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

[fisherman_carl]

1. By assigning intelligence to the first cause you are foregoing any possible explanation of the origin of intelligence; you are merely assuming it. I do not find that a satisfactory explanation of the origin of intelligence.

Not assuming it but reasoning to it. You can’t get more out of something than what is put into it. The output can not be greater than the (name removed by moderator)ut. If that was the case we could more easily solve the energy problems of the world. How can you have intelligence come from lifeless matter? It seems to me that the first cause must be the cause of all its effects and therefore must have within it all that it causes including intelligence. It can not pass on what it itself does not posses at least in its ability or power to effect.

For example if you see a puddle of red liquid on the ground then you can ask where did it get its redness. Something else with the properties of redness passed that property to it. Perhaps some red dye got mixed into a puddle of water and is the cause.

The first cause must have the potential to pass on all of the properties that exist in existence. Since intelligence is a property that has been passed on in existence the first cause must possess some form of intelligence.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Natural selection is not a random process. It is neither intelligent nor random. The (name removed by moderator)ut – random mutations – is indeed random, but the output after natural selection has filtered the (name removed by moderator)ut is not random. You can put randomly sized grains through a sieve and the result is not randomly sized grains. Natural selection is like that sieve, not intelligent but able to select from the random (name removed by moderator)ut.

Back up the truck a bit. What selects tbe filter? Is it randomly selected? Consider the analogy of a game of pool. A trick shot that can put all of the balls in the pockets exist but is difficult to achieve. When the first ball hits it is true that the balls do not go in random directions but go according to set physical laws of momentum and direction, cause and effect. Yet, if the first ball was dropped out of the sky with no intelligence behind it then the whole thing could be described as random. Since the first ball could have landed anywhere on the pool table but was extremely lucky to land where it did to cause all the balls to go in. Now one could say it was not luck at all, but someone purposely directed the ball to land where it did as evidenced by the unlikeliness of the whole event. But one could not say that the whole thing was not random if it was not by design.

 

[Bradskii]

Philosophy is such that there are always alternate interpretations. Your challenge is so decide which of those is the most logical and reasonable. This is a process that you must do yourself (no one can convince you), and this is a job that you cannot do until you take the blinders off so to speak. That is your challenge.

Been there. Got the t shirt. And started from your side of the fence as well. Heard all the arguments and the jury came in some time ago. But not before they deliberated for quite some time.

 

[Bradskii]

That’s a good one.

God is omnipotent, omniscient and is, as a given whether you state it or not, intelligent (it’s Aquina’s fifth way).

Yet is an imperfect designer?

 

[Bradskii]

The main filter is the environment. So in that case, effectively random. And if you consider us to be all the balls in the pocket from one shot or a royal flush or a 747 produced from a tornado, then you don’t get it and never will.

We are just random pieces of the universe that happened to become self aware through a random set of processes.

I know that sounds a bit bleak, but only if you approach it from your point of view. Me? I got lucky and I happen to be one of those pieces.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

1. By assigning intelligence to the first cause you are foregoing any possible explanation of the origin of intelligence; you are merely assuming it. I do not find that a satisfactory explanation of the origin of intelligence.

Not assuming it but reasoning to it. You can’t get more out of something than what is put into it. The output can not be greater than the (name removed by moderator)ut. If that was the case we could more easily solve the energy problems of the world. How can you have intelligence come from lifeless matter? It seems to me that the first cause must be the cause of all its effects and therefore must have within it all that it causes including intelligence. It can not pass on what it itself does not posses at least in its ability or power to effect.

For example if you see a puddle of red liquid on the ground then you can ask where did it get its redness. Something else with the properties of redness passed that property to it. Perhaps some red dye got mixed into a puddle of water and is the cause.

The first cause must have the potential to pass on all of the properties that exist in existence. Since intelligence is a property that has been passed on in existence the first cause must possess some form of intelligence.

Yes you can get something more than one puts into it. When the universe began it only contained basic elements like helium and hydrogen. But by entirely natural, physical processes, we have every element now known to man (over 100 in the periodic table). So even discounting life arising, we have a complex ordered universe that evolved from a simple disordered one.

And if you want then to claim that God designed the laws that produced this ordered and complex universe, then I am going to simplify that answer and say that the laws, rather than God, are what have always existed.

Ocamm’s razor comes in so handy in these situations. So no intelligence required. Just physical laws that are an.integral and axiomatic part of the fabric of existence. No god need apply. The position has been taken.

 

[o_mlly]

Back up the truck a bit. What selects tbe filter? Is it randomly selected?

Think you meant to direct those questions to Rossum.

My reply to his argument earlier was:

Using your analogy of randomized sized grains, can you explain how the natural selection “sieve” filtered out the first “intelligent” grain from a batch of non-intelligent grains?

 

[IWantGod]

I think that the Catholic Church ought to exist and yet it is not existentially necessary since it did not exist 3000 years ago.

I’m talking about “being”. That which is existentially necessarily cannot “not exist”. This is true regardless of whether or not you think the Catholic faith should necessarily exist.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s a good one.

God is omnipotent, omniscient and is, as a given whether you state it or not, intelligent (it’s Aquina’s fifth way).

Yet is an imperfect designer?

Yes, I thought my argument was quite good as well.

Do you have a rebuttal? It won’t do to simply try to change the OP to: “Why you should think that the First-Cause has to be Perfect Cause” as that would be another thread.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok, I see your point. So the OP should be ‘Why you think the first-cause has to be at least somewhat intelligent’.

Hasn’t got the same ring, does it…

 

[o_mlly]

Ok, I see your point. So the OP should be ‘Why you think the first-cause has to be at least somewhat intelligent’.

Hasn’t got the same ring, does it…

OK. I see your attempt at deflection is irreversible. Often used as a debating tactic when no argument comes to mind.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Ok, I see your point. So the OP should be ‘Why you think the first-cause has to be at least somewhat intelligent’.

Hasn’t got the same ring, does it…

OK. I see your attempt at deflection is irreversible. Often used as a debating tactic when no argument comes to mind.

Why do I need an argument when I am agreeing with you? If you say that God doesn’t have to be that intelligent (omnipotent, omniscient yet not a great designer) then I can go with that. Although I’m not sure yoh’d be too keen on where it might lead.

And in regard to life and intelligence, if you think that on any given Monday there was no life and then at maybe 10:30am on Tuesday there was (‘the first instance of life’) then you need to study the subject a little more. Likewise with intelligence - as I previously explained.

Just think ‘gradual’. It’s not like being a little bit pregnant…

 

[o_mlly]

Why do I need an argument when I am agreeing with you?

Refreshing.

If you say that God doesn’t have to be that intelligent (omnipotent, omniscient yet not a great designer) then I can go with that. Although I’m not sure yoh’d be too keen on where it might lead.

Since He’s not in the OP, no claim is made on His attributes.

And in regard to life and intelligence, if you think that on any given Monday there was no life and then at maybe 10:30am on Tuesday there was (‘the first instance of life’) then you need to study the subject a little more. Likewise with intelligence - as I previously explained.

Just think ‘gradual’. It’s not like being a little bit pregnant…

You’re analogy is spot on. On Monday, Jane was not pregnant. On Tuesday at 10:30 am she is pregnant. Life and intelligence on the planet work the same way.

When I read an account of how life or intelligence came to be by an evolutionist, I am reminded of the old but clever song, “The Flying Saucer.”

We have with us Professor
Sir Cedric Thinkingmode
Of the British Institute
And the professor is approaching
The saucer to see if there’s
Possibly any sign of life aboard
Well, I’m sure something
Are you there?
(I hear you knocking, but you can’t come in)
That was Laughing
Lewis’s record, “Knocking”

Professor Sir Cedric of
The British Institute
Tell us how were
The saucers able to land
Well, you see…
(The motor cooled down
The heat went down)
That was Huckle Berry’s recording
“The Moter Cooled Down”

 

[Bradskii]

But when we get to the answer we all know what it’s going to be. I don’t think I need to put out spoiler alerts here. But your line of reasoning now starts with a reasonably intelligent first cause. And you got there by qualifying God’s design abilities. So you turned a few pages, peaked at the answer and applied what you suggested about God back to the first cause.

So you are using the same definition for both. Is that allowed when we aren’t supposed to know the answer…?

And life did not start all at once. You only have to read the most basic scientific or even popular articles on this matter to understand that. Unless you know what came first:

Cell structure
Reproduction
Metabolism

Nothing that started the progress to life (as we define it) had all three. It’s a chicken and egg problem that has Nobel prize written all over it.

But if you think that something emerged with ALL the necessary attributes that we use to define life then get some letters after your name, publish some papers and the prize is there waiting for you.

 

[o_mlly]

But when we get to the answer we all know what it’s going to be. I don’t think I need to put out spoiler alerts here. But your line of reasoning now starts with a reasonably intelligent first cause. And you got there by qualifying God’s design abilities. So you turned a few pages, peaked at the answer and applied what you suggested about God back to the first cause.

So you are using the same definition for both. Is that allowed when we aren’t supposed to know the answer…?

No need to presume the God or any gods at all yet. How could I qualify the attributes of a being not yet posited? Some stumble trying to run because they don’t know how to walk: take baby steps first.

First, move the argument forward from “No cause” to the “First Cause.”
Then from “Random First Cause” to “Intelligent First Cause.”

If we are agreed on the above, a new thread may be started, “Just how intelligent must the first cause be?” Be my guest.

And life did not start all at once [citation needed]. You only have to read the most basic scientific or even popular articles on this matter to understand that. Unless you know what came first:

Cell structure
Reproduction
Metabolism

Nothing that started the progress to life (as we define it) [definition needed] had all three [citation needed]. It’s a chicken and egg problem that has Nobel prize written all over it.

But if you think that something emerged with ALL the necessary attributes that we use to define life then get some letters after your name, publish some papers and the prize is there waiting for you.

Remember, this is the Philosophy forum. Define your terms and start a new thread. I’m refreshingly satisfied that you agree that the First Cause is necessarily an intelligent cause. It’s Saturday and after solving the problem of how life began, I have to cut the grass.

 

[steve-b]

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.

I would just say,

Without God creating everything that is, in the beginning, there would be no beginning, there would be NOTHING. There would remain NOTHING. NOTHING on its own is NOTHING. NOTHING can create. NOTHING remains NOTHING

 

[AlNg]

But only that which is existentially-necessary ought to exist.

I’m talking about “being”.

Catholic churches are beings which exist. They ought to exist since they are a means to propagate the Catholic faith. However, they are not existentially necessary since they did not exist 3000 years ago.

 

[IWantGod]

I would just say,

Without God creating everything that is, in the beginning, there would be no beginning, there would be NOTHING. There would remain NOTHING. NOTHING on its own is NOTHING. NOTHING can create. NOTHING remains NOTHING

You and i both know this is true, the challenge is demonstrating this to the unbeliever. This can be frustrating as they tend to either ignore what has been demonstrated or they lack a basic understanding of how to reason.

 

[AlNg]

We are just random pieces of the universe that happened to become self aware through a random set of processes.

I am puzzled as to how self awareness could come about from the evolution of a hydrogen atom.

 

[AlNg]

The OP mentions the First Cause. I don’t see why there cannot be more than one First Cause each one containing within herself the reason for her existence.