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

[IWantGod]

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.

If a necessary being is the only being that is supposed to exist (since no possibility can be the cause of itself or even the reason for why it is possible) then the necessary reality is the only being that should exist. If anything else were to come into being its act would not be a natural part of reality because it is not necessary. It doesn’t share its nature with the nature of that which necessarily exists.

Therefore the question is why do unnecessary things exist, and when they exist why do they behave the way they do.

There cannot be a natural explanation for this since only necessary reality ought to exist. You cannot say that physical reality necessarily comes into being. And neither does it make sense to say that necessary reality is caused to create that which is fundamentally unnecessary. That doesn’t make rational sense either. But if the uncaused-cause has an intelligent creative will, then it does makes rational sense that unnecessary things exist.

The laws of physics don’t exist unless physical things exist since how physical things behave is an expression of the nature they have. Thus the uncaused cause would have to create the natures or laws of that which is unnecessary, which it couldn’t do if it had no will or intelligence. How can a non-intelligent necessary being determine the laws and natures of that which is not supposed to exist and is not necessary?

An intelligent cause follows necessarily because all natural possibilities are exhausted or lead to absurdity.

 

[Bradskii]

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

This atheist has just the one scientific fact:

This universe came into existence as we know it at the moment of the Big Bang. Period.

No philosophical arguments or metaphysical meanderings there. No uncaused causes or actuality or potential need be entertained in making that statement. So do we need to go any further?

Well, personally speaking…yes. I’m an inquisitive kind of guy and I’d like to know more. And lots of people spend a lot of time looking for more. But there’s this incessant clamour going on in the background while everyone is busy. It’s you lot shouting ‘Sir, sir! I know the answer sir. Ask me!’

Well back in the day when we thought that we all started from Adam and Eve (and gee, there are still some about - hi @Glark) and this world was all there was plus a moon and some pretty stars and we had been given the world as our home because we had been created specifically by God, then you may have had a case.

But we found out that we evolved. ‘Ah, yes. OK, then we claim that God did that’.

And that there was more than just this world. ‘There is? Well, God made those as well’.

And those stars are really suns. Billions of them. With other planets orbitting them. ‘Hm. Allright. Well it’s all God’s work’.

And some of those stars are in different galaxies. And there are billions of them. ‘Well…I guess…’

And beyond the observable universe is perhaps an infinite amount of existe ce that we can’t even access. ‘God. It must be God. Just giving us a taste of His abilities’.

And there may well be an infinte number of universes. ‘Umm. God diddit’.

Now that last statement may well be applicable to each of those scenarios. But it simply becomes less believable at every stage. There was an answer to Adam and Eve. And an answer to a world as our home. But at each subsequent step, ‘Goddidit’ starts to prompt the question ‘Why?’.

And apart from the usual ‘who can know the mind of God’ (and that is apparently something that a lot of people on this forum seem adept at doing) and the more inane ‘so we can glory in his works’, we don’t get much of a reasonable answer.

When we were a small minded people, God fitted the bill. It all seemed quite impressive. Now we know quite a lot more, He seems to me to be someone who really feels the need to show off. Or rather He seems to be someone with whom you feel we need to be impressed.

Me? Just making a medium sized planet and a small yellow star would have done it. No need for anything else. Everything else is overkill.

 

[IWantGod]

As I said before, if you could demonstrate that clearly, Bradskii would be adjusting his wimple in no time.

Evidently, that’s not the case, as is made evident by his latest post. He completely ignores my argument and boasts of his apparent allegiance with the rational enterprise of science as if I am somehow betraying science by pointing out that metaphysical-naturalism is absurd. And all this while sneaking in his obviously weak and fundamentally irrational philosophical opinion that there may have been an infinite regress of physical things or an actually infinite number of universes based on nothing more than the fact that humans have mistakenly attributed God to natural events in the past and because it’s the only explanation that an atheist can have. All this so as to give the impression that I’m just filling in the gaps, or that we cannot make rational inferences outside the authority of the scientific method. But in reality, all I am really doing, in essence, is pointing out that square-triangles can’t exist (no need of the scientific method there). In other words, physical reality cannot be both the effect and the cause of its self. Physical reality cannot be both necessarily real and have unrealized potential at the same time. It can’t be both necessary and changing.

But Bradskii ignores this and parades all these superficially plausible excuses as to why he shouldn’t be expected to accept the idea of an uncaused-cause. Too close for comfort maybe?

I think he has already decided what makes “sense”, regardless of whether or not you or I prove it to be absolutely irrational.

 

[abucs]

It is not a changing position or one that is difficult to understand.

God created our physical universe. As we discover more of the universe that underlying concept stays the same.

As we discover the laws and processes of the universe that underlying concept stays the same.

As much of western science evolved in a Christian civilisation, this was (and is) entirely consistent and natural.

 

[rossum]

God created our physical universe.

Erm… That is a personal opinion. If I ask my local Rabbi he will tell me that it was YHWH (who is not the Christian God). My local Hindu temple will give me a different answer as well.

I haven’t been to the local mosque yet but…

rossum

 

[abucs]

Erm… That is a personal opinion. If I ask my local Rabbi he will tell me that it was YHWH (who is not the Christian God). My local Hindu temple will give me a different answer as well.

I haven’t been to the local mosque yet but…

Hello Rossum, the most basic concept of God in Christian terms is the intelligence that created the universe. When we start talking about the Jewish God and the Muslim God we are talking about lower order things like what people call him, what is his nature and what how he has interacted with mankind. It is not a different God in Christian terms it is a disagreement on those lower order things.

Bradskii is on a Catholic website giving his (valued) opinion regarding the Christian understanding of God to a Christian and how that has evolved as a result of the progress of western science within Christendom.

It is entirely normal to converse with him on that basis and in Christian terms.

Regards.

 

[rossum]

I haven’t been to the local mosque yet but…

Hello abucs. I do not think I have posted with you before. I am Buddhist. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, so I do not accept many of the standard assumptions of the Abrahamic religions.

If you want me to accept those assumptions you will need to provide evidence.

rossum

 

[abucs]

Hello abucs. I do not think I have posted with you before. I am Buddhist. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, so I do not accept many of the standard assumptions of the Abrahamic religions.

If you want me to accept those assumptions you will need to provide evidence.

Hi Rossum, we have corresponded before and I have asked you a couple of questions regarding Buddhism and I appreciate your answers (I have not asked recently though).

I am not really trying to get you to accept my assumptions in the objective sense but we can discuss that if you wish.

My comments (in the above context) are of course coming from Christian understandings so to understand the explanation for my argument an acceptance of my assumptions in the subjective sense is necessary.

So an example of what I mean might be if I asked a Buddhist (forgive me if I get the example horribly wrong) why does a Buddhist do good things and the answer might be something like

1. Buddha taught people to do good things
2. Doing good things is a path to enlightenment or
3. In the next life I will have a higher consciousness

then I can accept the answer based on Buddhist assumptions that were provided without asking for further detail such as

1. proof the writings attributed to Buddha were by him
2. that there is such a thing as enlightenment
3. that there is proof of reincarnation.

If however the original question was not the aim but that I wanted justification to accept Buddhism then of course those follow up questions would be valid and part of the discussion.

But regarding the above question about why a Buddhist wants to do good things I can accept the answer based on the subjective reasoning.

As mentioned above it was not my goal to get you to accept Christian assumptions objectively such as there is an intelligence that created the universe but if you wish me to make the argument then I will. Of course I expect the chances are that you will not agree with me which is fine.

 

[Wesrock]

abucs:

God created our physical universe.

Erm… That is a personal opinion. If I ask my local Rabbi he will tell me that it was YHWH (who is not the Christian God). My local Hindu temple will give me a different answer as well.

I haven’t been to the local mosque yet but…

rossum

Jews, Muslims, and Christians (at least Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and some others, in general) all agree on the idea of God as the First Principle of all reality, the ultimate reality itself. While we have disagreements regarding the First Principle’s revelation to mankind, we all fall into the same type of monotheism where we’re not just talking about names and personalities, about things that could not be the First Principle, but about the same origin of all reality. Even Hindus, since you bring them up, generally do hold to an Ultimate Reality, though my understanding is that they see its relation to our reality in terms of monism, generally.

 

[Wesrock]

While we’re on the subject, your discussion with @KMC in the fine tuning topic on whether mathematical relations and structures were real and axiomatic or all-in-your-head was an excellent example of a discussion on metaphysics.

 

[o_mlly]

This atheist has just the one scientific fact:

This universe came into existence as we know it at the moment of the Big Bang. Period.

A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. No one observed the Big Bang (theory).

No uncaused causes or actuality or potential need be entertained in making that statement. So do we need to go any further?

Yes. We, at least, should think coherently. Can a rational atheist reject PSR, i.e., reject hard determinism, accept that there are uncaused causes, be a believer in emergent theory?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

This atheist has just the one scientific fact:

This universe came into existence as we know it at the moment of the Big Bang. Period.

Perhaps “scientific assumption” would be better than “fact”? Anyway, surely no scientist, atheist or otherwise, can prevent himself from immediately asking “But why did it do that?” or “What made it do that?”, “How is it that it turned out just as it has?”, “How did the rules describe its workings occur, and why are they still working, apparently unchanged?” You have yourself engaged in discussions revolving around these questions. We do not know whether our universe is a necessary occurrence, or due to some randomness in an initial, non-material, non-temporal set-up, or the decision of some kind of decision-maker. I still don’t think that the theist philosophers on this thread have demonstrated that the third option must be correct. And even if they are, does that presuppose intelligence, or just intellect?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

This atheist has just the one scientific fact:

This universe came into existence as we know it at the moment of the Big Bang. Period.

A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. No one observed the Big Bang (theory).

No uncaused causes or actuality or potential need be entertained in making that statement. So do we need to go any further?

Yes. We, at least, should think coherently. Can a rational atheist reject PSR, i.e., reject hard determinism, accept that there are uncaused causes, be a believer in emergent theory?

There are facts and there are theories that explain them. No-one observed the evolution of Man but it is an accepted fact. And the theory of evolution describes the process.

And the PSR doesn’t hold for all things. Some things are axiomatic. One plus one will always equal two and there is no ‘reason’ why that should be so. Add two hydrogen atoms to one of oxygen and you will get water. Likewise there is no ‘reason’ why that is so. It is a brute fact.

Me, I’m more of a PPE type of guy (Principle of Proximate Explanation). And I believe that that is what science does. It can explain most things until it gets to a point where there is no sense in asking for more.

Why is it raining?
Because the temperature dropped enough so that water vapour in the atmosphere condensed.
Why was there water vapour in the atmosphere?
Because the sun evaporates the water.
Why is there water?
Because under certain conditions two atoms of hydrogen combined with one of oxygen.
Why does two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen give us water?

At that point we effectively stop (and yes, there are further steps we can actually take but the point is intended to be illustrative of the principle).

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

This atheist has just the one scientific fact:

This universe came into existence as we know it at the moment of the Big Bang. Period.

Perhaps “scientific assumption” would be better than “fact”? Anyway, surely no scientist, atheist or otherwise, can prevent himself from immediately asking “But why did it do that?” or “What made it do that?”, “How is it that it turned out just as it has?”, “How did the rules describe its workings occur, and why are they still working, apparently unchanged?” You have yourself engaged in discussions revolving around these questions. We do not know whether our universe is a necessary occurrence, or due to some randomness in an initial, non-material, non-temporal set-up, or the decision of some kind of decision-maker. I still don’t think that the theist philosophers on this thread have demonstrated that the third option must be correct. And even if they are, does that presuppose intelligence, or just intellect?

I think that some ‘assumptions’ are so well founded that they can be described as being factual. Evolution being one example. And the big bang another.

And I also believe that we should always be asking why. But there is a point, as I explained in the post above, where we must just accept some things as brute facts.

If you have one die and I give you another, then you have two. There is no reason why the total becomes two. It just does.

Now imagine rolling those two dice and getting two sixes. Now we can invoke as many scientific principles and crunch the maths and determine all the physical conditions that will tell us how that happened. But there would be no reason or indeed any explanation, in the sense of the word that we’d all understand, why it happened. It just did.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I think that some ‘assumptions’ are so well founded that they can be described as being factual. Evolution being one example. And the big bang another.

I wouldn’t normally disagree, but for the purposes of this thread I think we must agree that ‘fact’ is more absolute than many people here can accept. It makes little or no difference to subsequent discussion.

And I also believe that we should always be asking why. But there is a point, as I explained in the post above, where we must just accept some things as brute facts.

… It just does. … It just did.

No-o-o-o-o-o! One of the very first principles to install into the mind of every science student is that nothing “just is”. It is an axiom of science that things fit into the pattern of the universe, that wonderful, coherent, comprehensive explanation for its workings that nothing observable is outside of. The physics of throwing a double six is fairly easy to understand, while the physics of growing an oak tree is rather complicated, but neither of them “just happens.”

And if we leave the universe, into the realm of the unobservable, then our training still drives us to ask why, and how and all the other questions I ask above. Maybe, in this metaphysical sphere, the answer really does become “it just is”, but that sure sticks in the craw of a scientist, atheist and theist alike.

 

[Bradskii]

Tricky little word is ‘why’.

It has two meanings:

1. Why did X happen: In the meaning of ‘what was the proximate cause (or even ultimate cause if you want to keep going back step by step) of it happening?’
2. Why did X happen: In the meaning of ‘what caused it to happen that way as opposed to any other way?’

If you ask where water comes from then we can use 1 and state that when hydrogen and oxygen combine, the result is water. There’s the scientific approach.

But it makes no sense to use 2 and ask why doesn’t the combination give us hydrogen chloride. It just doesn’t. Because 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen will always equal water. There’s no changing that. There’s no fine tuning the chemistry so that it gives us something else. That’s a far back as the explanation goes. Yes, you can dig a little deepr and explain how the molecule is arranged and decribe electrons and chemical affinity but H2O equals water and that’s it. End of story.

And unless I’m mistaken, o-mlly is using the second definition in regard to the PSR.

 

[IWantGod]

But there is a point, as I explained in the post above, where we must just accept some things as brute facts.

Not if by the brute fact you mean a thing has no reason to be and just is.

A thing either exists because of its own nature or because of the nature of something else. The reason why metaphysics exists as a method is that physical reality is changing, it is moving from potentiality to actuality. It is comprised of unnecessary beings, things, or states. And it is reasonable to ask why. This is not a scientific question that deals with the particularities of beings, it is a question about the very act of reality in general.

If a thing doesn’t begin to exist and infinitely regresses then for sake of argument perhaps it has no ultimate cause or perhaps we cannot know it’s cause and you can argue for an epistemological-brute fact, which is very different from the absurd claim of an ontological brute fact. (i know an infinite regress is impossible, but that’s beside the point). But when faced with anything that is an actualized potential, we are justified in asking why it has an act of reality. And the only way of explaining the actualization of unnecessary beings is if the source of their existence is a being that is not an actualized potential and necessarily exists. An uncaused-cause.

 

[Wesrock]

Now imagine rolling those two dice and getting two sixes. Now we can invoke as many scientific principles and crunch the maths and determine all the physical conditions that will tell us how that happened. But there would be no reason or indeed any explanation, in the sense of the word that we’d all understand, why it happened. It just did.

That is along the lines of what we mean by an explanation. “It just did” without explanation would mean we couldn’t model it physically, among other things, because there could in principle be no such model.

 

[Wesrock]

But it makes no sense to use 2 and ask why doesn’t the combination give us hydrogen chloride. It just doesn’t. Because 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen will always equal water. There’s no changing that. There’s no fine tuning the chemistry so that it gives us something else. That’s a far back as the explanation goes. Yes, you can dig a little deepr and explain how the molecule is arranged and decribe electrons and chemical affinity but H2O equals water and that’s it. End of story.

An Aristotlean would hold something similar though not without the question “why?” The Aristotlean would argue that it would simply be part of the nature of an H2O molecule to be made of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, and in the nature of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms to be able to bond in that way. Not because God arbitrarily makes it so when the occasion of them being together occurs, as an Occasionalist might claim. The regularity theory (which I think you allude to) is an alternative model, though it’s more about strict utility rather than an explanatory model.

But again, just to highlight, this is all a discussion of metaphysics, the first principles of things. Not even just me introducing Aristotlean-ism, either. The entire post you wrote that I quoted is a metaphysical statement.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But there is a point, as I explained in the post above, where we must just accept some things as brute facts.

Not if by the brute fact you mean a thing has no reason to be and just is.

A thing either exists because of its own nature or because of the nature of something else. The reason why metaphysics exists as a method is that physical reality is changing, it is moving from potentiality to actuality. It is comprised of unnecessary beings, things, or states. And it is reasonable to ask why. This is not a scientific question that deals with the particularities of beings, it is a question about the very act of reality in general.

If a thing doesn’t begin to exist and infinitely regresses then for sake of argument perhaps it has no ultimate cause or perhaps we cannot know it’s cause and you can argue for an epistemological-brute fact, which is very different from the absurd claim of an ontological brute fact. (i know an infinite regress is impossible, but that’s beside the point). But when faced with anything that is an actualized potential, we are justified in asking why it has an act of reality. And the only way of explaining the actualization of unnecessary beings is if the source of their existence is a being that is not an actualized potential and necessarily exists. An uncaused-cause.

Let’s consider water again. Is it in any way valid to ask why two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen combine to make H2O? Not how, but why?

If we go where this leads, then God designed that particular combination to give us water. So is it also then valid to ask if God meant it to be that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides? Did circles happen without God or did He design them? Would one plus one one make two without God? Does He use the maths that He didn’t create to design the chemistry that He did? Is He contrained by mathematical rules? Or did He arrange it so that one plus one will always make two?