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

[o_mlly]

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

Type “chain of being” into your search engine.

 

[Wesrock]

o_mlly:

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

And we’d allege you’re just using a nominal definition made up on the spot that wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny rather than a real definition based on ontological reality.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

A → ~B does not follow from ~B → A.

 

[Wesrock]

To expand on my last post, insofar as I realize my potential as a talented golfer I am good at golf. Insofar as I realize my potential to do math I am a good mathematician. Insofar as that triangle realizes triangularity it is a good triangle. I could continue making examples. Things are good insofar as they are realized, and bad insofar as how they are unrealized. A bad golfer has a lot of potential for improvement. A bad triangle deviates more from what a triangle should be.

Is a bad triangle one that exhibits perfect triangularity, and a good one one that doesn’t? Is someone bad at golf if they always shoot under par in a game, and a good golfer someone that takes twenty shots on each hole?

 

[IWantGod]

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.

The principle of non-contradiction demands it.

We know that physical reality is not fundamental reality or necessary reality because it changes

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Type “chain of being” into your search engine.

Oh, I see! What fun. The old idea of biological hierarchy. Not sure it’s relevant, but I love the idea of trying to decide whether a snail is higher or lower than a beetle…

 

[o_mlly]

Oh, I see! What fun. The old idea of biological hierarchy. Not sure it’s relevant, but I love the idea of trying to decide whether a snail is higher or lower than a beetle…

This is the Philosophy forum. We like old ideas. Try the Biology forum for the latest news on beetle vs. snail …

 

[IWantGod]

There are two reasons to think that the uncaused-cause is intelligent or has a will to create.

1. A being or nature that is existentially necessary cannot be anything other than what it necessarily is since what it is is necessary. Anything that potentially exists is unnecessary and therefore cannot be considered to be an intrinsic part of that which is existentially-necessary. The first cause has to be existentially-necessary in order for unnecessary things to exist. But only that which is existentially-necessary ought to exist. That which is necessary is not potentially a sequence of physical events ( it is not in a state of becoming something else ) and thus the universe cannot be considered it’s natural end. Once an existentially-unnecessary thing exists it has to be sustained in existence because it doesn’t necessarily exist of it’s own accord or because of it’s own nature.Therefore if things exist other than what is existentially-necessary only an intellect and will can be considered to be it’s cause and sustenance, since there is no other reason for existentially-unnecessary things to exist.
2. The laws of physics is not necessary and physical laws only apply to physical natures. Physical laws do not exist outside the existence of physical things. Physical laws is just a description of regularities in physical things. Thus the reason why physical things behave the way they do can only be attributed to an intelligent cause, a being who has designed the rules of how physical things behave. Otherwise there is no logical reason as to why physical things must behave the way they do once they exist since none of it is existentially-necessary.

 

[rossum]

A -> ~B does not follow from ~B -> A.

I know it does not, however that is not what I said. I used equality not implication. Look back at what I actually wrote in my post.

A = ~B is logically the same statement as B = ~A.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We know that physical reality is not fundamental reality or necessary reality because it changes

We know that spiritual reality is not fundamental reality or necessary reality because it changes. Satan fell, which is a spiritual change. QED.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Anything that changes is not fundamental reality. Satan changed, thus despite Satan having a spiritual nature, Satan is not fundamental reality.

 

[rossum]

Anything that changes is not fundamental reality.

Correct. We’ll make a Buddhist of you yet.

Of course, in Buddhism everything changes.

In Christianity heaven has to change from heaven-without-IWantGod to heaven-with-IWantGod for you to have any hope of salvation.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Of course, in Buddhism everything changes.

That’s why i reject it.

In Christianity heaven has to change from heaven-without-IWantGod to heaven-with-IWantGod for you to have any hope of salvation.

I can experience eternal heaven, but that involves a change in me, not a change in the nature of heaven.

 

[Bradskii]

Hugh_Farey:

Oh, I see! What fun. The old idea of biological hierarchy. Not sure it’s relevant, but I love the idea of trying to decide whether a snail is higher or lower than a beetle…

This is the Philosophy forum. We like old ideas. Try the Biology forum for the latest news on beetle vs. snail …

In this case, old means: Old fashioned, no longer current, out of date.

 

[o_mlly]

In this case, old means: Old fashioned, no longer current, out of date.

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.

Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. GKC.

Defeat an idea on its merits, not its age.

 

[o_mlly]

I know it does not, however that is not what I said. I used equality not implication. Look back at what I actually wrote in my post.

A = ~B is logically the same statement as B = ~A.

Your formula of equality did not simulate the issue under discussion so I corrected it.

 

[rossum]

Your formula of equality did not simulate the issue under discussion so I corrected it.

You didn’t like what I said, so you changed it. Is that a way to win arguments?

This sub-discussion started with a definition of evil as the absence of good. I pointed out, correctly, that such a definition was logically equivalent to defining good as the absence of evil: (G = ~E) => (E = ~G). That derived from your claim that the effect cannot exceed the cause, and my pointing out that your statement implied that God’s evil exceeds human evil.

You have not disproved my point, merely avoided it.

Your basic error is the assertion that an effect cannot exceed the cause. The Wright Flyer (an effect) was better at flying than the cause (the Wright Brothers). Your point fails.

rossum

 

[AlNg]

Does that make you feel better?

I don’t see how feeling better or feeling worse is relevant to whether or not something is true or false. For example, some high school students feel worse when they know that they have to study Euclidean geometry. But regardless of their feelings on the subject, the theorems of Euclidean geometry remain true within the study of Euclidean geometry.

 

[Wesrock]

o_mlly:

Your formula of equality did not simulate the issue under discussion so I corrected it.

You didn’t like what I said, so you changed it. Is that a way to win arguments?

This sub-discussion started with a definition of evil as the absence of good. I pointed out, correctly, that such a definition was logically equivalent to defining good as the absence of evil: (G = ~E) => (E = ~G).

Nominally this may work, but its ontological nonsense. Darkness is the absence of light, with light being a real thing in itself. You are flipping this to state that light is the absence of darkness, which is logically true but, if teased out, is just saying that light is the absence of the absence of light. Light has an objective reality, an objective presence. Darkness is not a substance or existing thing at all, only an absence being described in positive terms.

We do not hold that good and evil are opposing substances, anymore than actual light and darkness are opposing substances. We are not dualists in that sense.

Light is real. Darkness is not real in itself, but is merely an absence of a real thing described in positive terms rather than a negative. Goodness is real. Evil is not a real thing in itself, but is merely an absence of a real thing described in positive terms rather than a negative.

 

[AlNg]

Those that avoided life threatening environments by virtue of a genetic make up that they were lucky enough to have that prompted them to do so, passed on their lucky move-away-from-heat (for example) genes to offspring which did the same.

Possibly to some extent. OTOH reliance on Lysenkoism or Lamarckism is alleged to have caused the death by starvation of 30 million people.