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

[o_mlly]

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

Restated as a conditional:
If we can observe non-intelligent secondary causes then intelligence is not necessary in the first cause.

Contrapositive:
If intelligence is necessary in the first cause then we can observe intelligent secondary causes.
We do observe intelligence in secondary causes.
The first cause must be intelligent.

I’ve just explained gravity to a child.
He observes me throw a magnet at the refrigerator door.
The magnet does not fall.
The child concludes the magnet is not subject to gravity.

The child’s conclusion is reasonable but the child is ignorant of the other forces at work in the magnet.
Ditto on the water, planets and plates. If we allow that we don’t know what we don’t know then we will not fall into the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

 

[rossum]

Restated as a conditional:
If we can observe non-intelligent secondary causes then intelligence is not necessary in the first cause.

You statement is in error. Better to restate is as:

If we can observe non-intelligent secondary causes then intelligence is not necessary in a secondary cause.

If you are treating primary and secondary causes differently, then observations of one cannot automatically be applied to the other. They are different, so proof of the cross-applicability of any statements is required. If you are treating them as the same, then observation of a non-intelligent (secondary) cause allows the existence of a non-intelligent (primary) cause, since all causes are the same in that scenario. Equivocating between the same and different is an obvious error.

We can observe secondary causes. We have never observed a primary cause. Have you any direct observations of Brahman creating the universe?

The existence of a primary cause is asserted, but is not observed. The existence of many different and incompatible primary causes is asserted: YHWH, Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, Amaterasu etc.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

What properties must the “Prime Mover” possess?

As has been said before, it must be “Prime” and a “Mover”. And, given the evidence of its results, its ‘movement’ must be capable of producing the universe as we observe it.

I’m not convinced that there has to be such a thing as a first cause.

This rather depends on the definition of the First Cause. If the First Cause is the cause of time itself, then the possibility of infinite temporal regress does not in itself obviate it. The First Cause would be an explanation of why the infinite universe behaves as it does, rather than an explanation of its initiation. However, this attitude does beg the question of why the universe needs to be explained at all. That, in turn, relies on our assumption that since everything we know about the universe seems to be explicable in rational terms, then so should the universe itself. Perhaps that assumption is unjustified.

 

[Aloysium]

However, this attitude does beg the question of why the universe needs to be explained at all. That, in turn, relies on our assumption that since everything we know about the universe seems to be explicable in rational terms, then so should the universe itself. Perhaps that assumption is unjustified.

Agreeing with what you write here, I would add that what is unjustified from my perspective is the assumption that it should be explicable on our terms. Rational explanations can only be as good as their assumptions are valid and comprehensive. We can know things without being able to explain them. Love as a means of knowing is most definitely like that. That knowledge gained is always revealed by the beloved. To take what is not given, empties what would be known of its meaning. What we are left with Is an object pretty much devoid of its beauty and the truth of what it is in itself. The flip side is an estrangement from ourselves with a consequent sense of purposelessness and nihilism. Quietly and humbly establishing a relationship with that which we wish to know, the beloved will reveal its mysteries. Patience, of course as a manifestation of our love, is necessary to the establishment of such important relationships, transforming us that we may be able to hear the Truth.

As objects of His love, hoping and fearing to grow in that relationship, it can feel odd speaking about a First Cause in the third person. There is nothing so personal, so much here and now, that we should rather reverentially be speaking to rather than about. Evoking God in our discussions, however, makes them a form of prayer as we keep Him in our hearts. Otherwise this is just another tower of Babel, the spouting of what has meaning solely to ourselves, as the attempt to reach God without God comes crashing down as so much nonsense.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Better to restate is as:

If we can observe non-intelligent secondary causes then intelligence is not necessary in a secondary cause.

Your restatement of your post is, as I think you know, merely a tautology. Further, the restatement does not address the question asked: What properties must the first cause possess?

As has been said before, it must be “Prime” and a “Mover”. And, given the evidence of its results, its ‘movement’ must be capable of producing the universe as we observe it.

Good. As we observe the universe, has anyone observed at the level of being any effect that surpasses its causes in its properties? Has anyone experienced sand popping into existence? Has anyone experienced only sand producing a plant? Has a plant ever produced an intelligent animal? Anyone ever witnessed a chimp birthing a human being? No.

So, “the universe as we observe it” tells us that all experienced effects never possess properties greater than their causes. And, we observe intelligent beings. Therefore, the primal cause (based on the observed universe) must possess the property of intelligence.

 

[rossum]

Further, the restatement does not address the question asked: What properties must the first cause possess?

I have already addressed this question above in post #257:

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.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

As we observe the universe, has anyone observed at the level of being any effect that surpasses its causes in its properties? Has anyone experienced sand popping into existence? Has anyone experienced only sand producing a plant? Has a plant ever produced an intelligent animal? Anyone ever witnessed a chimp birthing a human being? No.

So, “the universe as we observe it” tells us that all experienced effects never possess properties greater than their causes. And, we observe intelligent beings. Therefore, the primal cause (based on the observed universe) must possess the property of intelligence.

No, you’re wandering about here. Many things have properties that easily surpass their causes - the computational speed of a computer, for example - as frequently these properties are emergent from fairly simple first principles. Human intelligence is almost certainly something like that, emergent from, as well as contiguous with, increased neuronal interconnectivity. All that stuff about sand popping into existence and plants producing intelligent animals is way off target. The Universe as we observe it does not tell us that complexity has to be derived from complexity; quite the reverse in many cases.

 

[o_mlly]

No, you’re wandering about here. Many things have properties that easily surpass their causes

No, you’re missing the constraint. Read my post more carefully. No thing at the level of its being – mineral, plant, animal or human – has ever been observed having properties greater than its cause.

 

[rossum]

No, you’re missing the constraint. Read my post more carefully. No thing at the level of its being – mineral, plant, animal or human – has ever been observed having properties greater than its cause.

So, since humans are caused by God, no human can ever be more evil than God.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

So, since humans are caused by God, no human can ever be more evil than God.

An effect may never have more but may have less than its causes.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

No thing at the level of its being – mineral, plant, animal or human – has ever been observed having properties greater than its cause.

I’m not sure I understand. What is the “level of something’s being”?

 

[Aloysium]

Many things have properties that easily surpass their causes - the computational speed of a computer, for example - as frequently these properties are emergent from fairly simple first principles. Human intelligence is almost certainly something like that, emergent from, as well as contiguous with, increased neuronal interconnectivity.

The causes include human intelligence and it’s capacity to discern the rational structure behind the appearance of events. Organizing matter and fashioning a computer, which functions in accordance to our will, we are able to use its material properties to further our God-given capacities, perceptual and computational. The computer cannot achieve more that we are able to construct and program.

While it exists as itself that self is “material” and not self-reflective, although those who have faith in Star Trek might disagree.

We need neurons to organize our attention, perceptions, emotions, memories, words and symbols within the unity of being that is the person. In our relationships with people suffering Alzheimer’s and other dementias, coming to terms with it if it befalls ourselves, it can be heartbreaking to see how our spirit struggles to bring things back to an order that cannot be maintained

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

This would be admitting that the laws of nature are real, if abstract, beings (not implying consciousness, only that they actually exist), which would be admitting a Platonic Realism.

So far, so good.

Anyway, the issue with this is the admission of their existence as ontological brute facts: they exist, but they have no reason to exist.

Is this an issue? Why should everything, or anything, have a reason to exist?

If one were to argue by the argument from motion, the argument from contingency, the argument from abstract realities, the argument from composition, the argument from the principle of sufficient reason, the conclusion would be clear.

All these arguments boil down to: “everything has a cause except the first cause”, which is based on the assumption that ‘everything’ had a beginning.

False, I would never say “everything has a cause except…” as some sort of starting premise. That would be special pleading. Also, none of the arguments I mentioned assume anything had a beginning.

However, there is no logical reason why that “first cause” had to have a reason to exist. If it did have a reason to exist, then we might simply ask what the reason for the reason was, and simply push the argument a little further back along a path to infinite recurrence.

You’re not distinguishing between cause and reason. If we’re following the PSR, all causes are reasons, but not all reasons are causes.

This makes sense even for theists. God does not need a “reason” to exist, nor does he need to be ‘explained’ in those terms. Wesrock’s comment about a statement of fact that “it’s not really an explanation at all”, must invite the response (at least of the “first cause”): “why should there be an explanation?”

Argument based on a strong PSR would certainly admit that God has a reason to exist without resulting in an infinite regress.

As for why everything should have a reason is based on the intelligibility of reality (note that intelligibility doesn’t assume our minds are capable of understanding it). Scientific epistemological methods are based on this premise. Our logic is based on this premise (or do we not need reasons to hold positions?) Our perceptions are based on this premise. Denying it at any level, whether with brute fact laws of nature or God would ultimately lead to an unintelligble universe, for if a brute ontological reality is inexplicable then so is everything that comes from it. Our entire basis becomes arbitrary. The PSR is so implicit in every discussion one would need a good reason besides “hey we’re talking about God therefore I’m going to change my tune and deny I have good grounds to roll my eyes at people who deny modern scientific theories.”

 

[rossum]

An effect may never have more but may have less than its causes.

So you agree that the effect (human) can never be more evil than the cause (God). Humans can only ever be less evil.

I am glad we can agree.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

What’s PSR?

 

[Wesrock]

o_mlly:

An effect may never have more but may have less than its causes.

So you agree that the effect (human) can never be more evil than the cause (God). Humans can only ever be less evil.

I am glad we can agree.

rossum

Evil is a description of an absence, in most Christian theology, not something that exists in itself.

 

[o_mlly]

So you agree that the effect (human) can never be more evil than the cause (God). Humans can only ever be less evil.

I am glad we can agree.

Not your best attempt at an end-run. The absence of a property – goodness, in an effect does not limit its cause to the same defect.

 

[Wesrock]

What’s PSR?

Sorry, the principle of sufficient reason. There are different ways to frame even the strong form of the argument. Here are some formulations:

• Everything which is, has a sufficient reason for existing.
• There is a sufficient reason or adequate necessary objective explanation for the being of whatever is and for all attributes of any being.
• Whatever exists must have that in virtue of which it is distinguished from nothing.

You could include an exhaustive “either in itself or from another” clause at the end.

You can provide “sufficient reason” (lol) to hold it to be true through various dialectical arguments, a reductio ad absurdum… And with how implicit it is in everything we do (except maybe for the most committed to solipsism) one should at least need to have good reason to deny it (then again, if someone denies it maybe he holds he doesn’t need good reasons to do so).

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t mean to tout my own horn, it’s been a long topic, but I did make an argument for God’s intellect (insofar as we can call it that) from the principle of proportionate causality in post# 18 which I felt warranted at least some discussion. Or maybe it was discussed and I didn’t get notified. I could probably frame the argument better if I rewrote it at this point, but still…

Intellect is a word that often implies thinking, but that would be inaccurate in God. As an addendum to post #18, I might also say that there are truths which are real, if abstract, and these truths about things specific and their relationship with others are still real and so must be present in the First Cause as well by PPC, and that is most similar to how we conceive knowledge in a mind. But to reiterate, this comment should not be taken as a stand alone but in context with post#18

 

[rossum]

Not your best attempt at an end-run. The absence of a property – goodness, in an effect does not limit its cause to the same defect.

So, I define goodness as the absence of evil and my argument stands. If A = ~B then equally B = ~A. Either statement is correct as both say the same thing.

rossum