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

[Bradskii]

The argument means that there must, by logical necessity, be some further cause to “Thing A” if it cannot be explained by some principle intrinsic to Thing A.

Who says we need to explain whatever principle it is that is intrinsic to Thing A about why the universe was created this way?

What is intrinsic to Thing A that caused the universe to be as it is?
I don’t know. There may be no explanation.
Ah, so that means Thing A wasn’t the first cause so therefore God.

You have started with God so you look pretty determined to make sure He is the answer as well.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The argument means that there must, by logical necessity, be some further cause to “Thing A” if it cannot be explained by some principle intrinsic to Thing A.

Who says we need to explain whatever principle it is that is intrinsic to Thing A about why the universe was created this way?

What is intrinsic to Thing A that caused the universe to be as it is?
I don’t know. There may be no explanation.
Ah, so that means Thing A wasn’t the first cause so therefore God.

You have started with God so you look pretty determined to make sure He is the answer as well.

So therefore there must be a first cause which has an intrinsic explanation instead of an external one.

Anyway, you seem pretty determined not to follow, no doubt because you’re starting by assuming atheism. Yes, I’m rolling my eyes. Do you wish to continue with poisoning the well fallacies? It’s simply an argument related to the principle of sufficient reason, which plenty of people are comfortable to implicitly ssume until suddenly it points them to God, at which point they’re comfortable denying that empirical study, logic, and our perceptions give us any real information, and furthermore I don’t think you grasp the why of the distinction to begin with. I was simply touching base with @catholic1seeks, who I believe is already familiar with it.

All that said, I feel an argument from the principle of proportionate causality is stronger, anyway.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@Wesrock, thanks for providing all of that. I will look back through and visit the links you provided.

Maybe this would be better for PM, but what do you think about Lonergan’s proof for God as an act of understanding (an intelligent “mind”)?

I first encountered it through Fr. Robert Spitzer’s work, so I’m not sure if Lonergan’s proof is stated in the exact same way. But the gist is, if all of reality is completely intelligible and if there is a restricted, unconditioned reality, then it must be an act of understanding.

 

[Damian]

Intelligence is an emergent property of a higher functioning device, like a computer or a brain. Some device reaches a complexity to the point of presenting its functionality as intelligence. There is not an independent thing of capitol “I” intelligence out there in the ether than is independent of this as far as the evidence indicates. Just like how stomachs perform digestion. Without a stomach there is not process of “digestion”. There is not capitol “D” digestion out there in the ether independent of a stomach, just like there is not “intelligence” out there in the ether without a complex device creating it, like a computer or a brain. That is grounded in the evidence of what reality has indicated so far. So no, the idea of a first cause being an intelligent cause does not make since because there is no intelligence outside of a physical object generating intelligence.

 

[IWantGod]

Intelligence is an emergent property of a higher functioning device, like a computer or a brain. Some device reaches a complexity to the point of presenting its functionality as intelligence. There is not an independent thing of capitol “I” intelligence out there in the ether than is independent of this as far as the evidence indicates. Just like how stomachs perform digestion. Without a stomach there is not process of “digestion”. There is not capitol “D” digestion out there in the ether independent of a stomach, just like there is not “intelligence” out there in the ether without a complex device creating it, like a computer or a brain. That is grounded in the evidence of what reality has indicated so far. So no, the idea of a first cause being an intelligent cause does not make since because there is no intelligence outside of a physical object generating intelligence.

First of all, intentionality, causally speaking, makes no rational sense in a reality were only natural events exist. If somebody moves something else only because of a chemical reaction or synapses firing in the brain then intentionality does not exist, and yet we know from experience that we have the power of intentionality. Reducing everything to a materialistic cause and effect model makes no rational sense of our experiences and the only reason someone would take it seriously is that they have a bias in favor of materialistic models or because they presuppose metaphysical naturalism. There would not be a hard problem of mind and body if hard-materialism was a feasible explanation for mental experiences.

But that’s all besides the point.

If it can be shown that natural events cannot be an uncaused cause by their very nature, then it must be true that there exists an uncaused cause that intentionally brought those events into existence. It doesn’t matter that we have only experienced minds in a world of physical objects. You would have to assume metaphysical naturalism is true to deny any other possibility. But if one can show that the existence of a necessary-natural-cause of unnecessary beings is impossible and that therefore an intelligent cause is necessary, then your argument in support of materialism becomes irrelevant.

 

[Damian]

intentionality does not exist

The same argument for “intelligence” is the same for “intentionality”. It’s an emergent property of a complex system. We’ve just labeled that emergent process that we identify as “intentionality”. Same with the idea of wetness is an emergent property of water. There is no “wetness” particle. But the accumulation of water molecules creates an emergent descriptive property of “wetness”. Same with brains. Once they become so complex as to produce the experience of “intelligence and intentionality”, we give those observed characteristics those labels.
We haven’t figured out if we have free will or not but what we experience we label as “free will” and if we can’t tell the difference between molecules determining our actions and our perception of “free will” then its really irrelevant until we have evidence of it being otherwise. You are just making a case for the argument, “Reality is as I would prefer it to be, so I’ll invent a mystical intelligence to solve my uncomforable feelings about how reality has actually presented itself.” Sorry but reality does not owe you a warm and fuzzy answer to your philosophical problems. If you have evidence that you can demonstrate to be the case, then present it. Otherwise you are just arguing for what you want with no evidence indicating that your proposition is even possible at all.

 

[IWantGod]

The same argument for “intelligence” is the same for “intentionality”. It’s an emergent property of a complex system.

I think I can safely ignore your contributions from now on because you are simply assuming metaphysical naturalism and ignoring the reasons why it is ultimately flawed.

I don’t respond well to assertions.

 

[Damian]

That’s fine. Religion ignores a lot of what reality has actually demonstrated to be the case so that they can keep believing their favorite comic book hero actually exists with no evidence at all or any way to demonstrate the carpenter superhero powers.

 

[IWantGod]

That’s fine. Religion ignores a lot of what reality has actually demonstrated to be the case

I don’t ignore the contributions of science and I don’t think many “religious” people do. What we do ignore however is faulty philosophy presenting itself as pro-science while it self-evidently conflicts with our experiences. I support science but I don’t support scientism. Your materialism is no more convincing to me then intelligent design theory. It’s a sham.

Metaphysical naturalism is pseudo-science at worst, and a poor excuse for philosophy at best.

 

[Bradskii]

So therefore there must be a first cause (which has an intrinsic explanation instead of an external one).

On the assumption that there was, the bracketed phrase is redundant. You are taking up quite a lot of bandwidth simply saying ‘something started all this’.

That is a reasonable assumption which might be correct. But to insist that it must be intelligent is not reasonable. Unless you want to claim (which you appear to be doing) that this existence is specifically designed in a particular way for us. Which is, obviously, begging the question.

 

[fisherman_carl]

l. 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.

No that is not true. The natural world makes perfect sense with an Intelligent Creator. Besides the fact that God exists and you will find that out one day, truth does not contradict truth. There are many scientists who are also theists. If anything science supports theism.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

So therefore there must be a first cause (which has an intrinsic explanation instead of an external one).

On the assumption that there was, the bracketed phrase is redundant. You are taking up quite a lot of bandwidth simply saying ‘something started all this’.

“Something started all this” would simply be deist. It’s more along the lines “something is causing/conserving all this.”

That is a reasonable assumption which might be correct. But to insist that it must be intelligent is not reasonable. Unless you want to claim (which you appear to be doing) that this existence is specifically designed in a particular way for us. Which is, obviously, begging the question.

I’ve made a few reasonable arguments in this topic already for why the Unmoved Mover must be intelligent, about why it would be incoherent if it wasn’t. It is not based on any fine tuning, “Intelligent Design” line of thought. Though it would be wrong to think of Intelligence as meaning human-like intelligence, or to think by singling out “human-like” I’m talking about a difference in scale on a spectrum rather than something that is completely other to our experience.

 

[Wesrock]

@Wesrock, thanks for providing all of that. I will look back through and visit the links you provided.

Maybe this would be better for PM, but what do you think about Lonergan’s proof for God as an act of understanding (an intelligent “mind”)?

I first encountered it through Fr. Robert Spitzer’s work, so I’m not sure if Lonergan’s proof is stated in the exact same way. But the gist is, if all of reality is completely intelligible and if there is a restricted, unconditioned reality, then it must be an act of understanding.

It seems to parallel what I’m saying in many ways. I agree with the overall argument, though it proceeds in a non-Aristotlean way. I think I’ll read it again and let it stew some more. Thank you for sharing.

Even if the paper is just a cursory overview, I still think Step# 1 needs further elaboration, though. I have my own reasons for thinking it correct, but I don’t think those reasons or the author’s reasons would be immediately apparent to many.

 

[IWantGod]

I will get back to you on that. Been really tired.

My argument essentially reduces all natural causes to contingent causes, and this is to say that all natural causes are secondary causes or unnecessary beings or potentialities/possibilities that have become actual. If i can achieve that, then the uncaused cause cannot be characterized as a natural cause or a natural event because it is necessarily actual or a necessary being insofar as it is not an existentially unnecessary sequence of actualized potential. Insofar as the existence of unnecessary beings is concerned the only possibility left would be an intelligent cause, and that means the existence of unnecessary beings would have to be a product of intentionality rather than a sequence of natural events for the simple fact that unnecessary beings cannot naturally come into existence; that is to say they do not arise out of natural processes operating in the nature of the uncaused cause. They cannot be considered a natural part of that which necessarily exists. Thus the creation of physical reality cannot reasonably be considered a natural event.

Thus my arguing for an intelligent cause proceeds the question of why unnecessary things or unnecessary beings exist at all since only that which is ontologically necessary ought to exist. This is what justifies the idea that intentionality is the cause of unnecessary beings and is also why natural events cannot in principle be the uncaused cause.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Ask a dozen people what intelligence is and you’ll get a dozen answers.

Ask a dozen people what intelligence is and you get a dozen people disagreeing with each other. Put it on the Internet and you get this forum.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Wesrock:

So therefore there must be a first cause (which has an intrinsic explanation instead of an external one).

On the assumption that there was, the bracketed phrase is redundant. You are taking up quite a lot of bandwidth simply saying ‘something started all this’.

“Something started all this” would simply be deist. It’s more along the lines “something is causing/conserving all this.”

We need a statement to start off the search. A statement which is a priori and with which no-one could disagree. ‘Something started all this’ will be as close to anything that we could agree on as being suitable as that starting point. But you won’t even accept that. You ALREADY need to go a step further and state that something, as well as starting it, is actively, at every moment, sustaining existence itself.

Which is your definition of God.

And you are right, the first statement could lead to a deist position. Which is where you don’t want to go, hence your requirement that the statement must include that which could only end up with intelligence. Which is what you are trying to prove.

So your a priori, absolute rock bottom, nobody-could-deny-this first statement ALREADY includes a descrption of what you are meant to be looking for.

And incidentally, ‘something started all this’ does not even in itself necessarily lead to a deity. Let alone an intelligent, still existing deity.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Bradskii:

Wesrock:

So therefore there must be a first cause (which has an intrinsic explanation instead of an external one).

On the assumption that there was, the bracketed phrase is redundant. You are taking up quite a lot of bandwidth simply saying ‘something started all this’.

“Something started all this” would simply be deist. It’s more along the lines “something is causing/conserving all this.”

We need a statement to start off the search. A statement which is a priori and with which no-one could disagree. ‘Something started all this’ will be as close to anything that we could agree on as being suitable as that starting point. But you won’t even accept that. You ALREADY need to go a step further and state that something, as well as starting it, is actively, at every moment, sustaining existence itself.

Which is your definition of God.

And you are right, the first statement could lead to a deist position. Which is where you don’t want to go, hence your requirement that the statement must include that which could only end up with intelligence. Which is what you are trying to prove.

So your a priori, absolute rock bottom, nobody-could-deny-this first statement ALREADY includes a descrption of what you are meant to be looking for.

“Something started all of this” is a bad starting premise. It assumes without demonstration a start to the universe/reality. “Something started all of this” would have to be the conclusion of any philosophical argument, not a starting premise. It’s not something that can be known or agreed to a priori.

The same goes for “something is a conserving cause of all this,” which I did not state as an intended starting position, as it would be a ridiculous starting premise, but as a clarification of the conclusion of theist arguments.

Anselm attempted an a priori proof of God with his ontological argument, though I am making no claims as to its correctness here. Most arguments that followed by later philosophers were a posteriori. It should be noted that an example of something that can be known a priori is the statement “all unmarried men are bachelors.” If you know what bachelors are, and if you know what unmarried men are, then you know that this claim is true a priori. However, the statement “reality had a beginning” is not something that can be known a priori, and it’s not something that should even be assumed as a starting premise to an a posteriori argument. The same goes for “reality is conserved in existence.” We can’t use any such statements to start a search.

 

[Wesrock]

And incidentally, ‘something started all this’ does not even in itself necessarily lead to a deity. Let alone an intelligent, still existing deity.

I’ll take you more seriously if you actually engage in my topic The Existence of God: The Argument From Motion, in which I proceed from a starting premise that “every potential that is actualized is actualized by another,” or if I could attempt to state it in more contemporary terms, every effect that is brought about is caused by something else (the effect doesn’t cause itself) and proceeds to argue for why (1) there must be an unmoved mover conserving reality and (2) why the unmoved mover could not be anything other than something that is one, immutable, eternal, omnipotent, perfectly good, omniscient and intelligent.

And just to clarify, “while every potential that is actualized is actualized by another” is the starting premise the Argument from Motion proceeds from, I am in firm agreement that we should still have good supporting reasons on why this view of change as opposed to any other view of change is better.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think your and @Wesrock’s are good arguments, but maybe someone would ask – aren’t you assuming that the only possible non-natural reality is a mind? How do we know that minds are non-material?

So yes, if the ultimate reality is not physical, and not contingent, then it is a mind. But don’t we have to first prove what a mind is?

 

[Wesrock]

I think your and @Wesrock’s are good arguments, but maybe someone would ask – aren’t you assuming that the only possible non-natural reality is a mind? How do we know that minds are non-material?

So yes, if the ultimate reality is not physical, and not contingent, then it is a mind. But don’t we have to first prove what a mind is?

No, it’s demonstrating that there is an immaterial reality to which belongs all real truths, both particulars and relationships between particulars and universals, encompassed in the idea of Truth Itself. Or that there is an immateriality reality in which the power to cause all possible things, both particulars and in relationships between particulars and universals, resides virtually or eminently.

And I and others are only then saying that what has been demonstrated is most closely analogous to what we think of as a mind. But it’s not a mind in any human sense. It doesn’t think. There’s no discursive or ratiocinative processes. It simply is those Truths, and there is a way we can think of this as Intellect in an analogous sense, but it is not an Intellect as we commonly understand it in a univocal sense (when talking about people).