Why you should think that the First-Cause has to be an Intelligent Cause

[IWantGod]

Well yeah. I did say I was winging it.

I guess that’s why you made the mistake of treating physical laws as something ontologically distinct from the existence of physical beings and their behavior; as if there are these transcendent rules that are not beings themselves but nevertheless govern physical reality and causes it to exist, which of course is unreasonable philosophy and certainly not a scientific view. There has to be a reality first before it can be meaningful to describe what it is doing or to speak of laws at all.

If there is a single initial condition that we could describe as the primary, initial, axiomatic law that states (post hoc) ‘Nothing Cannot Exist’, then the ball starts rolling.

If absolutely-nothing cannot exist, then something has always existed without beginning or end and without change because it is necessarily real. It’s eternal. Therefore it is unreasonable to describe it as having initial conditions.This is one of the reasons why theists reject the idea that physical reality is the same thing as fundamental or necessary reality.

Smacks of deism to me though. A ‘deity’ (for want of a different description) that initiates and then is no longer required.

Necessary reality is always required since nothing would exist otherwise, and since necessary reality is the cause of everything that is unnecessary it can also be described as that which sustains unnecessary things in existence since they do not exist by the power of their own nature.

Then again, I effectively just made this up

I know, and it shows.

STILL makes a lot more sense than a personal God.to me.

What you are arguing does not make any rational sense at all.

 

[Bradskii]

The laws givern nothing. They are a desciption of reality.

If I say one plus one equals two, I am describing a facet of reality. I am not laying down rules for how reality must perform.

If you have one and then you have another one, then you have two. That is axiomatic. From that we can describe that event as being: one plus one equals two.

 

[IWantGod]

The laws givern nothing. They are a desciption of reality.

Then stop treating physical laws as the giver of reality.

If I say one plus one equals two, I am describing a facet of reality. I am not laying down rules for how reality must perform.

If you have one and then you have another one, then you have two. That is axiomatic. From that we can describe that event as being: one plus one equals two.

Neither is mathematical descriptions the cause of physical reality. It too is just a way of measuring and describing quantitative states.

Describing what physical reality is doing is not enough to explain why physical reality exists at all. Physical reality has to exist first before there can be such a thing as physical laws (physical laws merely being a description of how physical reality behaves) and so it makes no rational sense to say that a physical law is what caused physical reality to exist.or is the reason why there something rather than nothing. You are putting the cart before the horse and yelling Yahtzee.

What you could argue is that physical reality is necessary-existence and therefore how it behaves is a necessary expression of it’s nature. But i have already argued why physical reality cannot be considered to be a necessary-existence or fundamental reality. This has not been addressed and neither has it been refuted.

 

[Bradskii]

In this thread? I might have missed it. Apologies. Let me know where you discussed it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

At the basis of all creation, outside of it and permeating every aspect is Existence itself, intelligent in that all the essences of things, what they are in themselves, the laws that govern the universe, He, the Triune Godhead, brings into being in their moment.

While I agree with you in believing that the ‘Prime Mover’ is indeed intelligent, my approach throughout this thread is that I do not see that it must be intelligent. Bradskii and I often find ourselves on the same side in rejecting much of the unnecessary poking about in Creation, and the discussion has, quite properly, focussed on the laws which describe the universe and the potentiality which brings them into operation. We can call this the “First Cause”, as in the OP. However, the difference between Bradskii’s First Cause and mine is that I think mine is both intelligent and purposeful - the trouble is, I cannot describe any evidence that supports my view. Nor, it seems to me, has anybody else. They simply announce that it must be.

Returning to the OP, IWantGod gives two “reasons”. The first defines the First Cause as an “Intellect”, which has too many anthropomorphic overtones, and does not demonstrate “Intelligence” except as a semantic corollary. If that is what IWantGod really means by “Intelligence”, then neither I nor Bradskii could possibly disagree. If a quality of Intellect is Intelligence, as a quality of a Circle is Circularity, and the driving force of creation is Intellect, then the discussion should have been closed from the start. The reason is hasn’t is precisely that a Christian’s interpretation of “intelligence” is loaded with a lot of extra baggage, which do not appear to me to be self-evidently, or even deducibly, true.

 

[Aloysium]

I cannot describe any evidence that supports my view. Nor, it seems to me, has anybody else. They simply announce that it must be.

I see this as inevitable since evidence is determined by the theoretical framework that we use to perceive and understand the world.

If one takes scripture as the written truth revealing the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, what it says is all the evidence one needs. I have faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Not so much in my own capacities to understand, but that’s where prayer really helps, to grow in the graces of the Holy Spirit.

As to science, we have to have some humility, respecting our limits. Some understanding of the philosophical basis of the natural science is necessary, but unfortunately, from my observations, is lacking except to justify, usually in a cursory manner, the validity of empiricism. When we look at the world through that light, as much as it may bring out aspects of our world, it fails to reveal those outside its spectrum.

When we read some illustrious scientist opine about his never having discovered a transcendent Divine Cause, one is left rather speechless. Seriously, why would one ever expect that using the methods he employs.

Yet this is a dance with no sign of a choreographer. No intelligent supervisor, no mystic force, no conscious controlling agency swings the molecules into place at the right time, chooses the appropriate players, closes the links, uncouples the partners, moves them on. The dance of life is spontaneous, self-sustaining, and self-creating.” (Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle)

If one believes the “dance of life is spontaneous, self-sustaining, and self-creating” why would that person see anything different. It is when we get to the heart of what is a living thing and that which encompasses all of it that we get hints as to what that dance is all about, He who plays the tune and has choreographed it. It’s beauty, the grandeur and intricacies of the music and movements as well as the meaning it conveys, all speak to the ultimate reality that is God.

 

[Bradskii]

We can call this the “First Cause”, as in the OP. However, the difference between Bradskii’s First Cause and mine is that I think mine is both intelligent and purposeful - the trouble is, I cannot describe any evidence that supports my view. Nor, it seems to me, has anybody else. They simply announce that it must be.

It depends where you start from.

If you start with the premise that we are here for a purpose (even if you avoid any concept of God at this point), then if you work backwards you can only reach the conclusion that the whole shebang must have been designed for that purpose (you can then fiddle around to get to God if that’s where you need to go).

If you start with the premise that there is no (ultimate) purpose, then working backwards you reach a conclusion that it was either designed OR it happened naturally.

Personally speaking, the reasons for a Judeo Chrisitan god fail on so many levels so I am left with a deistic answer or a natural one. And the natural one is the simplest.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The last two comments, from Aloysium and Bradskii, do seem to me to sum up the essence of the discussion. I agree with them both. Certainly, one is struck, as Darwin was and Aloysium is, by the “beauty, the grandeur and intricacies of the music and movements” of the natural world; but I agree with Bradskii that that is an emotional, rather than a reasoned, argument for the “First Cause” being an “Intelligent Cause.”

 

[Aloysium]

emotional, rather than a reasoned

I would actually call them emotions, joy and a sense of wonder being spiritual in nature and arise from revelations or realizations of what is. Truth = Love = Existence = Joy = Beauty = God. They are intrinsic to a loving relationship between the self and what is other. Any reasoning devoid of this connection will ultimately reveal itself to be illusory, that is if one remains faithful to the pursuit of Truth.

Corinthians 13:1-2 - If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Reasoning based on hypotheticals arising from what is essentially a knowledge of the shadows of things, leads nowhere but to a deepening of one’s ignorance. Trying to figure out one’s way out of a dream, a nightmare in the case of not knowing God, is only more dreaming. One needs to simply wake up.

 

[IWantGod]

by the “beauty, the grandeur and intricacies of the music and movements”

I disagree that emotional reactions to reality tells us nothing true about reality. Clearly to have an experience of beauty, even if it does not strictly and entirely reside in objective things, tells us that there is a qualitative aspect to our experience that transcends the mere quantitative aspects of our experience and points to something meaningful and real. In other-words, there is a level of reality or human experience that cannot be grasped by the scientific method or a strictly materialistic philosophy, and is nevertheless real.

Since these experiences cannot in principle be defined or encompassed by quantitative or materialistic distinctions, we have no choice but to look to the immaterial and non-physical to explain these experiences.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I disagree that emotional reactions to reality tell us nothing true about reality.

I think you’re correct, but that may be fortuitous. Do they necessarily tell us something about reality, and if so, what? Some emotional reactions can be entirely wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

IWantGod:

I disagree that emotional reactions to reality tell us nothing true about reality.

I think you’re correct, but that may be fortuitous. Do they necessarily tell us something about reality, and if so, what? Some emotional reactions can be entirely wrong.

And we all experience life differently as regards emotions. When Pavard scored France’s second last night I was up off my bar stool punching the air. The slo-mo was equisite. My wife sat there wondering what the fuss was about.

 

[o_mlly]

While I agree with you in believing that the ‘Prime Mover’ is indeed intelligent, my approach throughout this thread is that I do not see that it must be intelligent.

What properties must the “Prime Mover” possess?

 

[PickyPicky]

The whole First Cause argument seems unimpressively pedestrian to me. Cause and Effect is the way we simplify the incidents in the universe in an attempt to bring them down to a level we can grasp. In reality nothing happens because of a simple cause producing a simple effect. Rather the difference between Circumstances A and, a second or so later, Circumstances B is the outcome of a myriad of pushes and pulls.

We like to think of effects having simple causes, we like to have someone to pin the blame on, and if we can’t simplify things to one single cause we keep searching backwards in the hope of finding what we call the Underlying Cause. There ain’t no such thing, (although the search has the benefit of providing work for historians).

We are all bound together with the universe in an intricate non-disentanglable web of causes and effects, attractions and repulsions. The analogy made with the chain of the candelabra fixed to a ceiling rose is utterly insufficient.

We can posit that, given matter and energy and time, this web will necessarily be present, and all of us and every atom of the universe will necessarily be linked via multiple millions of interactions.

If the universe is God’s creation, so be it. We can’t then flatten the web of causes and effects into a simple line of interlocked chains in the hope that it will lead to Him. If God exists He is outside time; He is not constructed of matter and energy; He is not subject to the web of causes and effects. To argue that the web of interaction can be extrapolated out from the universe to encompass God is to attempt to constrain Him. It diminishes the very concept of God.

 

[rossum]

What properties must the “Prime Mover” possess?

1. It must be capable of causing something.
2. It must have existed at the time it caused that something.

More than that is not required. See the Deist God for an intelligent example, or some versions of the multiverse for a non-intelligent example.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

It must be capable of causing something.

What properties are required to enable such a capability – to cause something?

 

[Bradskii]

I think this is the beginning of an infinite regress.

We need A.
So what properties does A need?
It needs B.
So what properties does B need?
It needs C.

I think you want to keeps asking until you get the answer you want.

 

[o_mlly]

I think this is the beginning of an infinite regress.

We need A.
So what properties does A need?
It needs B.
So what properties does B need?
It needs C.

I think you want to keeps asking until you get the answer you want.

Not at all. An answer that does not beg the question – the first cause must be able to cause – will suffice.

 

[rossum]

What properties are required to enable such a capability – to cause something?

Whatever properties are required, intelligence is not such a property. Gravity is not intelligent, yet it causes water to flow downhill and planets to orbit stars. Continental plates are not intelligent, yet they can cause earthquakes.

We can observe non-intelligent causes, hence intelligence is not necessary in a cause.

rossum

 

[Sedona]

I’m not convinced that there has to be such a thing as a first cause. The formation of universes could be part of a cycle that has no start or finish, and the perceived need for a start and finish may simply be a product of our conditioned way of looking at things. The matter as to why anything should be conscious of any of it is I think a greater puzzlement. It seems to me as if the universe seems to explore ways to experience itself by forming sentient apertures, which would imply some sort of proto-consciousness with the overall purpose being perhaps as simple as seeking the felt presence of immediate experience. In such a world, we wouldn’t be creations, but events in an endless fractal expansion that seeks nothing more than more and more diverse experience. Otherwise, I can’t see a reason for anything to be aware. Anything we do can be performed without an awareness of it, yet we are aware. I am not offering any sort of definitive answer. Just some things I wonder about.