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

[rossum]

No. Flying is but a special kind of movement.

Fine. Then life is just a special kind of chemistry, and life can be caused by non-living chemicals.

Your “a special kind of” is a huge fudge which can be used willy-nilly, unless you define its limits far more precisely.

The Wright brothers possess that property. Absent the Wright brothers the flying machine is but a collection of fabric, wires, nuts and bolts.

A kite is a collection of wood, string and fabric. A kite can fly. A leaf is a piece of a tree and a leaf can fly. A dandelion seed is a piece of a plant and a dandelion seed can fly. There are things which do not have movement, and which can fly.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Has anyone observed the unintelligent being beget an intelligence being?

A fertilised human zygote is unintelligent, it has no brain and will fail every intelligence test you give it. It has less intelligence than a slug, which at least has a small brain. That zygote gives rise (mostly) to an intelligent being. Some zygotes will fail to develop properly.

Has anyone observed an intelligent being beget a rational being?

Ditto. A zygote is not rational, but may probably develop into one.

Intelligence is a property. Zygotes do not have it. It develops later.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

Then life is just a special kind of chemistry …

The special chemistry is necessary but not a sufficient explanation. Dead dog is not the same as live dog.

… and life can be caused by non-living chemicals.

Got evidence? A plant caused only by dirt? An animal emanating from a plant? A human being born from anything other than other human beings? I think not.

Your “a special kind of” is a huge fudge which can be used willy-nilly, unless you define its limits far more precisely.

Sure. Flying, a special type of locomotion, requires a natural shape or artificial apparatus (wing) that can sustain air pressure that is lower beneath it than above it.

A kite can fly. … a leaf can fly … a dandelion seed can fly …

I lay my kite on the floor, next to a leaf, beside a dandelion seed. Which will fly first and how long should I wait? Answer: none and forever because none are capable of flying. But the kite can be flown. If I pull it. I provide the necessary locomotion. The leaf and the seed passively blown about by the wind do not fly.

A fertilised human zygote is unintelligent, it has no brain and will fail every intelligence test you give it. It has less intelligence than a slug, which at least has a small brain. That zygote gives rise (mostly) to an intelligent being. Some zygotes will fail to develop properly.

The zygote, always a product of intelligent beings, has the potential for intelligence and reason. If a zygote does not actualize those potentials then such an event does not evidence intelligence emanating from unintelligence – the parents remain intelligent and rational. Remember, the cause must first possess the properties but all its properties may not be present in all its effects.

 

[rossum]

The special chemistry is necessary but not a sufficient explanation. Dead dog is not the same as live dog.

You will find that the chemistry of a dead dog is different – look at the sodium balance in the nerves and the amount of ATP present. The thermodynamics is also different due to radically changed energy (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Your style of argument is rhetorical rather than logical, and so, lacking logic, based more on personal conviction than arguable points. Viz:

As we observe the universe, we observe life in plants, animals and rational beings.

A good start. Yes, we do.

What caused these properties – life, intelligence, reason – to reside in these beings? Rightly leaving imagination aside, one asks, What can explain the presence of these properties? Good question. I ask you, What have you observed?

But a poor continuation. If you have an argument, present it, don’t ask questions.

Has anyone observed non-life beget life?
Has anyone observed the unintelligent being beget an intelligence being?
Has anyone observed an intelligent being beget a rational being?

I’ve no idea. Have you? If so, then say so, don’t ask your interlocutor to do your reasoning for you.

If not, then the properties of existence, life, intelligence and reason must reside in the first cause.

Well, no, obviously. Your conclusion is not consequential to your argument. Just because no-one has observed non-life beget life, that does not mean that life must “reside in the first cause”. You may argue that “the possibility that life may arise” must precede “the arrival of life”, in which case I completely agree with you, but that does not mean that the ‘first cause’ was alive. And yes, “the possibility that intelligence may arise” must precede “the arrival of intelligence”, but that does not mean that the ‘first cause’ was intelligent.

And “the possibility that photosynthesis may arise” must precede “the arrival of photosynthesis”, but that does not mean that the ‘first cause’ was a plant.

 

[o_mlly]

Not much here to advance the topic.

You posted that the evidence of the Prime Mover’s (PM) movement must be capable of producing the universe as we observe it.

Agreeing, and noting that I observe “life” and “intelligence” in the universe, I asked how those particular properties illustrate some necessary properties in the PM. It appears that since you have no evidence that you follow the adage that if one has no facts with which to argue then argue process …

Your style of argument is rhetorical rather than logical, and so, lacking logic, based more on personal conviction than arguable points. Viz:

And, if one cannot argue process then answer questions with other questions …

I’ve no idea. Have you? If so, then say so, don’t ask your interlocutor to do your reasoning for you.

And at last an admission: No one has observed life from non-life.

Well, no, obviously. Your conclusion is not consequential to your argument. Just because no-one has observed non-life beget life, that does not mean that life must “reside in the first cause”.

Only if one denies the principle of sufficient reason.

If one observes the whole as greater than the sum of its parts then one has two options Admit the ignorance and keep looking. Or invent a coverup. The emergent theory is but a mask for scientific ignorance (or limitation). Attributing unexplained properties in the consequent to the magic of emergence seems to me to be a novel idea to mask a novel property.

 

[o_mlly]

You will find that the chemistry of a dead dog is different – look at the sodium balance in the nerves and the amount of ATP present. The thermodynamics is also different due to radically changed energy (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

If you could restore the special chemistry would the “dead” dog revert to “live” dog? No. So the special chemistry is necessary but insufficient to explain “live” dog.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Noting that I observe “life” and “intelligence” in the universe, I asked how those particular properties illustrate some necessary properties in the PM.

Did you? I must have missed that. And more importantly, did you answer? Because if you did, and your answer is incontrovertible, then I will rejoice and Bradskii will join a seminary. This is the whole point of this thread and the essential difference between the theist and the atheist.

I’m afraid all I did get were the questions: “What caused these properties – life, intelligence, reason – to reside in these beings?” and “What can explain the presence of these properties?” Followed by the assertion that because no-one has observed non-life beget life, life must “reside in the first cause.” As I explained, I do not clearly understand what you mean by those words: “reside in the first cause”. I did try, but you didn’t approve of my attempt, so please have another go at explaining it, if you’d be so kind.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

*Not formally present in the causes. (see post# 18)

How do I tell if something is “formally” present as opposed to merely just ordinarily present? Obviously the difference is important, so I need a metric to decide between ‘formally present’ and ‘ordinarily present’.

Just read post# 18. I keep mentioning it. Nobody goes back to it. “Ordinarily present.” What does that even mean? I define what I mean by formally and other terms there. I’ll even give you a link so you don’t have to use the slider: Why you should think that the First-Cause has to be an Intelligent Cause - #18 by Wesrock

What you’re proposing is that the effect of breathing chlorine while eating sodium metal is ultimately unintelligible in that the effect, at least a portion of it, has no cause.

Not so. I am proposing change. An emergent property is new, not present in the causes. No single component of an aeroplane can fly, yet the combination of those components can fly.

You do realize things such as the material the airplane is made out of, the air pressure differentials on each side of the wings, the air itself, the forward motion due to the engine, and so on, are all factors that are included in the causes of the airplane flying, right? It is not just the Wright brothers by themselves. Or are you saying the airplane has flight due to some uncaused voodoo magic? That the flight is inexplicable to modern physics?

 

[Wesrock]

o_mlly:

Has anyone observed non-life beget life?

Actually, if you had asked Aquinas this question the answer would have been an unequivocal…yes!!!

That’s the problem with metaphysics…at its core it’s just physics…only very bad physics.

That’s just… not right. That’s not metaphysics.

 

[IWantGod]

That’s just… not right. That’s not metaphysics.

Lisa and lena don’t understand. What stands in way of metaphysical arguments most of the time is having to go through the process of explaining the epistemological distinction between metaphysics and physics because in the first place they don’t even have that basic understanding before attacking your position. And even after you have explained the rules of your method, and why it’s a legitimate path to knowledge (the specific kind of knowledge you intend to obtain), your hard work will fall on death ears if the intentions of your opponent is never the truth as such but rather just the dictates of their own ideological preference…

But others are watching and are grateful for your knowledge on the subject, so please continue.

 

[IWantGod]

Metaphysics is to physics, what alchemy is to chemistry,

This is just a straw-man. No one who understands metaphysics would make this comparison.

 

[IWantGod]

Even people who don’t accept the metaphysics of Aristotle, I mean real educated people that actually understand what they don’t accept, would not make the fallacious comparison that you just did.

 

[IWantGod]

but anyone who truly understands metaphysics would understand that metaphysics and alchemy are in essence the same thing.

Lol. Why don’t you get a beginners guide or something? Then come back and maybe we can have a real discussion that doesn’t involve you rubbishing something you clearly don’t understand. I even doubt you truly comprehend the scientific method let alone philosophy.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

But then again, the pursuit of rational answers isn’t why any of us are here

It is exclusively the reason that I’m here. I think, irrationally, that the First Cause is an Intelligent Cause, but I would very much like to be able to demonstrate that this is a rational belief to people who disagree with me. The simplistic assertion that intelligent beings must be derived from intelligent causes doesn’t constitute a rational argument even to me, so I’m reluctant to put it forward. The pursuit continues…

 

[PickyPicky]

There seems to me to be no irrationality in believing that there is a First Cause, although I am not convinced that such has been convincingly demonstrated. I am even less convinced of the existence of an intelligent First Cause, but again the belief in such an entity doesn’t seem to me to be irrational.

What strike me as irrational are the attempts to disprove the opposite of those beliefs.

 

[IWantGod]

What strike me as irrational are the attempts to disprove the opposite of those beliefs.

In what respect are the opposites rational?

The atheist has 4 philosophical beliefs as his or her alternatives.

1. Physical reality popped out of absolutely nothing by itself, including the laws by which it operates. And there are no other beings other than that which is physical. (science only provides evidence for a big-bang, so the above is just a philosophical point of view and not a genuine scientific theory or hypothesis)
2. Physical reality infinitely regresses. There has been an actually infinite number of changes or states before this point in time. (science cannot in principle confirm or deny this belief, it’s a philosophical belief).
3. The physical processes of this universe were caused by the physical processes of another universe add-infinitum, which is just another infinite regress in disguise (infinite-multiverse which science can neither confirm or deny. Science only supports a multiverse hypothesis, not an actually infinite number of universes)
4. And last but not least. Physical reality is cyclical. There is just one universe that cycles from a big bang to a big crunch. And this process has happened an actually infinite number of times. (A cyclical universe is a plausible scientific hypothesis, but the idea that it has existed for an actually infinite number of cycles is a philosophical conjecture and not something that the scientific method in principle could either confirm or deny since you cannot measure an actual infinite.)

These are not scientific arguments. They’re philosophical arguments. Thus if one chooses to believe any of them it is either on faith that they accept one of these as true or by reason alone that they find one of them to be necessarily true. Otherwise, they have no choice but to be hopelessly agnostic about any ultimate explanations about the act of reality,

I find none of these ideas to be rational, for the simple fact that, insofar as the act of reality is concerned, they all lead to irrecoverable contradictions.

The only alternative is an uncaused-cause that necessarily exists, is fundamental to all potential, and is not itself comprised of physical processes, moving parts, or potential states. In other words, we are talking about something that is pure-actuality, something that is not time or space. Something that eternally creates physical reality. And because only that which is necessary ought to exist, the only explanation for why anything else exists is because the uncaused cause is creating it and sustaining it in being, which only makes sense if it is an absolutely perfect intelligent cause.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

… which only makes sense if it is an absolutely perfect intelligent cause.

And you were doing so well until that last line. That’s my problem. Why does it only make sense if it is an absolutely perfect intelligent cause? As I said before, if you could demonstrate that clearly, Bradskii would be adjusting his wimple in no time.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

… which only makes sense if it is an absolutely perfect intelligent cause.

And you were doing so well until that last line. That’s my problem. Why does it only make sense if it is an absolutely perfect intelligent cause? As I said before, if you could demonstrate that clearly, Bradskii would be adjusting his wimple in no time.

I’ve presented other arguments in this topic, but if the First Cause was a non-intelligent cause set to make this specific reality, then it could not have determined itself to that state, but must have been determined/caused to do what it did by something external to itself.

 

[Wesrock]

Let’s not forget that any attempt to discuss notions of causality is in itself a metaphysical discussion.