Why does the First Cause have to be intelligent?

[sandwiches]

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

Sure it can.

 

[good brother]

Sure it can.

By all means, do expound.

 

[sandwiches]

By all means, do expound.

On what? You just asserted without any evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[good brother]

Bricklayer made the first statement that no effect cna transcend it's cause.

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

Then you said, "Sure it can." Here it is for you to see that quote:

Sure it can.

To which I responded with The following request for you to expound on this idea you set forth that effects can transcend their causes. Here is what I said to you:

By all means, do expound.

To which, you replied with the following:

On what? You just asserted without any evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, my question remains, "Can you please expand and expound on this idea of yours that effects can transcend their causes since you were the one who made that claim?"

Also, what did I assert without evidence? Nevermind. One question at a time. When you have given actual examples of effects transcending their causes, then we shall move on.


In Christ, GB

 

[The Engineer]

Yeah, it does. If we know that nonintelligence cannot bring forth intelligence,

We don't know that, you just assert it without any justification whatsoever.

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).

Your premise is wrong.

Now all we must discuss is what or who was that intelligent force.

Only after you've proven your premise.

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.

Says who?

That takes intelligence.

Says. Who? Maybe the chance for life to arise is incredibly low, but still, there was a whole planet for the necessary reactions to take place, which evens the odds out.

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.

Too bad we're not talking about a watch, but about self-replicating molecules. I'm pretty sure a single strain of random RNA is much less complex than a watch.

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.

Eventually, there would be. Monkeys on a typewriter, anyone?

Intelligence simply cannot rise from nonintelligence.

Intelligence is not a binary state. More like a spectrum.

The FIRST switch involved intelligence to make it work.

No, it didn't. You underestimate the power of random mutations. Yes, random mutations could create a simple switch. All you need is a structure that reacts to a stimulus in some way, something as simple as a molecule that dissolves when it reaches a certain energy level, and another structure that reacts to this in its own, beneficial way. Congratulations, you have the predecessor of the brain!

It had to be applicable to some area.

Sure. Nothing impossible here.

It had to be constructed with a purpose.

The universe knows no purposes; it's a simple fact that self-replicating structures will persist.

It had to work in the first place.

So? Even if one in a hundred of those structures worked, that's enough, because those are the structures that are going to persist.

There had to be an intelligence to produce eve one switch, let alone millions.

No.

Because adding minute steps over millions of years accomplishes nothing without an intelligence driving it.

Again, monkeys on a typewriter. Even if the early lifeforms reproduced once a year, and even if only one in a million reproductions resulted in a beneficial mutation, then you would get an insanely high amount of beneficial mutations. I can't even calculate how high the actual amount would be, because my calculator flat-out gives me 'infinity' as an output.

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.

And I guess apple seeds will never create apple trees unless you apply intelligence to them. It doesn't work that way.

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.

You make it sound like intelligence is a fundamental force of the universe. It's not.

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.

Do you have something other than redundant analogies to support your argument?

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

Throw all the pieces on the ground, a trillion times over, and sooner or later, it will be complete.

Intelligence begets intelligence.

No.

Somewhere you either have to say that nonintelligence can bring about great intelligence

Nowhere have I stated that! I said that non-intelligence can create low intelligence, not that unguided processes can spontaneously create entities with a high intelligence!

or believe that there exists an uncaused source of intelligence.

Where did I state that this source is uncaused in any way?

Yes.

Thanks for misrepresenting my quote!

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

Don't tell me your argument is literally 'you're stupid'.

Show me where that has occurred once that can be observed, tested, and verified.

You want me to tell you how intelligence can form from non-intelligence? No problem! Just look at a fetus developing a brain.

Stating ToE does not count as that is the topic at hand we are debating.

Actually, our topic is whether intelligence can come from non-intelligence.

 

[Gadarene]

Also, what did I assert without evidence? Nevermind. One question at a time. When you have given actual examples of effects transcending their causes, then we shall move on.
In Christ, GB

Nice try. I've been asking for people who claim that effects can't transcend their causes to justify their assertion for several pages now.

It is an assertion frequently made in these kinds of debates but never justified, and I'm calling it.

So, over to you. Stop dodging and start answering.

 

[sandwiches]

Bricklayer made the first statement that no effect cna transcend it's cause.
Then you said, "Sure it can." Here it is for you to see that quote:
To which I responded with The following request for you to expound on this idea you set forth that effects can transcend their causes. Here is what I said to you:

To which, you replied with the following:



So, my question remains, "Can you please expand and expound on this idea of yours that effects can transcend their causes since you were the one who made that claim?"

Also, what did I assert without evidence? Nevermind. One question at a time. When you have given actual examples of effects transcending their causes, then we shall move on.


In Christ, GB

You asserted this: "The First-Cause must be intelligent because no effect can transcend its cause," without any evidence. What is there to counter? You have a bare assertion and I simply replied with another bare assertion. Now, if you feel you have a reason for claiming that "The First-Cause must be intelligent because no effect can transcend its cause," then by all means explain what your reasons are and I can try to counter those reasons or concede the point.

 

[good brother]

Says. Who? Maybe the chance for life to arise is incredibly low, but still, there was a whole planet for the necessary reactions to take place, which evens the odds out.

You are looking at the planet as the whole for justification of your statistics when you must look at the entirety of the universe instead. If one looks at the entire universe as the petri dish, Earth becomes so statistically low in the probablility scale it's unimaginable.

Too bad we're not talking about a watch, but about self-replicating molecules. I'm pretty sure a single strain of random RNA is much less complex than a watch.

You're right, it's too bad we aren't talking about watches. At least the limit of intelligence needed to put together a watch would be much much much less than the amount of intelligence needed to piece together a strain of RNA! But my point still stands. If one could not piece together something as simple as an analogue watch without a great deal of intelligence, how in the world could one ever hope to have a "single strain of random RNA" appear without any intelligence?

Eventually, there would be. Monkeys on a typewriter, anyone?

I have yet to see a children's picture book or a "Dick and Jane" book accomplished by monkeys, let alone all the great literary works. So, eventually, there would NOT be.

Intelligence is not a binary state. More like a spectrum.

Pardon? Can you explain this thought further? I thought about going at it guns a blazin' but I might not fully understand what you are trying to say.

No, it didn't. You underestimate the power of random mutations. Yes, random mutations could create a simple switch. All you need is a structure that reacts to a stimulus in some way, something as simple as a molecule that dissolves when it reaches a certain energy level, and another structure that reacts to this in its own, beneficial way. Congratulations, you have the predecessor of the brain!

Guess what? Your premise starts with intelligence. "All you need is a structure that reacts and another structure that reacts to the first one..." You are beginning with an intelligence.

The universe knows no purposes; it's a simple fact that self-replicating structures will persist.

How did they first "plicate"? Self replicating structures may persist, but they have to originate from something first.

So? Even if one in a hundred of those structures worked, that's enough, because those are the structures that are going to persist.

Again, monkeys on a typewriter. Even if the early lifeforms reproduced once a year, and even if only one in a million reproductions resulted in a beneficial mutation, then you would get an insanely high amount of beneficial mutations. I can't even calculate how high the actual amount would be, because my calculator flat-out gives me 'infinity' as an output.

I thought that only populations evolved? If only one out of one hundred evolved a trait,and only one in a million reproductions produced a beneficial mutation, how many millions of organisms would have to exist if a population of them are to evolve said beneficial trait? Oh, and the whole "monkeys on a typewriter" bit? I would drop it if I were you. No monkey has ever even produced so much as a children's book, let alone the types of work you are inferring can be accomplished by those furry little, pooh flinging creatures.

And I guess apple seeds will never create apple trees unless you apply intelligence to them. It doesn't work that way.

News flash, the apple seed already contains all the information within it to make an apple tree. It already has the intelligence needed to produce another tree.

Throw all the pieces on the ground, a trillion times over, and sooner or later, it will be complete.

Go ahead and try that. You know that if you were to conduct that little experiment, you would have to start fresh everytime you threw down. In other words, you couldn't throw the puzzle down and keep the two pieces together that might have fit together for the next time you threw down. I would bet it would take far more than a trillion times to complete a jigsaw puzzle with each piece securely fitting in it's proper place by throwing the pieces on the ground. Why don't you just take three pieces of a puzzle that are known to fit together and try your experiment. I bet it would take a more than a trillion times for just those three!

Nowhere have I stated that! I said that non-intelligence can create low intelligence, not that unguided processes can spontaneously create entities with a high intelligence!

As a note from an earlier poster, "The effect cannot transcend the cause" Even so, low intelligence is so far above nonintelligence that nonintelligence could not create intelligence, even low intelligence. You see, nonintelligence is a complete lack of any intelligence, so to say that a complete lack of intelligence could create low intelligence is still just as patently absurd as saying a complete lack of intelligence could create high intelligence. low or high intelligence comes from intelligence not a complete lack thereof.

Don't tell me your argument is literally 'you're stupid'.

I am most certainly not saying you are stupid. I would not, and if it has come across as though I have, my sincerest apologies. How can two become friends if one is busy insulting the other? I am simply saying to cling to a notion that intelligence springing up from nonintelligence is not a wise philosophy to cling to.

You want me to tell you how intelligence can form from non-intelligence? No problem! Just look at a fetus developing a brain.

The intelligence is all there from the moment of conception. Material will be multiplied and knowledge will be gained, but the intelligence is all there from the get go. Of course I refer to the DNA which guides the process of growing and renewing cells as the intelligence in this particular case.

In Christ, GB

 

[The Engineer]

You are looking at the planet as the whole for justification of your statistics when you must look at the entirety of the universe instead. If one looks at the entire universe as the petri dish, Earth becomes so statistically low in the probablility scale it's unimaginable.

Let's play with probabilities some more.

Our universe consists of billions of galaxies which contain billions of stars. Let's assume every star has exactly one planet. Let's also assume that one in a million planets is, in theory, capable of supporting live.

In the end, we have a thousand planets in our galaxy alone which can support life, and a trillion such planets in the whole universe. If only one in a million planets that can support life actually has life, we're still left with one thousand planets that actually have life.

You underestimate the vastness of space.

You're right, it's too bad we aren't talking about watches. At least the limit of intelligence needed to put together a watch would be much much much less than the amount of intelligence needed to piece together a strain of RNA!

That's only because humans have trouble making precise changes on objects on the molecular level. That's because humans are much larger than a chunk of molecules. Sounds weird, but it's actually true.

Ever tried to arrange a set of hydrogen atoms so they would spell out LOL? It's quite hard, but that's not because the hydrogen atoms are arranged in a particularly complex shape, but because humans simply don't have the tools for precisely arranging hydrogen atoms.

But my point still stands. If one could not piece together something as simple as an analogue watch without a great deal of intelligence, how in the world could one ever hope to have a "single strain of random RNA" appear without any intelligence?

By repeating the Urey Miller Experiment a million times a day over the course of a million years.

I have yet to see a children's picture book or a "Dick and Jane" book accomplished by monkeys, let alone all the great literary works. So, eventually, there would NOT be.

You, sir, have no idea how probabilities work.

Pardon? Can you explain this thought further? I thought about going at it guns a blazin' but I might not fully understand what you are trying to say.

What I'm trying to say is that there's no strict line dividing intelligence from non-intelligence. If you disagree, then I'd like to ask you where you would draw the line.

Guess what? Your premise starts with intelligence. "All you need is a structure that reacts and another structure that reacts to the first one..." You are beginning with an intelligence.

So you're saying reactions are a sign of intelligence? So when a bolt of lightning sets a piece of dry wood on fire, that's intelligence?

How did they first "plicate"? Self replicating structures may persist, but they have to originate from something first.

I don't know the origin. I have yet to find a good argument as to why the origin can't be a set of random chemical reactions, though.

I thought that only populations evolved?

Where did I say anything else?

If only one out of one hundred evolved a trait,and only one in a million reproductions produced a beneficial mutation,

Quite frankly, I don't know what you are talking about here. How is it relevant that one out of one hundred evolve a trait?

how many millions of organisms would have to exist if a population of them are to evolve said beneficial trait?

The number of organisms is of secondary importance here. The number of reproductions (you could call it the number of dice-rolls) is much more important, as it's the factor that determines the rate at which beneficial mutations occur.

Oh, and the whole "monkeys on a typewriter" bit? I would drop it if I were you. No monkey has ever even produced so much as a children's book, let alone the types of work you are inferring can be accomplished by those furry little, pooh flinging creatures.

Again, learn about probabilities. Throw a coin a trillion times over and the probability of getting heads a hundred times in a row approaches one.

News flash, the apple seed already contains all the information within it to make an apple tree.

Unimportant. It still shows that order can arise without intelligence as a shaping force.

It already has the intelligence needed to produce another tree.

Now, please tell me according to which definition an apple seed is intelligent:
intelligence - definition of intelligence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Go ahead and try that. You know that if you were to conduct that little experiment, you would have to start fresh everytime you threw down. In other words, you couldn't throw the puzzle down and keep the two pieces together that might have fit together for the next time you threw down. I would bet it would take far more than a trillion times to complete a jigsaw puzzle with each piece securely fitting in it's proper place by throwing the pieces on the ground. Why don't you just take three pieces of a puzzle that are known to fit together and try your experiment. I bet it would take a more than a trillion times for just those three!

Doesn't change my point in the slightest. The probability is low, but it's not zero.

As a note from an earlier poster, "The effect cannot transcend the cause"

Still have to see evidence for this claim.

Even so, low intelligence is so far above nonintelligence that nonintelligence could not create intelligence, even low intelligence.

Waiting for the evidene

You see, nonintelligence is a complete lack of any intelligence, so to say that a complete lack of intelligence could create low intelligence is still just as patently absurd as saying a complete lack of intelligence could create high intelligence.

Still waiting for the evidence.

low or high intelligence comes from intelligence not a complete lack thereof.

Still waiting.

I am most certainly not saying you are stupid. I would not, and if it has come across as though I have, my sincerest apologies.

Don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I was merely pointing out that it's a weak argument, not trying to sound outraged.

How can two become friends if one is busy insulting the other? I am simply saying to cling to a notion that intelligence springing up from nonintelligence is not a wise philosophy to cling to.

But you don't do a good job defending your view.

The intelligence is all there from the moment of conception. Material will be multiplied and knowledge will be gained, but the intelligence is all there from the get go.

Depends on how one defines intelligence.

Of course I refer to the DNA which guides the process of growing and renewing cells as the intelligence in this particular case.

Again, I'd like to know according to which definition DNA qualifies as an intelligent entity.

 

[good brother]

Now, please tell me according to which definition an apple seed is intelligent:
intelligence - definition of intelligence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Our replies were getting way too long to copy and paste and refute everytime. In answer to this question above, Information. The apple seed contains all the information needed to produce an apple tree. Information is intelligence. Try to put something together without information, depending on the complexity of the project, it could be done with the information you already have in your head, or it might far surpass a billion people's intelligence. Buildings don't get built without building plans and intelligence won't come about without intelligence at least equal to if not greater than whatever.

In Christ, GB

 

[bricklayer]

The second law of thermodynamics seems to support causality.

I am not inclined to support an idea; I am inclined to test an idea. I seek to disprove an idea.

As yet, causality stands. I am left to believe in the first-principle of causality.

To me, intellectually, nothing is really ever proven. It's just that all of the other ideas I've considered have been dis-proven, and what remains is what I am left to believe.

 

[The Engineer]

Our replies were getting way too long to copy and paste and refute everytime. In answer to this question above, Information. The apple seed contains all the information needed to produce an apple tree.

Information is intelligence.

No, that's not the definition of intelligence.

Try to put something together without information, depending on the complexity of the project, it could be done with the information you already have in your head, or it might far surpass a billion people's intelligence. Buildings don't get built without building plans and intelligence won't come about without intelligence at least equal to if not greater than whatever.

There's no rule which states that information can only come from intelligence.

The second law of thermodynamics seems to support causality.

How's that?

 

[Gadarene]

How's that?

I've often thought that the inference of something like the arrow of time from 2LoT is what allows us to establish meaningful causal relations.

But, as far as this is relevant to the cosmological argument, this law didn't exist prior to the universe existing. So as ever, the usual objection (that is usually dodged) still applies - that proponents of the cosmological argument are trying to impose causality (which we can only ever conceive of grounded in time) before time existed, by their own admission.

 

[The Engineer]

I've often thought that the inference of something like the arrow of time from 2LoT is what allows us to establish meaningful causal relations.

Using the Second Law of Thermodynamics to establish the direction of time makes sense, but I can't see how it proves causality. It may help describe the behavior of causality, but it certainly doesn't prove it.

As far as I know, causality is, as of yet, still unproven, and may even be a rather lax principle on the sub-atomic level. Virtual particles, decay of radioactive substances, we have yet to see how those phenomenons are caused.

But, as far as the cosmological argument goes, this law didn't exist prior to the universe existing. So as ever, the usual objection (that is usually dodged) still applies - that proponents of the cosmological argument are trying to impose causality (which we can only ever conceive of grounded in time) before time existed, by their own admission.

Completely agree on that, though.

 

[bricklayer]

There are no spontaneous increases in complexity or available information or energy.
Entropy increases.

 

[The Engineer]

There are no spontaneous increases in complexity or available information or energy.

There are no increases of energy in a closed system. That's not true for open systems, though.

Entropy may work against systems that contain information, but that doesn't mean the information content of an open system can't increase.

Entropy increases.

Ultimately, yes, but it can decrease in an open system.

 

[KCfromNC]

There are no increases of energy in a closed system. That's not true for open systems, though.

Entropy may work against systems that contain information, but that doesn't mean the information content of an open system can't increase.

Or if you're using an appropriate definition of information, the more random a system is the higher information content. So even closed systems would tend towards higher information content.

 

[bricklayer]

There are no increases of energy in a closed system. That's not true for open systems, though.

Entropy may work against systems that contain information, but that doesn't mean the information content of an open system can't increase.

Ultimately, yes, but it can decrease in an open system.

A choice is before us. Does one presuppose material necessity or contingency? Is the matter-space-time continuum infinite or finite?

If it is an open system, it exists contingently.
If it is a closed system, it may exist necessarily. I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum is an open system that exists contingently.

I

 

[good brother]

Now, please tell me according to which definition an apple seed is intelligent:
intelligence - definition of intelligence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

In answer to this question above, Information. The apple seed contains all the information needed to produce an apple tree. Information is intelligence.

In Christ, GB

No, that's not the definition of intelligence.

It's not? That's funny because I pulled that exact word from the link you gave me. Definition #3, Information. So I guess that it IS the definition of intelligence.

There's no rule which states that information can only come from intelligence.

Can you give me just one example of information coming from non-intelligence that can be utilized by something of nonintelligence to bring it to intelligence? Information can only be utilized by intelligence. Thank you.

In Christ, GB

 

[toLiJC]

God is just love, and there is a big (cap-)ability in His love

Blessings