Necessity of evil

[QvQ]

Like I said I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that being said, this makes no sense to me. So could you give me the dumbed down version?

I am not answering for Mark however, this interests me so I will insert my two cents.
There must be a will to act, which is intent, giving it the first shove. It is a matter of motion. To first move, there must be intent.
The car can move if it is my intent that it move.
The Prime Mover..that is conscious intent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
First Cause of necessarily is not subject to outside principle, (to include accident). Mechanical fact is.

Like I said I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that being said, this makes no sense to me. So could you give me the dumbed down version?

By definition, nothing can cause First Cause. Everything else descends logically (causally) from it. (The atheists would love it that it could be mere mechanical fact, because then they would have no obligation toward it!) If it is not, to you, self-evident that mechanical fact is subject to principle that does not descend from it, then consider a couple of other facts, from the positive: Mechanical fact of itself cannot even happen by accident. That is, it is ludicrous to suppose that 'accident' can be first cause, as all its children (physical principles, not to mention metaphysical) are definitely not accidental, but necessary to ongoing natural fact. (That may sound like begging the question, but I don't see how anyone can wiggle out of the obvious fact of it.) As accident is just another name for chance, or pure 'unintention', then it can determine nothing, and it is begging the question to say that it can have children by accident.

And again, if mechanical fact came into being by accident, then it was not first cause, anyway. And if 'accident' or 'chance' is itself mechanical fact, then it is caused by accident, and therefore not first cause. Circular, isn't it! Elephants all the way down!

Mechanical fact, (such as the universe and quantum fields), is subject to "the way of things" which were not created by that mechanical fact.
All fact is either 'becoming' or 'is'. Mechanical fact is rather obviously of the 'becoming' category, constantly in a state of flux. Nothing that 'becomes' becomes by itself. Something caused it.

First Cause 'decided', as we humans characterize what it did. He intended. He purposed.

 

[Neutral Observer]

There must be a will to act, which is intent, giving it the first shove. It is a matter of motion. To first move, there must be intent.

By definition, nothing can cause First Cause. Everything else descends logically (causally) from it

Ah, well these are both very metaphysical responses, but they lead to a rather obvious question. Why is it reasonable to assume that the First Cause can exist without any preceding cause, but can't act without a preceding cause? Why is one of these possible and the other impossible?

Now you seem to be arguing that the preceding cause must be intent, but why don't we simply assume that to 'act' is as much of an essential property of the First Cause as to 'exist' is, and that neither of them require a preceding cause?

Again, maybe I'm just not smart enough to comprehend your answer, but why do you assume that to 'act' can't be an essential property of the First Cause?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, well these are both very metaphysical responses, but they lead to a rather obvious question. Why is it reasonable to assume that the First Cause can exist without any preceding cause, but can't act without a preceding cause? Why is one of these possible and the other impossible?

Must be that I'm not the brightest stick in the drawer, because I can't make sense of what you're saying here. Apparently you understood me to say that First Cause can't act without a preceding cause. But I didn't say that!

First Cause by definition is uncaused. His existence is uncaused.

Now you seem to be arguing that the preceding cause must be intent, but why don't we simply assume that to 'act' is as much of an essential property of the First Cause as to 'exist' is, and that neither of them require a preceding cause?

No. The intent is simply endemic to First Cause. You are right; I am saying exactly that neither the existence nor the acts of First Cause require a cause preceding First Cause. In fact, that is by definition of 'first cause', impossible.

Again, maybe I'm just not smart enough to comprehend your answer, but why do you assume that to 'act' can't be an essential property of the First Cause?

Where did you get the idea that I don't think that for first cause to act, is not an essential property of First Cause?

Edit: I see I wrote that last line wrong; maybe I did the same earlier which confused you! I believe that First Cause acts, in and of himself. —I believe that first cause is not first cause if he is caused by some source outside himself, to act.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Mark Quayle said:
First Cause of necessarily is not subject to outside principle, (to include accident). Mechanical fact is.

By definition, nothing can cause First Cause.

If there is a "first cause". The existence of reality could just be a brute fact without any cause, i.e.,

Everything else descends logically (causally) from it.

If there is one, I suppose it might.

(The atheists would love it that it could be mere mechanical fact, because then they would have no obligation toward it!)

A "mechanical fact"? Is that a "brute fact" something that just is. Not sure why I would have any obligations to the "first cause" even if there is one.

If it is not, to you, self-evident that mechanical fact is subject to principle that does not descend from it, then consider a couple of other facts, from the positive: Mechanical fact of itself cannot even happen by accident. That is, it is ludicrous to suppose that 'accident' can be first cause, as all its children (physical principles, not to mention metaphysical) are definitely not accidental, but necessary to ongoing natural fact.

Was that supposed to make sense?

(That may sound like begging the question, but I don't see how anyone can wiggle out of the obvious fact of it.)

Frankly it sounds like gibberish. Not even coherent enough to rise to the level of a fallacy.

As accident is just another name for chance, or pure 'unintention', then it can determine nothing, and it is begging the question to say that it can have children by accident.

Huh?

And again, if mechanical fact came into being by accident, then it was not first cause, anyway. And if 'accident' or 'chance' is itself mechanical fact, then it is caused by accident, and therefore not first cause. Circular, isn't it! Elephants all the way down!

Neither accidents nor elephants are needed for first causes or brute facts.

Mechanical fact, (such as the universe and quantum fields), is subject to "the way of things" which were not created by that mechanical fact.

Do you just mean "physics"? If so, say so.

All fact is either 'becoming' or 'is'. Mechanical fact is rather obviously of the 'becoming' category, constantly in a state of flux. Nothing that 'becomes' becomes by itself. Something caused it.

This is an assumption about "caused it" and you can't demonstrate it either way.

First Cause 'decided', as we humans characterize what it did. He intended. He purposed.

Now your anthropomorphizing "first cause". I think this metaphor has been taken too far. Not clear how this relates to morality, ethics, or evil. As to the titular phrase, I see no necessity for "evil".

 

[Neutral Observer]

Must be that I'm not the brightest stick in the drawer, because I can't make sense of what you're saying here.

At this point I think we're both a little confused.

In an attempt to clarify my understanding I'm going to ask what may seem like a nonsensical question. I'm hoping that it'll make sense, but there's a good chance that it won't.

You stated:

The intent is simply endemic to First Cause.

How do you differentiate an "endemic intent" from "mindless determinism"? The former would seem to imply a conscious agent, but I see no reason to assume the existence of a conscious agent when mindless determinism may well produce the exact same results.

Or perhaps I'm just confused by exactly what you mean by 'intent'. After all, even mindless determinism would seem to have a teleological aspect to it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

At this point I think we're both a little confused.

In an attempt to clarify my understanding I'm going to ask what may seem like a nonsensical question. I'm hoping that it'll make sense, but there's a good chance that it won't.

You stated:

How do you differentiate an "endemic intent" from "mindless determinism"? The former would seem to imply a conscious agent, but I see no reason to assume the existence of a conscious agent when mindless determinism may well produce the exact same results.

Or perhaps I'm just confused by exactly what you mean by 'intent'. After all, even mindless determinism would seem to have a teleological aspect to it.

"Teleological", at least to my mind, is another one of the necessarily human considerations of a thing. That is to say, we describe things according to their end [result]; that may help us understand the thing being considered, but it does not define the thing. Or at least, it is does not accurately nor completely explain the thing. It is just part of our way of thinking —our language.

So, if "mindless determinism" has a teleological aspect to it, that fact does not imply purpose, and there is the difference. You seem (to me) to be saying that 'mindless determinism' has the same [apparent] end result as 'endemic intent'. And yes, as far as empirical science can tell, this is true. But it doesn't describe how it is possible for 'mindless determinism' to do anything, nevermind to actually begin any new thing. It only assumes that 'mindless determinism' can cause things.

Science has a way of finding a cause by way of empirical effect(s). That, really, is all it does. (And it is easy to get confused as to whether we are looking for God as a teleological effect of our investigating, instead of as the cause of the effects we are trying to consider. Or at least, it is easy for me to get confused and lose track of the logical trail I was trying to present —just ask @Hans Blaster !) Science's reasoning is drawn on the effects, but Theism sees that God, as the uncaused first cause, is the only brute fact; that God is the source, the default, and that a good definition of God is necessary for seeing the effects clearly. Science does not oppose this, but scientists sometimes do, claiming it is begging the question to begin with God. But consider an argument I got into with a skeptic on another site.

Skeptic: "Just one look at the Bible story about the serpent in the garden, or the donkey speaking, tells you the book is worth about the same as a fairy tale."

Me: "Well, IF Omnipotent God exists, then that whole statement falls apart."

Skeptic: "Well, you've got a long way to go to show that God exists."

Me: "Tell me about it! You won't accept the short version as valid: That God is the only valid explanation for existence itself."

Skeptic: "Well? So start showing it!"

Me: I just did, sort of. If you begin with God, the whole business falls into place, including every effect's cause and every cause's effect. Empiricism can't do that —at least, not yet. Begin with God, and the empirical makes sense. Begin with strict empiricism, and you can fool yourself, thinking that existence doesn't demand a cause.

Skeptic: Rolls eyes.

 

[Neutral Observer]

So, if "mindless determinism" has a teleological aspect to it, that fact does not imply purpose, and there is the difference.

I agree completely. However, you didn't seem to address my question, "How do you differentiate an "endemic intent" from "mindless determinism"?" How do you conclude that the end result was the product of purposeful intent or not if the two outcomes are identical? Is it simply reasoning and your limited human perspective that leads you to this conclusion?

The only thing that I can glean from your response is that "mindless determinism" is incapable of beginning anything, but I see this as being nothing more than viewing reality from a time dependent human perspective. What you see as an impossible obstacle looks to me like nothing more than reality doing what reality has no choice in doing... no intent required.

From my viewpoint, what you perceive of as intent may be nothing more than an endless cycle of reality mindlessly oscillating between existence and nonexistence. Order and disorder. Periodically giving rise to sentient beings who can wax philosophical about the purpose of it all. But beyond that endless oscillation there is no purpose other than that which we give it, either by appealing to ourselves, or to a higher authority.

To me the flaw in your reasoning is assuming that there's a beginning.

 

[QvQ]

From my viewpoint, what you perceive of as intent may be nothing more than an endless cycle of reality mindlessly oscillating between existence and nonexistence. Order and disorder.

Ok, here is a model as I understand what you are saying:
The Quantum Field
1) Mass and Energy are generated in the Quantum Field
2) Over time, Mass Overload could "burn out" into pure Energy.
3) When the Mass collapses into the Quantum Field as Energy, then the Energy generates Mass.
4) The Energy Overload in the Qauntum field converts to Mass, (particles at first.)
5) Gravity, an inherent property of Mass, "clumps" the Mass into Form
6) Forms evolve in the Mass converted from Energy
7) Mass burns out, and the Energy again resides in the Quantum Field

The basic flaw, among a host of flaws, in this model is that the Quantum field cannot generate anything (#1). The Quantum Field obeys the laws of conservation of mass and energy so even if it does go from Quantum Soup to Human Nuts, that mass and energy has a First Cause and a First Time.

The Quantum Field Theory was elevated to metaphysics when particles were observed shuttling in and out of "reality." However it has been proved that the particles are not "generated" by some mysterious force within the field. The particles are simply energy/mass conversion at a particle scale.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok, here is a model as I understand what you are saying:
The Quantum Field
1) Mass and Energy are generated in the Quantum Field
2) Over time, Mass Overload could "burn out" into pure Energy.
3) When the Mass collapses into the Quantum Field as Energy, then the Energy generates Mass.
4) The Energy Overload in the Qauntum field converts to Mass, (particles at first.)
5) Gravity, an inherent property of Mass, "clumps" the Mass into Form
6) Forms evolve in the Mass converted from Energy
7) Mass burns out, and the Energy again resides in the Quantum Field

I'm not sure who is responsible for the above, but it is nonsense.

The basic flaw, among a host of flaws, in this model is that the Quantum field cannot generate anything (#1). The Quantum Field obeys the laws of conservation of mass and energy so even if it does go from Quantum Soup to Human Nuts, that mass and energy has a First Cause and a First Time.

The Quantum Field Theory was elevated to metaphysics when particles were observed shuttling in and out of "reality."

Physics doesn't need a "meta" and QFT is NOT metaphysics.

However it has been proved that the particles are not "generated" by some mysterious force within the field. The particles are simply energy/mass conversion at a particle scale.

A quantum field theory is the means to apply the quantized sectors of physics (EM, weak, strong) as fields.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Ok, here is a model as I understand what you are saying:

If you want a basic idea of what I'm talking about just refer to Penrose's CCC. Basically entropy always increases but due to a loss of scalars, and conformal geometry, the universe in the far distant future will simply return to the exact same state that it was in at the big bang, and that cycle will repeat ad infinitum. No complicated physics, or laws about this or that required, just order eternally devolving into disorder, and that process is responsible for creating everything that you see around you. And will do so over, and over, and over again.

The Quantum Field obeys the laws of conservation of mass and energy

Technically, the Quantum Field doesn't obey the laws of conservation of mass and energy, rather it gives rise to them, just as it gives rise to everything else. Thus you might say that it's the creator of them.

The Quantum Field Theory was elevated to metaphysics when particles were observed shuttling in and out of "reality."

I respectfully disagree. What virtual particles do or don't do has absolutely nothing to do with relegating Quantum Physics to philosophy.

that mass and energy has a First Cause and a First Time.

The First Cause, i.e. the per se cause, is the quantum field. However in CCC there are an infinite number of 'First Times', because with every aeon time resets. The quantum field however has no concept of time, from its perspective the concepts of past, present, and future are meaningless. Hence the only First Cause is the quantum field itself.

The particles are simply energy/mass conversion at a particle scale.

Pretty simple stuff huh! The field gives rise to energy and mass. Energy and mass interact according to predictable patterns, which we call laws. Those laws give rise to galaxies, and stars, and planets, and us.

Sure makes you wonder, is this all due to chance, or does that quantum field have intent?

If so, then say hello to your God. He's a quantum field.

 

[QvQ]

Basically entropy always increases but due to a loss of scalars, and conformal geometry,

So according to Penrose CCC, the universe returns to its original state. However, Penrose has a problem because we don't know what the original state was or how it tranlated from that state to the current one.
Again, reality collapsing into a Quantum Field and doing it all over again. I was understanding your process a bit differently but it is the same as the mass/ energy collapses, only it is into black holes. And entropy would be the collapsing agent
I thought that was what you meant

The field gives rise to energy and mass. Energy and mass interact according to predictable patterns, which we call laws. Those laws give rise to galaxies, and stars, and planets, and us.

" It is known that without matter there is no gravitational field while to hypothesize that a gravitational field gives birth to matter makes no sense (a gravitational field does not create matter / energy). The field without material bodies or electromagnetic fields is not born. The field is the effect of the presence of bodies (material particles or photons of light)."

That is a quote, but it is what I say. The field is the effect of the presence of bodies.

 

[QvQ]

If so, then say hello to your God. He's a quantum field.

I have seen these theories come and go.
Steady State Model
The Big Bang
Now the Latest and Greatest "Quantum Soup to Human Nuts

Faith in what abides, Sola Scriptura
Thou shalt have no other God...

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree completely. However, you didn't seem to address my question, "How do you differentiate an "endemic intent" from "mindless determinism"?" How do you conclude that the end result was the product of purposeful intent or not if the two outcomes are identical? Is it simply reasoning and your limited human perspective that leads you to this conclusion?

I thought I had shown the difference. If all you have is "mindless determinism's" teleological effects, you have no intent. As I said, there's the difference. That's how I differentiate them.

The only thing that I can glean from your response is that "mindless determinism" is incapable of beginning anything, but I see this as being nothing more than viewing reality from a time dependent human perspective. What you see as an impossible obstacle looks to me like nothing more than reality doing what reality has no choice in doing... no intent required.

In other words, you don't trust the notion that something cannot even exist without coming to exist. (It occurs to me —not that it is particularly relevant— I'm not sure, without reviewing, if you agreed or not that at least first cause with intent does not need to be caused to exist. (I bring that up without any implication that if you do agree with that, that it means you do not think that first cause, or brute fact, without intent, can or cannot also be uncaused.))

That helps, I guess, explain what you mean, then, by "differentiate between 'endemic intent' and 'mindless determinism'". To you, coming to exist, i.e. causation is irrelevant to our particular little argument? To me it is very relevant. Existence itself begs explanation. And while it may appear to you as thought I am looking at this in a temporal arrangement, I'm thinking causal, which is not the same as temporal. Sequential, yes, causally.

Or maybe I can go a step beyond that, to assert that reality itself, is caused. And THAT, is done by First Cause. To me that makes sense. God is subject to no principle from outside himself. Reality proceeds from him.

From my viewpoint, what you perceive of as intent may be nothing more than an endless cycle of reality mindlessly oscillating between existence and nonexistence. Order and disorder. Periodically giving rise to sentient beings who can wax philosophical about the purpose of it all. But beyond that endless oscillation there is no purpose other than that which we give it, either by appealing to ourselves, or to a higher authority.

Speculation, no? Do you really have some reason to think that is sufficient explanation of reality?

To me the flaw in your reasoning is assuming that there's a beginning.

Existence, even reality, begs explanation. Not to be funny, but to me, your cyclical narrative is circular. You are describing (at best) what reality is, but not why, or how it is. To you, it's just there. You can see no more turtles, so there we are until science can go further down.

Argh! It's getting late. But it is fun. Thanks.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sure makes you wonder, is this all due to chance, or does that quantum field have intent?

If so, then say hello to your God. He's a quantum field.

Or maybe, First Cause caused the quantum field, and all your particulars about cyclical events and laws, to exist, on purpose, in every detail.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Do you really have some reason to think that is sufficient explanation of reality?

Yes. But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm not suggesting that those quantum fields are an alternative to your God, I'm suggesting that they are your God. As sacrilegious as you may find that to be.

What... you were expecting a bearded old man in white robes?

In the process of pulling back the proverbial curtain on reality we must inevitably come to the First Cause, and science, being science, does what science does, it models that cause as a purely physical phenomenon, when in fact there may be nothing 'physical' about it at all.

Philosophers and theists have been hypothesizing about the nature of the First Cause for thousands of years, now science has finally found something that meets that criteria and you reject it because it doesn't fit your narrative. Why?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes. But what you don't seem to realize is that I'm not suggesting that those quantum fields are an alternative to your God, I'm suggesting that they are your God. As sacrilegious as you may find that to be.

What... you were expecting a bearded old man in white robes?

In the process of pulling back the proverbial curtain on reality we must inevitably come to the First Cause, and science, being science, does what science does, it models that cause as a purely physical phenomenon, when in fact there may be nothing 'physical' about it at all.

Philosophers and theists have been hypothesizing about the nature of the First Cause for thousands of years, now science has finally found something that meets that criteria and you reject it because it doesn't fit your narrative. Why?

Don't get in a hurry to criticize me for not accepting (not necessarily the same as rejecting, btw) what I don't understand. And, no, I don't hold to the 'bearded old man in white robes' junk.

1. Agreed that the reflex reaction is to cry, "heresy", because it is pantheism to say that the universe is God. Presumably you can get around that because the quantum fields are not the universe, yet they ARE OF the universe, no? I hear that they cause or spawn matter and energy. Idk. I also hear that matter and energy not only define the fields, but cause the fields. Sounds like a lot more study and a lot less terminology needs to be used. Anyhow, to me, if the quantum fields cause the rest of the universe, then I think God caused the quantum fields, perhaps as follows in #2:

2. "In him we live and move and have our being." I have for a long time liked a notion, from both reason and Scripture, that the smallest/most basic component of matter/energy, be it fields or whatever, is something FROM God, or OF God, but not itself altogether God. Perhaps something very 'physical' —such as the love of God. It would answer a whole lot of questions fought over by denominations and opposing doctrines.

3. You say they fit the criteria. Do they fit the criterion that First Cause does not answer to form? Are quantum fields' (Job 9:10) "ways past finding out"? Unpredictability does not describe 'uncaused'. From what I understand, science only fails to predict for lack of data.

4. We really don't know a lot about 'quantum fields' —certainly not enough to start jumping to conclusions. Lol, at least, *I* certainly don't know enough. But from what I understand, so far they are only a model, and hardly understood. And, again, though science can hardly be blamed for doing what it does, science does not consider them uncaused (again, as I understand).

5. Intent.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't get in a hurry to criticize me for not accepting (not necessarily the same as rejecting, btw) what I don't understand. And, no, I don't hold to the 'bearded old man in white robes' junk.

1. Agreed that the reflex reaction is to cry, "heresy", because it is pantheism to say that the universe is God. Presumably you can get around that because the quantum fields are not the universe, yet they ARE OF the universe, no? I hear that they cause or spawn matter and energy. Idk. I also hear that matter and energy not only define the fields, but cause the fields. Sounds like a lot more study and a lot less terminology needs to be used. Anyhow, to me, if the quantum fields cause the rest of the universe, then I think God caused the quantum fields, perhaps as follows in #2:

Quantum field exist everywhere in space, ie, throughout the Universe. Particles are quantum excitations of the fields. It really isn't anything fancier than that.

2. "In him we live and move and have our being." I have for a long time liked a notion, from both reason and Scripture, that the smallest/most basic component of matter/energy, be it fields or whatever, is something FROM God, or OF God, but not itself altogether God. Perhaps something very 'physical' —such as the love of God. It would answer a whole lot of questions fought over by denominations and opposing doctrines.

3. You say they fit the criteria. Do they fit the criterion that First Cause does not answer to form? Are quantum fields' (Job 9:10) "ways past finding out"? Unpredictability does not describe 'uncaused'. From what I understand, science only fails to predict for lack of data.

4. We really don't know a lot about 'quantum fields' —certainly not enough to start jumping to conclusions. Lol, at least, *I* certainly don't know enough.

We actually do know a lot about quantum fields. There are whole sub-fields of physics based on them.

But from what I understand, so far they are only a model, and hardly understood. And, again, though science can hardly be blamed for doing what it does, science does not consider them uncaused (again, as I understand).

5. Intent.

Intent, that's a good question. What is the intention of this discussion and what does it have to do with evil? Quantum fields aren't evil.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Quantum field exist everywhere in space, ie, throughout the Universe. Particles are quantum excitations of the fields. It really isn't anything fancier than that.


We actually do know a lot about quantum fields. There are whole sub-fields of physics based on them.

Intent, that's a good question. What is the intention of this discussion and what does it have to do with evil? Quantum fields aren't evil.

The conversation migrated, er, evolved. I'm easily distracted. It's not against the rules, I hope.

 

[Neutral Observer]

What is the intention of this discussion and what does it have to do with evil?

I realized this from the get-go, and I've tried to avoid it, but dang, why don't the powers that be reopen the philosophy forum, then we wouldn't be tempted to interject philosophy into inappropriate threads.

That being said I'll cease and desist. If I've piqued anybody's curiosity that was my intent, and now I'm content to leave it at that.

Interesting subject, but you're right, it's completely off topic.

Ciao!!