Why does the First Cause have to be intelligent?

[Steve Petersen]

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?

I watched a Discovery Channel documentary about Bob Ballard discovering a new form of chemical life on undersea volcanic vents. Another scientist on the expedition was amazed. He said 'It seems like life WANTS to happen.'

Beneath this is the suggestion of a 'life force' of some kind.

I have to ask 'WHY does life want to happen.' Not 'how', but WHY? This is a metaphysical question that science can't answer.

 

[The Engineer]

I watched a Discovery Channel documentary about Bob Ballard discovering a new form of chemical life on undersea volcanic vents. Another scientist on the expedition was amazed. He said 'It seems like life WANTS to happen.'

Sounds like a rhetorical device to me, nothing more. Although it's a nice rhetorical device, I must say.

Beneath this is the suggestion of a 'life force' of some kind.

Can't see how the above comment carried such an implication.

I have to ask 'WHY does life want to happen.' Not 'how', but WHY? This is a metaphysical question that science can't answer.

Science can show you that the question is wrong. Intention is not inherent to life.

 

[AHJE]

Sounds like a rhetorical device to me, nothing more. Although it's a nice rhetorical device, I must say.


Can't see how the above comment carried such an implication.


Science can show you that the question is wrong. Intention is not inherent to life.

God is not only the necessary and first CAUSE of all other contingent causes but He also is the ONE who sustains all things in their existence.

How is it that you say that intention is not inherent to life ... is it because there are plants and animals, living creatures, that have no free will?

I think that if someone takes such a proposition to its logical conclusion in their practical everyday life and filtered everything through it (that intention is not inherent to life) ... I seriously believe that it would lead to insanity.

But people rarely do hold to such propositions so wholeheartedly.

The stability of the universe is constantly working against them.

God bless you.

 

[sandwiches]

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.

The analogy works to show that the creator, if there is such a thing, doesn't have to be intelligent merely because there are intelligent beings in the universe, just the same as this creator doesn't have to be furry merely because there are furry beings in the universe.

 

[sandwiches]

God is not only the necessary and first CAUSE of all other contingent causes but He also is the ONE who sustains all things in their existence.

He isn't.

 

[AHJE]

The analogy works to show that the creator, if there is such a thing, doesn't have to be intelligent merely because there are intelligent beings in the universe, just the same as this creator doesn't have to be furry merely because there are furry beings in the universe.

Ah ... but these furry beings do not have what we have as creatures made in the image and likeness of God. They do not have a spiritual soul. That is to say, a rational soul with free will.

Fur is material and as such does not pertain to the nature of God Who is Spirit ... Uncreated Spirit ... the Supreme Spirit.

What is a spirit? ... An immaterial being with intellect and will.

If inanimate matter was the only thing in existence ... how do you account for beings who have the capacity for self-reflection and free will to love or hate?

The furry little creatures may be cute but their material nature does not contradict that the existence of God can indeed be known by reflecting upon ourselves as thinking, willing beings.

God bless you.

 

[Gadarene]

Again, no-one asserting that no effect can be greater than its cause has stepped forward to attempt to justify it.

How do people who believe this handle chaos theory, for example?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Magic, as in: It just happened. If you can explain the mechanism more thoroughly, please do so.


An entity that exists outside of time and space and created the whole universe? That's not incredible at all, sure.

Why is it that theists continually have to explain mechanisms to atheists when atheists offer no alternative solutions? And why is God less credible than the atheist explanation of "nothing"?

We don't know the mechanism of creation any more than you do. We just posit a solution which ties in with our other experiences.

 

[AHJE]

And I forgot to mention... that those furry creatures do have something which is found in their Creator ... life. God is Himself the Life and dogs are dependent upon God for their existence.

 

[Gadarene]

Why is it that theists continually have to explain mechanisms to atheists when atheists offer no alternative solutions?

Because one doesn't have to have an alternative in the wings to show how a particular explanation is wrong?

"Yeah, well I'd like to see YOU do better" is not a refutation, and will not revive an explanation that doesn't work.

And why is God less credible than the atheist explanation of "nothing"?

Who says that's our explanation?

We don't know the mechanism of creation any more than you do. We just posit a solution which ties in with our other experiences.

In other words, you've already assumed your conclusion.

 

[The Engineer]

Ah ... but these furry beings do not have what we have as creatures made in the image and likeness of God. They do not have a spiritual soul. That is to say, a rational soul with free will.

There is no soul, and there is no free will.

Fur is material and as such does not pertain to the nature of God Who is Spirit ... Uncreated Spirit ... the Supreme Spirit.

What is a spirit? ... An immaterial being with intellect and will.

Looks like there's no such thing as a spirit, because there are no immaterial beings.

If inanimate matter was the only thing in existence ... how do you account for beings who have the capacity for self-reflection and free will to love or hate?

Again, there is no free will, and the evidence suggests that love, hate and self-reflection have entirely material causes.

The furry little creatures may be cute but their material nature does not contradict that the existence of God can indeed be known by reflecting upon ourselves as thinking, willing beings.

God bless you.

I see no compelling evidence.

God is not only the necessary and first CAUSE of all other contingent causes but He also is the ONE who sustains all things in their existence.

Can you actually back this claim up, in any way?

How is it that you say that intention is not inherent to life ... is it because there are plants and animals, living creatures, that have no free will?

It's not just that they lack free will. If you ask me, one can have an intention without having free will.

It's because most life forms lack any form of intelligence whatsoever. They can't make decisions; they simply function.

I think that if someone takes such a proposition to its logical conclusion in their practical everyday life and filtered everything through it (that intention is not inherent to life) ... I seriously believe that it would lead to insanity.

Why? I know that I have intentions, even though I lack free will.

But people rarely do hold to such propositions so wholeheartedly.

The stability of the universe is constantly working against them.

God bless you.

I'm not interested in people questioning my beliefs. I'm interested in people refuting them.

Why is it that theists continually have to explain mechanisms to atheists when atheists offer no alternative solutions?

Just because you don't know the answer does not mean you must accept every answer you get.

And why is God less credible than the atheist explanation of "nothing"?

Our explanation is not "nothing", we simply have no explanation.

We don't know the mechanism of creation any more than you do.

In case you didn't notice, you know nothing about creation.

We just posit a solution which ties in with our other experiences.

And your solution just so happens to make no sense.

 

[KCfromNC]

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?

Let us assume that the First Cause is not a woman. Let us assume that it is some non-female, unfeminine entity that somehow caused the universe to come into existence.

The question remains: How could an non-female, unfeminine First Cause give rise to an effect such as people who are female, feminine entities?

Obviously god is a woman. And we've also proven that men don't exist.

Or maybe it's that a cause doesn't have to have all the properties of things which it causes.

Edit : dang, beaten to the punch. But if several people independently thought of the same objection, I wonder how the poster we're responding to missed it.

 

[bricklayer]

The First-Cause must be intelligent because no effect can transcend its cause.

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, no-one asserting that no effect can be greater than its cause has stepped forward to attempt to justify it.

How do people who believe this handle chaos theory, for example?

Cognitive dissonance?

 

[AHJE]

There is no soul, and there is no free will.




Looks like there's no such thing as a spirit, because there are no immaterial beings.

So you assume. God willing, your guardian angel may appear to you one day. If not in this life then definitely after bodily death.

Again, there is no free will, and the evidence suggests that love, hate and self-reflection have entirely material causes.

You make it sound like we are artificial intelligence androids. Nothing could be further from the truth. If there is any TRACE of these things in the body (which is material) it is only due to the body/soul UNITY which is MAN. A human being is a unity of body and soul, a unity of matter and spirit. We are not angels and we are not animals. We are human beings.

I see no compelling evidence.

Do you ever spend moments in silence ... let's say 30 minutes a day ... and contemplate on perfect life, truth, and love? ... Do you hear the inner voice of your conscience? ... Do you hope to live a virtuous life and to be more compassionate toward others around you?

(If not, I encourage you to do so.) Perhaps you will discover ultimate meaning in life.

Can you actually back this claim up, in any way?

I believe it has something to do with the fact that it is impossible to have an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, there must be a cause which is not caused by anything else, ... this uncaused Cause we call God.
Also I believe that if all things with existence were contingent this would lead to nothingness, which is impossible. Therefore, there must be a necessary Being which created all other beings.

It's not just that they lack free will. If you ask me, one can has an intention without having free will.

I don't figure this one.

It's because most life forms lack any form of intelligence whatsoever. They can't make decisions; they simply function.

It does not mean that there is no Author of Life in general.

Why? I know that I have intentions, even though I lack free will.

Again, I don't get this ... please explain or refer me to a post if you have already done so.

I'm not interested in people questioning my beliefs. I'm interested in people refuting them.

Why don't you try and refuting them yourself?

Just because you don't know the answer does not mean you must accept every answer you get.

The question is are you sincerely seeking the answer? ... with all your heart? ... are you open to it when it comes? ... Are you disposed to receive it?


Peace be with you.

 

[The Engineer]

The First-Cause must be intelligent because no effect can transcend its cause.

Can you back this claim up?

So you assume.

And I have good reason to assume so.

You make it sound like we are artificial intelligence androids. Nothing could be further from the truth. If there is any TRACE of these things in the body (which is material) it is only due to the body/soul UNITY which is MAN. A human being is a unity of body and soul, a unity of matter and spirit. We are not angels and we are not animals. We are human beings.

Can you give me proof for dualism? I doubt it.

Do you ever spend moments in silence ... let's say 30 minutes a day ... and contemplate on perfect life, truth, and love?

Yes.

... Do you hear the inner voice of your conscience?

All the time. Even when I want it to shut up.

... Do you hope to live a virtuous life

Sure.

and to be more compassionate toward others around you?

Only if they deserve it.

(If not, I encourage you to do so.) Perhaps you will discover ultimate meaning in life.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I believe it has something to do with the fact that it is impossible to have an infinite regress of causes.

I have yet to see an explanation as to why it's impossible.

Therefore, there must be a cause which is not caused by anything else, ... this uncaused Cause we call God.

Your premise is not supported with any arguments, and I have yet to see good arguments for the claim that God is the First Cause.

Also I believe that if all things with existence were contingent this would lead to nothingness, which is impossible.

How's that?

Therefore, there must be a necessary Being which created all other beings.

Why does it have to be an actual Being?

I don't figure this one.

Free will in the classical sense does not exist. Even if one does not adhere to a materialist worldview, it's a highly flawed concept and does not go along with the notion of an omniscient God or with causality.

However, to have an intention, one does not need free will, just will in general.

It does not mean that there is no Author of Life in general.

It does mean, however, that Life can't make decisions.

Again, I don't get this ... please explain or refer me to a post if you have already done so.

I think I did this above, but feel free to ask if you'd like for me to get more elaborate.

Why don't you try and refuting them yourself?

I have already tried, and I have failed. I have refuted some other views that I have previously held, though, which is why I arrived at the conclusion that philosophical materialism is a pretty valid worldview.

The question is are you sincerely seeking the answer? ... with all your heart? ... are you open to it when it comes? ... Are you disposed to receive it?

I am willing to believe the answer if I find that it makes sense.

 

[good brother]

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?

In short answer to your question: "To intelligently think that nonintelligence brought forth intelligence is, in itself, unintelligent in nature." ~Good Brother

In long: I have heard the argument from evolutionists many times to the effect of, "No crocodile ever gave birth to a duck". In essence saying that there were never such drastic and dramatic evolutionary changes as to bring about a completely different offspring than the parent type. If that is true, then that thinking must also apply to nonintelligence and intelligence. There must be a moment in which intelligence is created by intelligence because nonintelligence is so far removed from intelligence that it could never make that leap to intelligence, much like the croc and the duck.

I have a feeling I can anticipate the argument that might come next, something along the lines of, "But that's just it.... It didn't have to make any leap because it just added minute amounts of intelligence over millions.... and millions.... of years.... First.... came the primodial soup which favored the conditions..... to build amino acids and proteins.... Then ever so slowly.... those materials combined in the correct sequences.... to bring forth DNA.... which could then constuct life...." That is the equivilent of searching a gold mine for a naturally occurring gold ring that is the exactly designed gold ring that your fiancess had her eye on and that would fit your fiancee's finger perfectly the first time. It's not going to happen because at some point in time intelligence must be directly "injected" into nonintelligence if intelligence is going to be brought forth as a final product.


In Christ, GB

 

[The Engineer]

In short answer to your question: "To intelligently think that nonintelligence brought forth intelligence is, in itself, unintelligent in nature." ~Good Brother

Actually, that doesn't even answer my question.

In long: I have heard the argument from evolutionists many times to the effect of, "No crocodile ever gave birth to a duck". In essence saying that there were never such drastic and dramatic evolutionary changes as to bring about a completely different offspring than the parent type.

True.

If that is true, then that thinking must also apply to nonintelligence and intelligence.

No.

There must be a moment in which intelligence is created by intelligence because nonintelligence is so far removed from intelligence that it could never make that leap to intelligence, much like the croc and the duck.

It's not as far removed as you may think. The very first nervous system might have been a system of switches with as little as two possible states. As time went on, the number of switches just went up, until lifeforms emerged that could actually think.

I have a feeling I can anticipate the argument that might come next, something along the lines of, "But that's just it.... It didn't have to make any leap because it just added minute amounts of intelligence over millions.... and millions.... of years....

Actually, that's my answer. Now, please show me why this answer is false.

First.... came the primodial soup which favored the conditions..... to build amino acids and proteins.... Then ever so slowly.... those materials combined in the correct sequences.... to bring forth DNA.... which could then constuct life...."

That's a plausible origin of life, but not the origin of intelligence.

That is the equivilent of searching a gold mine for a naturally occurring gold ring that is the exactly designed gold ring that your fiancess had her eye on and that would fit your fiancee's finger perfectly the first time.

No.

It's not going to happen because at some point in time intelligence must be directly "injected" into nonintelligence if intelligence is going to be brought forth as a final product.

No. There's no magical wall that prevents a system of switches from being extended until something emerges that we would classify as intelligence.

 

[sandwiches]

Ah ... but these furry beings do not have what we have as creatures made in the image and likeness of God. They do not have a spiritual soul. That is to say, a rational soul with free will.

The Bible is incorrect.

Fur is material and as such does not pertain to the nature of God Who is Spirit ... Uncreated Spirit ... the Supreme Spirit.

Well, apparently hairs and genitals pertain to the spirit of God as we have them and we were created in his image and likeness.

So basically, your entire argument boils down to "a creator of this universe is intelligent because that's what I understand the Bible to say."

OK.

 

[good brother]

Actually, that doesn't even answer my question.

Yeah, it does. If we know that nonintelligence cannot bring forth intelligence, then we know that there must have been some intelligent force implementing intelligence into what we know are intelligent beings (me, you, plants and animals too). Now all we must discuss is what or who was that intelligent force.

No. (Stated to applying the same logic that states there will never be a duck birthed from a croc to the arguement stating that intelligence cannot arise from nontintelligence)

Yes. I know that many evolutionists will gladly cite the Urey Miller experiment as "solid proof" that intelligent life materials can arise naturally, but that's not as impressive as one may think. Crystals form naturally but they have never formed a crystal chandelier, that takes intelligence. You see, it even if ALL the materials were made that construct and support life, those materials MUST be placed in perfect order to produce, sustain, and maintain life. That takes intelligence. If I took ALL the gears and mechanisms that make a watch work, and put them in an air tight container and applied blind, nonintelligent energy to the box and it's contents, the watch would never ever get put back together. Even though ALL the pieces are there and I shook the box for an infinite amount of time, there would NEVER be an intelligent arrangement of the pieces. Intelligence simply cannot rise from nonintelligence.

It's not as far removed as you may think. The very first nervous system might have been a system of switches with as little as two possible states. As time went on, the number of switches just went up, until lifeforms emerged that could actually think.

The FIRST switch involved intelligence to make it work. It had to be applicable to some area. It had to be constructed with a purpose. It had to work in the first place. There had to be an intelligence to produce eve one switch, let alone millions.

Actually, that's my answer. Now, please show me why this answer is false.

Because adding minute steps over millions of years accomplishes nothing without an intelligence driving it. Think of it this way. If I go out to a cotton field and pick one head of cotton and take it back to my textile mill, what will happen to that cotton? Nothing unless I apply intelligence to it. It can sit in that textile mill for millions of years, but nothing will change for the better unless more intelligence is applied to it. What if I picked a bushel of cotton and took it back to the mill? Still nothing without more intelligence driving it to be more than what occurred naturally in the field. That cotton will never become clothes or anything more than cotton without intelligence driving it to more.

A jigsaw puzzle may be all there in the box, but it will never be complete without intelligence putting it together.

That's a plausible origin of life, but not the origin of intelligence.

Intelligence begets intelligence. Somewhere you either have to say that nonintelligence can bring about great intelligence or believe that there exists an uncaused source of intelligence.

No. (When told about finding a naturally occurring gold ring that is the perfect design and fit for one's fiancee's finger)

Yes. To believe that life, with all it's intricacies and symbiotic relationships and intelligence could form from nonintelligence is not intelligent.

No. There's no magical wall that prevents a system of switches from being extended until something emerges that we would classify as intelligence.

Show me where that has occurred once that can be observed, tested, and verified. Stating ToE does not count as that is the topic at hand we are debating.

In Christ, GB