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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The OP implies the existence of the First Cause as a given.

The OP asks for an argument that this First Cause is intelligent.

At a minimum, intelligence is the faculty of external awareness.

Under the principle of Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), the First Cause (the necessary cause) explains everything that is observed in contingent (unnecessary) beings.

Intelligence is observed in contingent beings.

Therefore, the First Cause possesses intelligence as a faculty.

Atheist’s objection to the PSR. “PSR is not universal.”

If PSR is not universal then under what principles does one invoke or not invoke PSR as controlling? Atheist answer: “Dunno. Maybe brute facts.” 😵

Should one’s worldview be coherent? (Rational) atheist: Absolutely, Yes!

Does man have free will? Rational atheist: Absolutely not. The forces that work upon us determine our every action. PSR, you know, is universal. 😱
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
I begin, as others have, with the assumption that the universe had a beginning. I expand that, as some have found more challenging, to say that time began with the universe, such that if there is anything else, it is a-temporal - it does not exist before or after time, it encapsulates it. And whatever is outside the universe contains both its cause, the power to sustain it, and the laws by which it operates. All this I think (and no doubt he’ll correct me if I’m wrong) would be acceptable to atheists as well as theists.
Click to expand...
It’s of no great matter, but since I usually qualify as atheist, and since I very occasionally contribute here, I might as well say I do not necessarily share any of those assumptions at all. Bradskii is a different kettle, no doubt.
 
PickyPicky said:
It’s of no great matter, but since I usually qualify as atheist, and since I very occasionally contribute here, I might as well say I do not necessarily share any of those assumptions at all. Bradskii is a different kettle, no doubt.
Click to expand...
No? Well, it’s always rash to guess the attitudes of other people. Mind you, “necessarily”? What does that mean here? Maybe you unnecessarily share the assumptions I made?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
No? Well, it’s always rash to guess the attitudes of other people. Mind you, “necessarily”? What does that mean here? Maybe you unnecessarily share the assumptions I made?
Click to expand...
Ha, maybe. But actually what I meant was that whether I share any particular assumption might depend on definitions etc. But, as I say, my opinions are a small matter.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Are rocks contingent? Do you mean that Intelligence is observed in some contingent beings.
Click to expand...
Ask your rocks if they are contingent. If no answer is forthcoming then ask your pet, wife, kiddos … When you do get a response then you will have experienced intelligence in contingent beings.

Slow day at the home, eh (edited for the benefit of our Canadian posters)?
 
Last edited:
fisherman_carl said:
To me it much simpler that intelligence should have always existed rather than it should have come about through random chance. We all agree that something always existed so that there is something now. Is it not also reasonable to conclude that intelligence always existed so that we have intelligence now?
Click to expand...
No. It is not reasonable at all. Intelligence is an emergent property of the universe. And we can use the only example we have: Us.

Back when the planet was a lifeless ball of hot rock, there was no intelligence. Now, through a process of evolution, we have it.

And there was never a time when there was no intelligence and then, on Tuesday afternoon one day, there was. It was a gradual process.

We consist of elements and materials that constitute the universe. We are actually part of the universe. We are not separate from it. But we are parts that have become self aware. And that awareness did not initially exist. It has emerged. Just as gas condenses into stars and planets and galaxies, and hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water, then carbon life forms emerge where there are suitable conditions. And develop intelligence.

How do I know this? Well, because it happened here. Right now. At this moment in time right in this tiny corner of this rather insignificant galaxy. So it appears to me to be quite natural.

What seems completely unatural to me is that some perceived ‘intelligence’ created the whole shebang, much much, more than we will ever be able to contemplate, and then seeded a nondescript rock with something passing for awareness.

And then watched while we beat each other to death with rocks and burn cities and vote morons into high office.

You are kidding me, aren’t you.
 
Speaking of just “contingency” isn’t sufficient. Plenty of non-living things are contingent. And God isn’t contingent. So there’s that.
 
In some form or another. Perhaps something superior to curiosity or patience or intelligence as we know it. In a sense everything that exists now must have existed at least in potential to exist. It just needed something that was already completely actualized to cause it’s potential to actualize. And this completely actualized actualizer needed nothing else to actualize it.
 
Bradskii said:
No. It is not reasonable at all. Intelligence is an emergent property of the universe. And we can use the only example we have: Us.
Click to expand...
Not reasonable at all? You should check the definition of reasonable. That intelligence should have always existed in some form is in fact reasonable. That intelligence should arise out of random physical processes is less reasonable. You act as if you know how intelligence came about. When in fact you have your theories.
 
Because if it were not completely actualized then that would mean it has unactualized potential. If it has unactualized potential then it would need something else to actualize that potential. Then it could not be the first cause. Which is what this thread is about.
 
fisherman_carl said:
If it has unactualized potential then it would need something else to actualize that potential.
Click to expand...
Why does all of its potential need to be actualized. You can obtain interesting results from a partially actualized potential. For example, some people do not live up to their potential, and yet they still develop and actualize many important findings on the basis of a partial actualization of their potential.
 
fisherman_carl said:
40.png
Bradskii:
No. It is not reasonable at all. Intelligence is an emergent property of the universe. And we can use the only example we have: Us.
Click to expand...
Not reasonable at all? You should check the definition of reasonable. That intelligence should have always existed in some form is in fact reasonable. That intelligence should arise out of random physical processes is less reasonable. You act as if you know how intelligence came about. When in fact you have your theories.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. I do know how it came about. It evolved. From the most basic of organisms that can barely be described as alive up to humans we can observe a continuum of responses to the environment. With every stage between that you’d care to imagine. Right now. As you read this.

It’s not like intelligence was always in existence. Nor did it suddenly pop into existence at any given point. Your position is akin to saying that sight has always existed.

Now there are lots of theories on how life started. If you accept any one of them as being plausible then everything else simply follows from that with no problem at all. If you don’t accept any of them and insist we were designed for a purpose then nothing in the natural world and how it has developed is not going to make much sense to you. You have to reject it ALL because of your initial position.
 
fisherman_carl said:
That intelligence should have always existed in some form is in fact reasonable. That intelligence should arise out of random physical processes is less reasonable.
Click to expand...
I hope you’re right. Now all you’ve got to do is explain the reasoning behind those sentences. That’s what reasonable means.
 
I’ll try a reply to your assumptions, Hugh: I have a feeling that I came across as obnoxious last time I tried – if so I apologise; I don’t like to seem obnoxious (at least not by mistake) 🙂
Hugh_Farey said:
I begin, as others have, with the assumption that the universe had a beginning.
Click to expand...
If by “the universe” you mean the particular instance of space and time you and I inhabit, then sure: scientists tell me it had a beginning in the Big Bang. But if there are other instances of space and time then the whole business becomes (for me) more complicated – especially if our Big Bang was in fact an event in one of these other instances of space and time. Then it might be very difficult to assert that infinite regress was impossible (or it would be for me, anyway).
Hugh_Farey said:
I expand that, as some have found more challenging, to say that time began with the universe
Click to expand...
Yes, if we’re talking about “our” universe. If not, not necessarily, I think.
Hugh_Farey said:
I expand that, as some have found more challenging, to say that time began with the universe, such that if there is anything else, it is a-temporal
Click to expand...
Not so, I think, since there may be other universes which are not a-temporal.
Hugh_Farey said:
And whatever is outside the universe contains both its cause, the power to sustain it, and the laws by which it operates.
Click to expand...
That is a leap. Why so? Something could be outside our universe and, I suppose, outside every universe that exists (if you can be “outside” all spaces, which seems to me at least dubious) – something could be outside them all and be separate from them and discrete. Indeed if this something is “outside” all instances of space and time it sounds very much as though it is discrete. There is no reason obvious to me, either, why the instances of space and time need some separate power to sustain them or to contain their laws. Nor can I grasp how an a-temporal entity could effect causation, given that causation is a relationship between two events within time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top