• 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.

Why does the First Cause have to be intelligent?

The Engineer

I defeated Dr Goetz
Jul 29, 2012
629
31
✟23,423.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Let's assume, for a moment, that the cosmological argument is right and that there's a first cause which caused everything else.

The usual response as to why the first cause doesn't need a cause, unlike everything in nature (let's also assume that quantum physics don't exist), is because it lies outside of nature, hence the rules of nature don't apply to it.

We know that order can only come from an intelligent creator (let's also assume crystals and spherical objects don't exist, either). We know this because we have observed it countless times.

We can say that the rule of design (everything ordered had to be designed by an intelligent creator) is a rule of nature. However, how can we apply this rule to the supernatural? If God doesn't have to follow the natural rule of causality, why does he have to follow the natural rule of design?

Why can't supernatural entities create order without having to be intelligent?
 
Last edited:

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟120,484.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The title of the thread is "Why does the First Cause have to be intelligent?". I take that to mean (using God as the First Cause), "Why does God have to be intelligent?"

You then said
Why can't supernatural entities create order without intelligence?
Here, I take your question to be associating intelligence with the order and not the creator.

Are you really asking two questions, or am I just reading you wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
46
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
It's intelligent because its the first thing that actually works...

...after eons of nothing happening - absolutely nothing - something actually works...

...and if you don't call it intelligent... pretty soon you will forget about it:

the one thing in eons that actually worked and you will forget about it!!!
 
Upvote 0

The Engineer

I defeated Dr Goetz
Jul 29, 2012
629
31
✟23,423.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It's intelligent because its the first thing that actually works...
Non sequitur, and a pretty bad one, too.

...after eons of nothing happening - absolutely nothing - something actually works...
How does it qualify as eons if time didn't exist before God created it? :D

...and if you don't call it intelligent... pretty soon you will forget about it:
What?

the one thing in eons that actually worked and you will forget about it!!!
What am I reading?!:confused:
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Let us assume that the First Cause is unintelligent. Let us assume that it is some impersonal, unintelligent entity that somehow caused the universe to come into existence.

The question remains: How could an impersonal, unintelligent First Cause give rise to an effect such as you and me who are personal, intelligent entities?

If one wants to maintain that it is incredible that there should exist an intelligent First Cause, is it not much more incredible to maintain that the First Cause is unintelligent? It seems to me to be patently obvious that the latter position is inherently absurd, especially when taking into account the effects that came from this First Cause.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Let us assume that the First Cause is unintelligent. Let us assume that it is some impersonal, unintelligent entity that somehow caused the universe to come into existence.

The question remains: How could an impersonal, unintelligent First Cause give rise to an effect such as you and me who are personal, intelligent entities?

If one wants to maintain that it is incredible that there should exist an intelligent First Cause, is it not much more incredible to maintain that the First Cause is unintelligent? It seems to me to be patently obvious that the latter position is inherently absurd, especially when taking into account the effects that came from this First Cause.

Let us assume that the First Cause is not a dog. Let us assume that it is some hairless non-dog entity that somehow caused the universe to come into existence.

The question remains: How could a hairless non-dog First Cause give rise to an effect such as Roni, my dog, who is a furry dog entity?

If one wants to maintain that it is incredible that there should exist an dog First Cause, is it not much more incredible to maintain that the First Cause is non-dog? It seems to me to be patently obvious that the latter position is inherently absurd, especially when taking into account the effects that came from this First Cause.
 
Upvote 0

Beechwell

Glücksdrache
Sep 2, 2009
768
23
Göttingen
✟23,677.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
The First-Cause must be intelligent because intelligence effectively exists, and no effect can transcend its cause.
Why do you believe that?
And please don't say it is self-evident. Common sense may see it as obvious, but human common sense is usually wrong when it comes to things outside of our familiar environment. Just look at non-linear systems in mathematics, evolutionary algorithms in computiong or just google 'emergent behaviour' for instances of effects transcending their cause.
 
Upvote 0

The Engineer

I defeated Dr Goetz
Jul 29, 2012
629
31
✟23,423.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Let us assume that the First Cause is unintelligent. Let us assume that it is some impersonal, unintelligent entity that somehow caused the universe to come into existence.

The question remains: How could an impersonal, unintelligent First Cause give rise to an effect such as you and me who are personal, intelligent entities?
The same way an intelligent First Cause did it: MAGIC!

If one wants to maintain that it is incredible that there should exist an intelligent First Cause, is it not much more incredible to maintain that the First Cause is unintelligent? It seems to me to be patently obvious that the latter position is inherently absurd, especially when taking into account the effects that came from this First Cause.
This paragraph is just you telling me how insane my position is, without any good arguments to back this claim up. Not that I didn't expect this from you.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Let us assume that the First Cause is not a dog. Let us assume that it is some hairless non-dog entity that somehow caused the universe to come into existence.

The question remains: How could a hairless non-dog First Cause give rise to an effect such as Roni, my dog, who is a furry dog entity?

If one wants to maintain that it is incredible that there should exist an dog First Cause, is it not much more incredible to maintain that the First Cause is non-dog? It seems to me to be patently obvious that the latter position is inherently absurd, especially when taking into account the effects that came from this First Cause.

I fail to see what this "analogy" if that is what one would call it, demonstrates. You confuse intelligence which is an attribute or property of a Causal entity with a dog, which is an animal. The category mistake renders the whole hypothetical scenario ineffective in even addressing the question I asked.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
The same way an intelligent First Cause did it: MAGIC!

I do not maintain that an intelligent First Cause who is responsible for bringing the universe into existence did so by "magic". Nor do I know of anyone else who maintains this view.


This paragraph is just you telling me how insane my position is, without any good arguments to back this claim up. Not that I didn't expect this from you.

Not at all. It is my position that if you think that it is incredible that an intelligent First Cause created the universe (why this is incredible, I have yet to be shown), then it should be far more incredible that an unintelligent Cause (whatever this might be, I do not know, for I have yet to be given a coherent explanation of what this entity might be) created the universe.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,841
1,928
✟1,008,991.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If the universe is being “made” (find tune so stars are produced), than what ever made it has to be more complex than what it “made”.

The more we know about the universe the more we realize we do not know, which means we are discovering an ever increasingly complex universe.

Random chance can occasionally produce order, but the more complex the order the more chances you need to make a very complex situation even probable.
 
Upvote 0

The Engineer

I defeated Dr Goetz
Jul 29, 2012
629
31
✟23,423.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do not maintain that an intelligent First Cause who is responsible for bringing the universe into existence did so by "magic". Nor do I know of anyone else who maintains this view.
Magic, as in: It just happened. If you can explain the mechanism more thoroughly, please do so.

Not at all. It is my position that if you think that it is incredible that an intelligent First Cause created the universe (why this is incredible, I have yet to be shown),
An entity that exists outside of time and space and created the whole universe? That's not incredible at all, sure.

then it should be far more incredible that an unintelligent Cause (whatever this might be, I do not know, for I have yet to be given a coherent explanation of what this entity might be) created the universe.
If your First Cause defies (ostensibly) well-established principles, including the principle of causality, then it can as well defy other (ostensibly) well-established principles, like the principle that only intelligence can create order.
 
Upvote 0

The Engineer

I defeated Dr Goetz
Jul 29, 2012
629
31
✟23,423.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If the universe is being “made” (find tune so stars are produced),

The whole fine-tuning argument is based upon arbitrarily assigning probabilities to certain values for cosmic constants. Considering we just don't know the probability for a certain set of cosmic constants to be created, we can't base an argument on said probability.

than what ever made it has to be more complex than what it “made”.
So you're saying that entities can only create entities of lower complexity, if I understood you correctly. Can you back this claim up?

The more we know about the universe the more we realize we do not know, which means we are discovering an ever increasingly complex universe.
Since when is complexity measured in lack of knowledge?

Random chance can occasionally produce order, but the more complex the order the more chances you need to make a very complex situation even probable.
As I said, the fine tuning argument doesn't work, and considering the vastness of our universe, there's actually a really high chance life would came into existence, somewhere.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟43,188.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
If the universe is being “made” (find tune so stars are produced), than what ever made it has to be more complex than what it “made”.

I disagree. Why is there any reason to think this is true?

I would think it is fair to say that the human brain is the most complex thing in nature, but it is nevertheless created by relatively simple laws of physics.

I think it would make sense for a simple God to create a universe which is just right... if there were a God.
 
Upvote 0