinite, THEREFORE, only a personal being called God could be the first cause”

Or

“The first cause is the cause of everything THEREFORE, the first cause must be an intelligence”

Or

“The first act must be a choice (bald assertion) therefore the first cause must be an intelligence.”

Etc.

Fingers crossed you get something better on this thread. I shall read with interest.

All the best.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am going to follow along reading this thread as its a topic that really interests me. I’ve asked this question a couple times before myself. Alas the only answers I’ve seen this far are not terribly useful. Usually those I’ve seen are nothing more than two unrelated statements with the word “therefore” in between them, or arguments which are dependent on bald assertions. For example:

“The first cause must be infinite, THEREFORE, only a personal being called God could be the first cause”

Or

“The first cause is the cause of everything THEREFORE, the first cause must be an intelligence”

Or

“The first act must be a choice (bald assertion) therefore the first cause must be an intelligence.”

Etc.

Fingers crossed you get something better on this thread. I shall read with interest.

All the best.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am going to follow along reading this thread as its a topic that really interests me. I’ve asked this question a couple times before myself. Alas the only answers I’ve seen this far are not terribly useful. Usually those I’ve seen are nothing more than two unrelated statements with the word “therefore” in between them, or arguments which are dependent on bald assertions. For example:

“The first cause must be infinite, THEREFORE, only a personal being called God could be the first cause”

Or

“The first cause is the cause of everything THEREFORE, the first cause must be an intelligence”

Or

“The first act must be a choice (bald assertion) therefore the first cause must be an intelligence.”

Etc.

Fingers crossed you get something better on this thread. I shall read with interest.

All the best.

I see that you continue to debate strawmen. I have pointed out to you before that you must actually read St. Thomas. His brief statements demonstrating the existence of God are mere summaries of his entire philosophy. And this cannot be covered in the " sound bite " available in this format. I have suggested to you before that you need to actually need to read Part 1 of the Summa Theologica and Book 1 of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Or at least read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser, who does a credibel job of explaining the philosophy of St. Thomas briefly.

But even common sense tells us that a material universe cannot account for its own existence, nor for its evident perfection, nor for the fact that its every act tends toward some definite perfecting end. And this can only be explained by the Causality of some Intelligent, Directing Being Who is Transcendent to the material universe, Who is Itself Uncaused, and Unchangeable, and Who is Pure Act. Linus2nd

 

[Faithdancer]

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

Perhaps the poster has faith in Christ and is discerning among various denominations, Catholicism being one of them.

 

[CandideWest]

I see that you continue to debate strawmen. I have pointed out to you before that you must actually read St. Thomas. His brief statements demonstrating the existence of God are mere summaries of his entire philosophy. And this cannot be covered in the " sound bite " available in this format. I have suggested to you before that you need to actually need to read Part 1 of the Summa Theologica and Book 1 of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Or at least read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser, who does a credibel job of explaining the philosophy of St. Thomas briefly.

??? Linus, I’m not debating anyone or anything in that post, I’m just giving a note on the kind of answers I’ve been given to this question in the past. As I said, I hope to see better in this thread.

Incidentally, if you believe the answer is too complex to be given in a post on this forum then that’s a perfectly valid response.

But even common sense tells us that a material universe cannot account for its own existence, nor for its evident perfection, nor for the fact that its every act tends toward some definite perfecting end. And this can only be explained by the Causality of some Intelligent, Directing Being Who is Transcendent to the material universe, Who is Itself Uncaused, and Unchangeable, and Who is Pure Act. Linus2nd

There we go, a good example of both types of answer.

Bald assertions

“a material universe cannot account for its own existence, nor for its evident perfection”

And

“every act tends toward some definite perfecting end”

In this case the word “therefore” was replaced by “this can only be explained by” which both amounts to the same thing and is itself a bald assertion. This was the only link to your conclusion of an intelligent first cause.

You seem to have provided a good example of exactly what I was referring to in my previous post. Thanks.

 

[snarflemike]

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?

OK, I’m late in responding to this question, but it seems the answer is almost trivial.

An “unintelligent” cause can only be a cause via some law or another, some external cause-and-effect relationship. The First Cause cannot be the First Cause if there is some further cause-and-effect relationship that governs its behavior. Thus the First Cause must be intelligent, not governed by a cause-and-effect relationship.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
I see that you continue to debate strawmen. I have pointed out to you before that you must actually read St. Thomas. His brief statements demonstrating the existence of God are mere summaries of his entire philosophy. And this cannot be covered in the " sound bite " available in this format. I have suggested to you before that you need to actually need to read Part 1 of the Summa Theologica and Book 1 of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Or at least read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser, who does a credibel job of explaining the philosophy of St. Thomas briefly.

Constants’ Response] ??? Linus, I’m not debating anyone or anything in that post, I’m just giving a note on the kind of answers I’ve been given to this question in the past. As I said, I hope to see better in this thread.

Linus Responds : That is progress. Of course everyone will try. Feser talks about this problem.

Constance again: Incidentally, if you believe the answer is too complex to be given in a post on this forum then that’s a perfectly valid response.

Linus Responds: Thanks again.

Statement by Linus: But even common sense tells us that a material universe cannot account for its own existence, nor for its evident perfection, nor for the fact that its every act tends toward some definite perfecting end. And this can only be explained by the Causality of some Intelligent, Directing Being Who is Transcendent to the material universe, Who is Itself Uncaused, and Unchangeable, and Who is Pure Act. Linus2nd

Constance Responds: There we go, a good example of both types of answer.

Bald assertions

Linus Responds:

Common sense has its own logic. We see and we judge. We see a purely material universe. We judge that matter can neither create anything, nor give existence to anything, nor perfect anything nor direct anything to an " intended " ( in the philosophical sense the meaning of which I assume you know) end.

Constance Responding to my statement. “a material universe cannot account for its own existence, nor for its evident perfection”

And

“every act tends toward some definite perfecting end”

In this case the word “therefore” was replaced by “this can only be explained by” which both amounts to the same thing and is itself a bald assertion. This was the only link to your conclusion of an intelligent first cause.

You seem to have provided a good example of exactly what I was referring to in my previous post. Thanks.

Linus Responds:

Hardly. The conclusion of common sense cannot be so easily dismissed. It is what gave rise to philosophy, even science. Naturally it lacks philosophic and scientific precision. But it has satisfied the greater portion of mankind to this point. So it is no bald assertion. So your objection doesn’t hold. LInus2nd

 

[hicetnunc]

“The first cause must be infinite, THEREFORE, only a personal being called God could be the first cause”

Or

“The first cause is the cause of everything THEREFORE, the first cause must be an intelligence”

Hi CandideWest;

You certainly raise a good point here; people do indeed often seem to leap to conclusions on both sides of the debate. We equally find arguments such as, “We don’t know what caused this, THEREFORE it has no cause…”. I think your point is that we all need to pay careful attention to how we move from one premise to the next, which is a really good point.

At the same time, I think it is worth keeping two important points in mind. The first is that the ‘logical’ connection between two related premises can never be stated. It is an assent of the mind which sees connections. For example, consider the relationship between the claim, “everyone who drinks milk likes chocolate” and “Mary drinks milk.” If the former is true, the latter must mean that Mary also likes chocolate. But that connection is an assent to the premises; the mind and will bridges the gap between the two. In the case of Mary and chocolate, we would have little cause for argument; but when you start inserting premises which are used to indicate a Frist Cause, or not-a-First Cause, we start finding that assent is harder to win. This is because every argument involves the will as the means to bring reason into assent.

Secondly, many arguments are posed as enthymemes. Aristotle and Aquinas do this a lot. For example, we find in Aquinas the claim that (1) the First Cause is necessary; therefore, there can only be one first cause and not many. At first glance, this may seem to fall prey to your understandable criticism that we shouldn’t ‘leap’ to conclusions. But in enthymematic arguments like this, a lot of information is “supressed.” This might be because terms in the argument like “necessary” have been defined in other arguments, or that middle terms, even when valid, are not rhetorically useful, or that the reader is presumed to share an understanding of supressed terms, etc.

This is not to say that every use of the enthymeme is valid: many are not. But I often find people in this philosophy forum using enthymemes validly and effectively, and yet are they are often criticised for “leaping to conclusions”.

Arguments invariably involve such a huge degree of good will on both sides. When that is lacking, not amount of explicit argumentation suffices. I think it was Stuart Chase who said, “for those who believe (the terms of X or Y argument), no proof is necessary; for those who do not, no proof is possible.” But your point is well taken, and we should keep our eye on how we move forward.