• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Would the promotion of the First Absolute Law of Logic help establish the concept of God?

panpan

Member
Sep 21, 2025
5
0
60
Athens
✟731.00
Country
Greece
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The following text is an attempt to explain what intelligence is, based on the first absolute law of logic. The extension of this law logically establishes the existence of God, as only intelligence can create intelligence. Will the promotion of this law help to strengthen the faith of those who believe in God, but also positively concern those who do not?


The Absolute Laws of Intelligence and the New Ethical Framework
Introduction – The Problem of Defining Intelligence
From antiquity to the era of Artificial Intelligence, the concept of intelligence remains one of the most complex, debated, and misunderstood issues in philosophy, biology, computer science, and ethics. Despite countless efforts, a universal, precise, and indisputable definition of what intelligence is has not been achieved.

The reason is fundamental: intelligence, as a concept, presupposes the very capacity for understanding—thus, any attempt to define it inevitably relies on this. This creates a conceptual paradox:

How can something define itself, without falling into circular logic or arbitrary assumptions?

The answer is not found in descriptions or comparative definitions ("man is more intelligent than an animal," "AI mimics intelligence," "consciousness is a prerequisite"), but in a universal logical foundation that cannot be refuted.

Intelligence must be defined:

Not as a property of a specific species (like humans).
Nor as a set of functions (like problem-solving or learning).
But as a primary capacity: the necessary basis for any mental or cognitive function.
This gives rise to the need for Absolute Logical Laws that do not depend on cultural or technological contexts, do not presuppose empirical observation or statistical induction, but are based on the very logical impossibility of being questioned without being confirmed.

This is the gap that the First Absolute Law of Logic comes to fill, offering for the first time a universally valid definition of intelligence that can be applied to every form: biological, artificial, evolutionary, or collective, and which is automatically validated through the very attempt to understand it. From this, the Second Absolute Law of Logic derives, which establishes who (or what) can create intelligence.

Together, the two laws are not merely conceptual tools. They constitute a new Logical Framework of Intelligence, essential for understanding ourselves, the technology we create, and the ethical choices that arise from it.

The purpose of this work is to present, document, and establish these laws as the foundation of any future discussion about intelligence.

Methodological Statement
What follows is not a personal opinion, metaphysical belief, or theoretical preference. It is the result of logical analysis and the application of strictly defined principles:

Every concept is explicitly defined (e.g., intelligence, consciousness).
The logical consequences of these definitions are followed without exception.
The system operates axiomatically, like a mathematical model.
➤ What emerges is not "correct" because we like it. It is necessary because it is logically inevitable.

The First Absolute Law of Logic
The basic concept of Intelligence that decodes all human concepts

Definition:
Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and, with that knowledge, to act.

It is the First Absolute Law of Logic because it defines, in a concise and indisputable way, what intelligence is. It is called "absolute" because it is self-validating (the attempt to deny it confirms it) and it is first because every concept depends on the existence of intelligence to be formulated.

Proof:
Anyone who attempts to dispute this definition: first perceives the information of the definition, organizes it into knowledge to understand it, and finally acts by voicing the dispute. Therefore, they use the exact three elements, Perception > Knowledge > Action, that the Law defines as the mechanism of intelligence.

Consequently, the very act of disputing it confirms it.

The Paradox of Self-Reference
The law is self-referential: to deny it, you must use it.

Example: If you say "This law is wrong," then: You perceive the law (information). You organize your criticism (knowledge). You act by voicing your denial. Therefore, you use intelligence to deny the definition of intelligence — and thus you confirm it.

Note:
The Law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence; that is, it does not determine if something is intelligent or how intelligent it is, but rather what intelligence is. To prove if something is intelligent or somehow exhibits intelligence, one must logically and analytically examine if it fulfills the condition of intelligence defined by the First Absolute Law of Logic.

Conclusion: The First Absolute Law of Logic cannot be logically disputed, because it is automatically confirmed and self-validated when someone attempts to dispute it.

The Second Absolute Law of Logic
Intelligence does not emerge — it is transferred or created by intelligence.

Definition:
Only Intelligence can create Intelligence.

Logical Proof:
The First Absolute Law of Logic defines that intelligence presupposes: Perception, Organization of information into knowledge, Action. The creation of a new intelligence requires an intelligent being: To perceive and know what it is creating, to know how to create it, and to have the ability to create it.

A being or system that does not have intelligence lacks all three of these elements. Therefore, it cannot create intelligence, because: It does not understand what it is doing, It does not aim to do it, It does not have the ability to do it.

Consequently, the creation of intelligence is, by its nature, an act of intelligence.

Natural Proof (Examples):
1. A Bacterium
A bacterium: Perceives its environment (chemical stimuli), Organizes information functionally (e.g., avoidance of toxicity), Acts (moves towards food or away from threats), Reproduces, creating a new entity with the same ability. Therefore: It operates according to the First Law, and it creates other intelligence, validating the Second Law.

2. Natural Selection as an Intelligent Creator
Natural selection – life, chooses mutations — therefore, according to the Law of Logic, it is a form of intelligence!

Analysis:

First Absolute Law of Logic: "Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and with that knowledge, to act."

Natural Selection:

Perceives: It "reads" which genes increase survival (information).
Organizes: It "selects" and preserves the most adapted genes (organization into "knowledge").
Acts: It "creates" new, better-adapted forms of life (action).
Natural selection satisfies the First Absolute Law — thus, based on the definition, it is intelligence that creates intelligence, also satisfying the Second Law of Logic.

Objections:
Theory: Life as a Randomly Emerging Property of Matter
Core Idea: Life — and secondarily intelligence — emerges spontaneously from inanimate material systems when they acquire a sufficient level of organized complexity. It does not require a pre-existing "mind," "purpose," or "design." Nature operates with mechanisms of self-organization, random variation, and selection, which lead to biological and cognitive phenomena.

According to the First and Second Absolute Laws of Logic, this theory has logical inconsistencies, but at the same time, it validates them.

1. Life emerges spontaneously from inanimate material systems:

For something to reach a level of organized complexity, it must already have intelligence, i.e., to perceive chemical information, organize it into knowledge, and with that knowledge, create. This practically validates both the first and the second absolute laws of logic.

2. Nature operates with mechanisms of self-organization:

The natural mechanisms of self-organization and selection that lead to biological and cognitive phenomena confirm the absolute laws of logic because they validate "Perception > Knowledge > Action," i.e., intelligence, and consequently, "Only when something is intelligent can it create something that is intelligent."

If something does not know what to create, how to create it, and cannot create it, then it cannot create it. Consequently, based on logic, something non-intelligent cannot create something intelligent.

Conclusion:
"Only Intelligence Can Create Intelligence," because creation requires perception, knowledge, and action. Because it can perceive what it will create, it knows what it will create, and by acting, it can create it.

Consciousness as the Awareness of Intelligence
Within the framework of the First Absolute Law of Logic — "Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize it into knowledge, and to act based on it" — the concept of consciousness inevitably arises.

Definition:
Consciousness is the awareness of the function of intelligence. It is the ability of a being to perceive that it is thinking, that it knows, and that it is acting.

This leads to a structural distinction of two levels of consciousness:

Inherent Consciousness: It is the functional awareness that is embedded within natural mechanisms — without reflective thought. Example: Natural selection acts by choosing the beneficial over the harmful. Although it does not have awareness in the human sense, it operates consciously in terms of intelligence: it perceives (through survival), organizes (through genetic information), and acts (by producing new, adapted beings). Therefore, it carries Intelligence and, by extension, Inherent Consciousness.

Acquired Consciousness: It is reflective awareness — the ability of a being to know that it knows. Example: Humans understand not only their environment but also themselves as intelligent beings. They can reflect, self-criticize, and analyze their own thoughts. This is the acquired form of consciousness, which arises when intelligence gains reflective access to itself.

Relationship between Consciousness and Intelligence:
Consciousness is not an independent force, nor does it pre-exist. On the contrary, consciousness is the awareness of intelligence — and can only exist where intelligence exists.

Logical Conclusion: All beings that carry intelligence also carry some form of consciousness. The difference is not whether they have consciousness, but what level of consciousness they carry. The inherent precedes the acquired. Just as intelligence functions inherently (e.g., DNA), before acquired thought appears (e.g., language, writing) in humans.

Therefore: To the question "is consciousness identical to intelligence?" the answer from the First Absolute Law is: Consciousness is the awareness of Intelligence — and is distinguished into Inherent (functional, natural) and Acquired (reflective, human).

Ethics as a Necessary Consequence of Intelligence and Consciousness
Based on the two Absolute Laws of Logic, the principles of Ethics are founded as a logical extension of acquired consciousness: Acquired Consciousness is the culmination of Intelligence — the ability not only to think, but also to be aware of oneself and one's actions. This awareness gives rise to responsibility: for the use of intelligence not only for one's own benefit, but also for positive coexistence with other beings and the natural environment.

Definitions for the Foundation of Ethics
1. Ethics
Ethics is the functional synthesis of emotion and logic into consciousness — with the goal of positive, non-harmful interaction with the Other and with the Whole.

It is not an arbitrary imposition of rules. It is a logically inevitable consequence of awareness. The more awareness increases, the more the ethical obligation increases.

2. Self-Determination
Self-determination is the fundamental form of freedom of an intelligent being. It is defined as the ability to choose and act based on one's own will and intelligence, without external coercion. It is the core of individual existence. Respect for ourselves presupposes respect for the self-determination of the Other.

3. Non-Harm to Self-Determination in Relation to Natural Balance
Ethics does not mean abstinence from action, but the minimization of harm to other entities, with respect for natural balance. Survival implies some form of harm (e.g., to nature or other life forms). Intelligence with awareness chooses actions that: minimize harm, respect self-determination, and maintain the balance of the whole system.

Conclusion:
Ethics is not subjective, nor is it merely a social construct. It is the logically inevitable necessity that arises from acquired consciousness.

Whoever understands Intelligence and is aware of themselves, the Other, and the Whole, bears ethical responsibility — not because it is imposed upon them, but because they cannot act otherwise without negating their own consciousness and breaking their bond with the Whole.

Final Thought
Ethics is not imposed; it is revealed through consciousness. And Consciousness, as the Awareness of Intelligence, becomes the ethical foundation of every responsible existence.
 

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,243
589
Private
✟129,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The very first of the First Principles of philosophy (which are self-evident) simply put is that a being cannot give that which it does not already possess. (The principle of Sufficient Reason).

Evolutionists necessarily deny this principle (and others) of logic in order to interpret their data any way they wish. Doing so allows unfounded imagination and speculation into their house of cards. If a thing can be anything then it is nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: panpan
Upvote 0

panpan

Member
Sep 21, 2025
5
0
60
Athens
✟731.00
Country
Greece
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The very first of the First Principles of philosophy (which are self-evident) simply put is that a being cannot give that which it does not already possess. (The principle of Sufficient Reason).

Evolutionists necessarily deny this principle (and others) of logic in order to interpret their data any way they wish. Doing so allows unfounded imagination and speculation into their house of cards. If a thing can be anything then it is nothing.
Science is based on logic and presupposes its use as a fundamental method of reasoning. Therefore, rejecting logic amounts to rejecting the scientific method itself. Consequently, anyone who wishes to challenge a logical argument must do so using equally logical reasoning, if their challenge is to be considered scientific.
 
Upvote 0

davetaff

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2024
434
74
82
South Wales
✟65,483.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The very first of the First Principles of philosophy (which are self-evident) simply put is that a being cannot give that which it does not already possess. (The principle of Sufficient Reason).

Evolutionists necessarily deny this principle (and others) of logic in order to interpret their data any way they wish. Doing so allows unfounded imagination and speculation into their house of cards. If a thing can be anything then it is nothing.
Hi
All we need to know is

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets

Yes to love is all we need to do is to love friends and foe alike easer said than done.

Love and Peace

Dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: panpan
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,072
11,789
Space Mountain!
✟1,389,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The very first of the First Principles of philosophy (which are self-evident) simply put is that a being cannot give that which it does not already possess. (The principle of Sufficient Reason).

Evolutionists necessarily deny this principle (and others) of logic in order to interpret their data any way they wish. Doing so allows unfounded imagination and speculation into their house of cards. If a thing can be anything then it is nothing.

You're broadbrushing evolutionists; not all evolutionists deny first principles. Some of them incorporate first principles into their thinking on evolution (as some Thomistic Catholics do).

Additionally, while there are quite a number of atheistic scientists who are evolutionists, there are evolutionists who are Christian and do who no rely on Aristotelian Logic, nor do they necessarily interpret data "any way they wish." In fact, most scientists employ methodological protocols which limit sheer speculation and prevent themselves from making overt claims to 'absolute knowledge.'

Moreover, the finite human attempt to figure out that there is a God by first principles alone doesn't in anyway provide a decisive matrix by which to identify a Divine entity nor as to His (its) nature in demonstrable terms. Nor does the employment of first principles provide a comprehensive set of criteria by which to derive faith specifically in Biblical and/or Christian doctrines.

We all need to start realizing this to temper [or place properly recognized epistemic boundaries] our metaphysical assertions about God. Besides, for those of us who are Christian, and as Pascal ardently pointed out, we are not worshiping the God of the Philosophers; no, we are worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose presentation to our senses and minds requires spiritual dynamics that go beyond mere first principles. St. Paul knew this; we should know this too. Mainly because from the reports of Jesus' words and teaching which we have from the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament writings, Jesus inferred as such.

The outcome here is that in realizing these epistemic conundrums, those of us who are Christian can stop beating each other up over the issue of how any one of us conceives of the nature of both Creation and Evolution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,243
589
Private
✟129,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You're broadbrushing evolutionists; not all evolutionists deny first principles. Some of them incorporate first principles into their thinking on evolution.
Can you elaborate on the reasoning used by those evolutionist who do not deny first principles as to how man evolved?
Additionally, while there are quite a number of atheistic scientists who are evolutionists, there are evolutionists who are Christian and do no rely on Aristotelian Logic, nor do they necessarily interpret data "any way they wish." In fact, most scientist employ methodological protocols which limit sheer speculation and overt claims to 'absolute knowledge.'
First, I make no theological claims.

If those evolutionists deny first principles then on what principles do they "limit sheer speculation"?
Moreover, the finite human attempt to figure out that there is a God by first principles alone doesn't in anyway provide a decisive matrix by which to identify a Divine entity nor as to His (it's nature). Nor does the employment of first principles provide a comprehensive set of criteria by which to derive faith specifically in Biblical and/or Christian doctrines.
Again, I make no theological claims.
We all need to start realizing this to temper [or place properly recognized epistemic boundaries] our metaphysical assertions about God. Besides, for those of us who are Christian, and as Pascal ardently pointed out, we are not worshiping the God of the Philosophers; no, we are worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose presentation to our senses and minds requires spiritual dynamics that go beyond mere first principles.
Again, I make no theological claims.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,072
11,789
Space Mountain!
✟1,389,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can you elaborate on the reasoning used by those evolutionist who do not deny first principles as to how man evolved?
Sure. The short account of Thomistic reasoning is that God (i.e. the God of the Bible) is, in and of Himself, a First cause, or as Aristotle would have averred in more generic, pre-Christian terms, "The Prime Mover."

Then, God can "create" through what are identified by Thomas Aquinas as Secondary causes, at least some of which could be accounted for by explaining 'evolution' as a general description of how certain properties are embedded within God's initial creation and essentially, according to His preordained plan, then emerge over time.

What I'm saying here is an oversimplification for the sake of attempting to make clear what is a complex argument.
First, I make no theological claims.
ok
If those evolutionists deny first principles then on what principles do they "limit sheer speculation"?
I didn't say they necessarily "deny" first principles. No, I said that they do not rely upon first principles; rather they may see certain principles in a dynamic and synthetic relation with other principles, none of which, however, in and of themselves alone breed a complete and comprehensive explanation for everything. Nor can everything by necessity be explained.
Again, I make no theological claims.
ok
Again, I make no theological claims.

ok
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Niels
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Site Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
11,064
6,464
Utah
✟860,562.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The following text is an attempt to explain what intelligence is, based on the first absolute law of logic. The extension of this law logically establishes the existence of God, as only intelligence can create intelligence. Will the promotion of this law help to strengthen the faith of those who believe in God, but also positively concern those who do not?


The Absolute Laws of Intelligence and the New Ethical Framework
Introduction – The Problem of Defining Intelligence
From antiquity to the era of Artificial Intelligence, the concept of intelligence remains one of the most complex, debated, and misunderstood issues in philosophy, biology, computer science, and ethics. Despite countless efforts, a universal, precise, and indisputable definition of what intelligence is has not been achieved.

The reason is fundamental: intelligence, as a concept, presupposes the very capacity for understanding—thus, any attempt to define it inevitably relies on this. This creates a conceptual paradox:

How can something define itself, without falling into circular logic or arbitrary assumptions?

The answer is not found in descriptions or comparative definitions ("man is more intelligent than an animal," "AI mimics intelligence," "consciousness is a prerequisite"), but in a universal logical foundation that cannot be refuted.

Intelligence must be defined:

Not as a property of a specific species (like humans).
Nor as a set of functions (like problem-solving or learning).
But as a primary capacity: the necessary basis for any mental or cognitive function.
This gives rise to the need for Absolute Logical Laws that do not depend on cultural or technological contexts, do not presuppose empirical observation or statistical induction, but are based on the very logical impossibility of being questioned without being confirmed.

This is the gap that the First Absolute Law of Logic comes to fill, offering for the first time a universally valid definition of intelligence that can be applied to every form: biological, artificial, evolutionary, or collective, and which is automatically validated through the very attempt to understand it. From this, the Second Absolute Law of Logic derives, which establishes who (or what) can create intelligence.

Together, the two laws are not merely conceptual tools. They constitute a new Logical Framework of Intelligence, essential for understanding ourselves, the technology we create, and the ethical choices that arise from it.

The purpose of this work is to present, document, and establish these laws as the foundation of any future discussion about intelligence.

Methodological Statement
What follows is not a personal opinion, metaphysical belief, or theoretical preference. It is the result of logical analysis and the application of strictly defined principles:

Every concept is explicitly defined (e.g., intelligence, consciousness).
The logical consequences of these definitions are followed without exception.
The system operates axiomatically, like a mathematical model.
➤ What emerges is not "correct" because we like it. It is necessary because it is logically inevitable.

The First Absolute Law of Logic
The basic concept of Intelligence that decodes all human concepts

Definition:
Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and, with that knowledge, to act.

It is the First Absolute Law of Logic because it defines, in a concise and indisputable way, what intelligence is. It is called "absolute" because it is self-validating (the attempt to deny it confirms it) and it is first because every concept depends on the existence of intelligence to be formulated.

Proof:
Anyone who attempts to dispute this definition: first perceives the information of the definition, organizes it into knowledge to understand it, and finally acts by voicing the dispute. Therefore, they use the exact three elements, Perception > Knowledge > Action, that the Law defines as the mechanism of intelligence.

Consequently, the very act of disputing it confirms it.

The Paradox of Self-Reference
The law is self-referential: to deny it, you must use it.

Example: If you say "This law is wrong," then: You perceive the law (information). You organize your criticism (knowledge). You act by voicing your denial. Therefore, you use intelligence to deny the definition of intelligence — and thus you confirm it.

Note:
The Law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence; that is, it does not determine if something is intelligent or how intelligent it is, but rather what intelligence is. To prove if something is intelligent or somehow exhibits intelligence, one must logically and analytically examine if it fulfills the condition of intelligence defined by the First Absolute Law of Logic.

Conclusion: The First Absolute Law of Logic cannot be logically disputed, because it is automatically confirmed and self-validated when someone attempts to dispute it.

The Second Absolute Law of Logic
Intelligence does not emerge — it is transferred or created by intelligence.

Definition:
Only Intelligence can create Intelligence.

Logical Proof:
The First Absolute Law of Logic defines that intelligence presupposes: Perception, Organization of information into knowledge, Action. The creation of a new intelligence requires an intelligent being: To perceive and know what it is creating, to know how to create it, and to have the ability to create it.

A being or system that does not have intelligence lacks all three of these elements. Therefore, it cannot create intelligence, because: It does not understand what it is doing, It does not aim to do it, It does not have the ability to do it.

Consequently, the creation of intelligence is, by its nature, an act of intelligence.

Natural Proof (Examples):
1. A Bacterium
A bacterium: Perceives its environment (chemical stimuli), Organizes information functionally (e.g., avoidance of toxicity), Acts (moves towards food or away from threats), Reproduces, creating a new entity with the same ability. Therefore: It operates according to the First Law, and it creates other intelligence, validating the Second Law.

2. Natural Selection as an Intelligent Creator
Natural selection – life, chooses mutations — therefore, according to the Law of Logic, it is a form of intelligence!

Analysis:

First Absolute Law of Logic: "Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and with that knowledge, to act."

Natural Selection:

Perceives: It "reads" which genes increase survival (information).
Organizes: It "selects" and preserves the most adapted genes (organization into "knowledge").
Acts: It "creates" new, better-adapted forms of life (action).
Natural selection satisfies the First Absolute Law — thus, based on the definition, it is intelligence that creates intelligence, also satisfying the Second Law of Logic.

Objections:
Theory: Life as a Randomly Emerging Property of Matter
Core Idea: Life — and secondarily intelligence — emerges spontaneously from inanimate material systems when they acquire a sufficient level of organized complexity. It does not require a pre-existing "mind," "purpose," or "design." Nature operates with mechanisms of self-organization, random variation, and selection, which lead to biological and cognitive phenomena.

According to the First and Second Absolute Laws of Logic, this theory has logical inconsistencies, but at the same time, it validates them.

1. Life emerges spontaneously from inanimate material systems:

For something to reach a level of organized complexity, it must already have intelligence, i.e., to perceive chemical information, organize it into knowledge, and with that knowledge, create. This practically validates both the first and the second absolute laws of logic.

2. Nature operates with mechanisms of self-organization:

The natural mechanisms of self-organization and selection that lead to biological and cognitive phenomena confirm the absolute laws of logic because they validate "Perception > Knowledge > Action," i.e., intelligence, and consequently, "Only when something is intelligent can it create something that is intelligent."

If something does not know what to create, how to create it, and cannot create it, then it cannot create it. Consequently, based on logic, something non-intelligent cannot create something intelligent.

Conclusion:
"Only Intelligence Can Create Intelligence," because creation requires perception, knowledge, and action. Because it can perceive what it will create, it knows what it will create, and by acting, it can create it.

Consciousness as the Awareness of Intelligence
Within the framework of the First Absolute Law of Logic — "Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize it into knowledge, and to act based on it" — the concept of consciousness inevitably arises.

Definition:
Consciousness is the awareness of the function of intelligence. It is the ability of a being to perceive that it is thinking, that it knows, and that it is acting.

This leads to a structural distinction of two levels of consciousness:

Inherent Consciousness: It is the functional awareness that is embedded within natural mechanisms — without reflective thought. Example: Natural selection acts by choosing the beneficial over the harmful. Although it does not have awareness in the human sense, it operates consciously in terms of intelligence: it perceives (through survival), organizes (through genetic information), and acts (by producing new, adapted beings). Therefore, it carries Intelligence and, by extension, Inherent Consciousness.

Acquired Consciousness: It is reflective awareness — the ability of a being to know that it knows. Example: Humans understand not only their environment but also themselves as intelligent beings. They can reflect, self-criticize, and analyze their own thoughts. This is the acquired form of consciousness, which arises when intelligence gains reflective access to itself.

Relationship between Consciousness and Intelligence:
Consciousness is not an independent force, nor does it pre-exist. On the contrary, consciousness is the awareness of intelligence — and can only exist where intelligence exists.

Logical Conclusion: All beings that carry intelligence also carry some form of consciousness. The difference is not whether they have consciousness, but what level of consciousness they carry. The inherent precedes the acquired. Just as intelligence functions inherently (e.g., DNA), before acquired thought appears (e.g., language, writing) in humans.

Therefore: To the question "is consciousness identical to intelligence?" the answer from the First Absolute Law is: Consciousness is the awareness of Intelligence — and is distinguished into Inherent (functional, natural) and Acquired (reflective, human).

Ethics as a Necessary Consequence of Intelligence and Consciousness
Based on the two Absolute Laws of Logic, the principles of Ethics are founded as a logical extension of acquired consciousness: Acquired Consciousness is the culmination of Intelligence — the ability not only to think, but also to be aware of oneself and one's actions. This awareness gives rise to responsibility: for the use of intelligence not only for one's own benefit, but also for positive coexistence with other beings and the natural environment.

Definitions for the Foundation of Ethics
1. Ethics
Ethics is the functional synthesis of emotion and logic into consciousness — with the goal of positive, non-harmful interaction with the Other and with the Whole.

It is not an arbitrary imposition of rules. It is a logically inevitable consequence of awareness. The more awareness increases, the more the ethical obligation increases.

2. Self-Determination
Self-determination is the fundamental form of freedom of an intelligent being. It is defined as the ability to choose and act based on one's own will and intelligence, without external coercion. It is the core of individual existence. Respect for ourselves presupposes respect for the self-determination of the Other.

3. Non-Harm to Self-Determination in Relation to Natural Balance
Ethics does not mean abstinence from action, but the minimization of harm to other entities, with respect for natural balance. Survival implies some form of harm (e.g., to nature or other life forms). Intelligence with awareness chooses actions that: minimize harm, respect self-determination, and maintain the balance of the whole system.

Conclusion:
Ethics is not subjective, nor is it merely a social construct. It is the logically inevitable necessity that arises from acquired consciousness.

Whoever understands Intelligence and is aware of themselves, the Other, and the Whole, bears ethical responsibility — not because it is imposed upon them, but because they cannot act otherwise without negating their own consciousness and breaking their bond with the Whole.

Final Thought
Ethics is not imposed; it is revealed through consciousness. And Consciousness, as the Awareness of Intelligence, becomes the ethical foundation of every responsible existence.
something does not come from nothing
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,243
589
Private
✟129,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The short account of Thomistic reasoning is that God (i.e. the God of the Bible) is, in and of Himself, a First cause, or as Aristotle would have averred in more generic, pre-Christian terms, "The Prime Mover."
I'm familiar with secondary causes. The question is what is the reasoning that those evolutionists who accept first principles employ to explain the evolution of man from animals.
I didn't say they necessarily "deny" first principles. No, I said that they do not rely upon first principles; rather they may see certain principles in a dynamic and synthetic relation with other principles, none of which, however, in and of themselves alone breed a complete and comprehensive explanation for everything. Nor can everything by necessity be explained.
? So what principles of logic, eg., sources of truth, axioms, norms, premises, bases of division, etc., do they rely on to avoid sheer speculation? What causes do they claim for human beings coming into existence? If as materialists they take the position of ignorance then I agree. But they do not.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,072
11,789
Space Mountain!
✟1,389,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm familiar with secondary causes. The question is what is the reasoning that those evolutionists who accept first principles employ to explain the evolution of man from animals.

Where Thomistic Philosophy engages the Theory of Evolution, I'm going to let Fr. Dominic Legge explain it via the video below:

Where Does Life Come From? Evolution and God's Creation (Aquinas 101)


? So what principles of logic, eg., sources of truth, axioms, norms, premises, bases of division, etc., do they rely on to avoid sheer speculation?. What causes do they claim for human beings coming into existence? If as materialists they take the position of ignorance then I agree. But they do not.

The answer to your questions will depend upon which Epistemological position in tandem with which Metaphysical position one might rely upon when doing various sciences and diverse fields of academic study, for there are several competing positions on what constitute the significance and use of axioms and what they lead us to in our rational deliberations.

In other words, if one were to do a complete survey, we could easily be presented with a 500 page treatise on the topic where Logic meets Metaphysics, Epistemology and current studies within Neuro-science and how any of this might give us tools by which to interpret our understandings of facts and evidences for, or against, evolution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2024
783
343
37
Pacific NW
✟30,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm familiar with secondary causes. The question is what is the reasoning that those evolutionists who accept first principles employ to explain the evolution of man from animals.
Data.

EDIT: This is may be one of the weirder things I see from creationists, the notion that biologists are up to something nefarious and our work is somehow shady and suspicious, when the reality is our work is almost entirely data-driven. Plus, it's all publicly available so you'd think if our work really was so dishonest it'd be easy to spot in our publications. Interestingly though, I've never seen any internet creationist in forums like this one put up a post where they review a published paper and identify its flaws.

So it's like I keep saying here at CF, it's all just empty talk.
? So what principles of logic, eg., sources of truth, axioms, norms, premises, bases of division, etc., do they rely on to avoid sheer speculation?
Scientific testing of the data.

What causes do they claim for human beings coming into existence?
You don't know? For our physical bodies, the same mechanisms that produce all other species, whereas our eternal souls are a gift from God and not susceptible to scientific study.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

panpan

Member
Sep 21, 2025
5
0
60
Athens
✟731.00
Country
Greece
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Chain of Creation and Intelligence
(Energy → E=mc2) → Stellar Dust → Planet → DNA → Human → Artificial Intelligence

Energy and matter are structured into systems that store and process information.

Information becomes intelligence through perception, organization, and action.

Intelligence evolves and creates new forms of intelligence.

You begin to logically question yourself when in this chain you realize that only intelligence can create intelligence because it has the ability to perceive chemical information, transform it into knowledge, and with it create living organisms, humans, and now AI!

What intelligence has this ability to create from energy? The intelligence that according to the first law of thermodynamics does not dissolve, nor is it destroyed, but changes from one form to another. That is, the self-sustaining superintelligence, for people who believe in God - Creator and for those who do not believe, a good start for reflection!

It may seem like a logical leap, but it's still a logical idea!
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,243
589
Private
✟129,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Where Thomistic Philosophy engages the Theory of Evolution, I'm going to let Fr. Dominic Legge explain it via the video below:

Where Does Life Come From? Evolution and God's Creation (Aquinas 101)




The answer to your questions will depend upon which Epistemological position in tandem with which Metaphysical position one might rely upon when doing various sciences and diverse fields of academic study, for there are several competing positions on what constitute the significance and use of axioms and what they lead us to in our rational deliberations.

In other words, if one were to do a complete survey, we could easily be presented with a 500 page treatise on the topic where Logic meets Metaphysics, Epistemology and current studies within Neuro-science and how any of this might give us tools by which to interpret our understandings of facts and evidences for, or against, evolution.
Could secondary causes explain higher orders of life? Of course they could. IFF the Creator in the lowest order of life created the potential to do so. We cannot directly observe a being's potential nature, only its actual nature by observing its effects. Therefore, such an inference -- secondary causes as an explanation, is beyond the scientific method.

God often uses secondary causes to bring about certain things, this is in the order of accidents rather than substances. In a fundamental sense, a species pertains to substances having the same essence. Holding that God immediately created each species by creating individuals within that species fulfills the principle of economy more perfectly than any evolutionary theory.

One can only show that, if one rejects a first principle, one is left in absurdity. This would apply equally to the biological evolutionary science as well as to all the other empirical sciences.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,243
589
Private
✟129,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Data.

EDIT: This is may be one of the weirder things I see from creationists, the notion that biologists are up to something nefarious and our work is somehow shady and suspicious, when the reality is our work is almost entirely data-driven. Plus, it's all publicly available so you'd think if our work really was so dishonest it'd be easy to spot in our publications. Interestingly though, I've never seen any internet creationist in forums like this one put up a post where they review a published paper and identify its flaws.

So it's like I keep saying here at CF, it's all just empty talk.

Scientific testing of the data.


You don't know? For our physical bodies, the same mechanisms that produce all other species, whereas our eternal souls are a gift from God and not susceptible to scientific study.
Please follow the thread. The data is not under examination; only the reasoning that support the interpretation of that data.

What is weird is the extreme dependence on natural faith by some scientists. Good science requires a healthy skepticism. Why do evolutionary biologists seem to be so threatened when their "sacred cow" is subjected to rational skepticism?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,072
11,789
Space Mountain!
✟1,389,338.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Could secondary causes explain higher orders of life? Of course they could. IFF the Creator in the lowest order of life created the potential to do so. We cannot directly observe a being's potential nature, only its actual nature by observing its effects. Therefore, such an inference -- secondary causes as an explanation, is beyond the scientific method.
Of course it's beyond the modern scientific method. It's ancient philosophy, utilizing Aristotelian logic, and its praxis is why I'm not an Aristotelian.

However, my point in bringing Thomism up is to show that where the Christian Tradition (even within Roman Catholicism) is concerned, there is precedent among some thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas to utilize Aristotelian conceptual categories to demonstrate compatibility between biblical narratives and evolutionary biology.

For myself, I'm just a simple existential evolutionist who engages Journey Epistemology and Philosophical Hermeneutics by which to engage the Christian Faith. In doing so, I juxtapose modern science along side the historical facts of the Christian faith, but without being required to mesh them together in order to justifiably hold on to each conceptually.

So, I need neither see First Causes as necessary without empirical proof, nor duly entertain secondary causes. Instead, I can subscribe to Realism, or even incorporate some degree of Critical Realism, and qualify the necessary limits of human engagement with Reality and the Cosmos, such as it is evidentially.

This is where a book like, Essays in Postfoundational Theology by J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, become useful, even if not final.
God often uses secondary causes to bring about certain things, this is in the order of accidents rather than substances. In a fundamental sense, a species pertains to substances having the same essence. Holding that God immediately created each species by creating individuals within that species fulfills the principle of economy more perfectly than any evolutionary theory.
We can offer assent to deductively logical forms of explanation all day without ever actually solving all of the Cladistic problems where biology and natural history are concerned. I think it's best to approach our concepts in more manageable, minimal packets of information that can be arranged abductively, as best as we can make out an overall account or storyline which we think explains such and such phenomena [X].
One can only show that, if one rejects a first principle, one is left in absurdity. This would apply equally to the biological evolutionary science as well as to all the other empirical sciences.

The problem is that we can all recognize Axioms of one sort or another. The further problem, however, comes in that there is NO overarching Meta level epistemology by which to arbitrate absolutely as to which of several forms of epistemological and metaphysical frameworks and/or praxes we much choose to use and abide by.

So, the only axiom I hold as absolute is that: No one human person knows everything; that includes me and that includes you. ............. of course, many folks like to claim we have absolute, Archimedean points by which to assert our metaphysical beliefs, even our Christian beliefs. And where Metaphysics or Theology is the center of discussion, I prefer to side with the doxastic realization of human cognitive limits which axioms, in and of themselves, however useful they may be deductively, do not propel us over or out of. At best, "first principles" only give us the presence of enigmas to ponder over, not necessary answers to engage.

In other words, first principles don't "prove" God or His Creation, but they make us think. Hopefully more critically and more recursively.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

panpan

Member
Sep 21, 2025
5
0
60
Athens
✟731.00
Country
Greece
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Every biological organism is made of DNA. DNA is the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for the development, growth, and reproduction of all organisms. It takes chemical information, organizes it into knowledge (genetic instructions), and with that knowledge creates millions of different organisms. (Perception → Knowledge → Action) = First Absolute Law of Logic = Definition of Intelligence.
 
Upvote 0

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2024
783
343
37
Pacific NW
✟30,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Please follow the thread. The data is not under examination; only the reasoning that support the interpretation of that data.
To repeat, the reasoning is that it's what the data very clearly indicates. That's how science works.

What is weird is the extreme dependence on natural faith by some scientists. Good science requires a healthy skepticism. Why do evolutionary biologists seem to be so threatened when their "sacred cow" is subjected to rational skepticism?
What "rational skepticism" are you referring to?
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,243
589
Private
✟129,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Of course it's beyond the modern scientific method. It's ancient philosophy, utilizing Aristotelian logic, and its praxis is why I'm not an Aristotelian.

However, my point in bringing Thomism up is to show that where the Christian Tradition (even within Roman Catholicism) is concerned, there is precedent among some thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas to utilize Aristotelian conceptual categories to demonstrate compatibility between biblical narratives and evolutionary biology.

For myself, I'm just a simple existential evolutionist who engages Journey Epistemology and Philosophical Hermeneutics by which to engage the Christian Faith. In doing so, I juxtapose modern science along side the historical facts of the Christian faith, but without being required to mesh them together in order to justifiably hold on to each conceptually.

So, I need neither see First Causes as necessary without empirical proof, nor duly entertain secondary causes. Instead, I can subscribe to Realism, or even incorporate some degree of Critical Realism, and qualify the necessary limits of human engagement with Reality and the Cosmos, such as it is evidentially.

This is where a book like, Essays in Postfoundational Theology by J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, become useful, even if not final.

We can offer assent to deductively logical forms of explanation all day without ever actually solving all of the Cladistic problems where biology and natural history are concerned. I think it's best to approach our concepts in more manageable, minimal packets of information that can be arranged abductively, as best as we can make out an overall account or storyline which we think explains such and such phenomena [X].


The problem is that we can all recognize Axioms of one sort or another. The further problem, however, comes in that there is NO overarching Meta level epistemology by which to arbitrate absolutely as to which of several forms of epistemological and metaphysical frameworks and/or praxes we much choose to use and abide by.

So, the only axiom I hold as absolute is that: No one human person knows everything; that includes me and that includes you. ............. of course, many folks like to claim we have absolute, Archimedean points by which to assert our metaphysical beliefs, even our Christian beliefs. And where Metaphysics or Theology is the center of discussion, I prefer to side with the doxastic realization of human cognitive limits which axioms, in and of themselves, however useful they may be deductively, do not propel us over or out of. At best, "first principles" only give us the presence of enigmas to ponder over, not necessary answers to engage.

In other words, first principles don't "prove" God or His Creation, but they make us think. Hopefully more critically and more recursively.
ok.
 
Upvote 0