Because it wasn’t a proof I expect? Plus you seem to be starting to spam the same gibberish I’ve seen elsewhere.

I’d recommend taking a different approach. Maybe you could discuss theological issues with other believers in the Theology part of the forum or look at non-religious based proofs and arguments that relate to the ideas that interest you?

Other than that go for the metaphysical approach? You could argue for the use of deism even? If you’re to do so I’d recommend defining “intelligent” (referring to deity) and “deity”. These conceptions may be obvious enough to you, but many of us either don’t understand what you mean and/or hold different views of what a “deity” is.

Cosmogony is an interesting topic, but it is a scientific one. Religious cosmogony is based on myth (such as creation by a “deity”) and is an empty proposition.

Maybe you could discuss theological issues with other believers in the Theology part of the forum — I like sushi

Note that there is no theology part of the forum. On the old PF there was a religion section but we don't have an equivalent here, only philosophy of religion. Intra-religious or theological discussions are not very welcome.

Thats good to hear. But why was my post taken down?

I'll let the staff member who did it explain before I say anything.

My bad! Confusing this forum with another one I used to visit.

Probably because this is a better version of the skeletal post you made:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways

If you put it to the mod/s that you want to lock the the above thread and maybe expand into another maybe they’d accommodate?

Anyway, good luck and keep pressing on friend :)

A made a separate post as I had not seen a proof of God's intelligence before so I thought that was discussion worthy

It was taken down for low quality. It wasn't even a decent attempt at a logical argument.

Where was the flaw in the argument?

Sorry, Devan, but you don't get use feedback as a proxy for debating deleted OPs. A significant number of the responses to your OP characterised it as nonsense and gave reasons why with which I concur. At least the way it was presented. Hence the deletion.

I do not post nonsense. I do not believe you read it.

Yes, I did read it. Here is the OP in its entirety for the record. Again, I don't think a proxy debate here is appropriate. But just in case anyone is wondering:

1. If there was no first cause, there was no second cause. No second cause means no third cause, etc… to the conclusion the universe is nothing.
2. So there must be a first cause
3. The first cause cannot itself have a cause so is beyond causality, IE timeless
4. For the first cause to cause the first effect requires an internal driver, IE intelligence
5. So there exists a timeless, intelligent first cause.

Probably because this is a better version of the skeletal post you made: — I like sushi

It's true its skeletal low-effort nature was a contributing factor to it being taken down. More attempt at reasoning through even apparently nonsensical arguments (as the end of this, in particular, is) might justify the OP being given a chance.

4 just kind of comes out of nowhere.

Makes no more sense to me than saying:

4. For the first cause to cause the first effect requires an internal driver, IE A motor
5. So there exists a timeless, motorised first cause.

But I said I wasn't going to debate it so...

I don't want to offend you btw @Devans99. I just think in this case you fell short.

:fire:

A motor would require intelligence to construct it.

Is this intelligent design or some such theme? Because you won't find many people interested in such a topic ...

I was just pointing out a motor is not a valid first cause - a motor has a prior cause - the machinist.

So, it is intelligent design... Oh well. Humdrum I suppose.

@Devans99 you might be interested in this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5743/are-causeless-effects-possible

Following with interest. Thanks.

:ok:

A motor would require intelligence to construct it. — Devans99

Intelligence would require a motor to run it.

A motor would require intelligence to construct it. — Devans99

Would it? I presume you're basing that theory on the evidence that all the motors you've ever seen have been constructed by an intelligence? So why are you not applying the same logic to 'intelligences', for which I presume every single one you've ever come across has been mortal?

The start of time/causality is a unique event and different from everything we normally encounter. In everyday life, motors and intelligence require causes. Here we are talking about the first cause though so it’s different.

There is no chicken and egg here because it's the first cause - it always existed timelessly and there is nothing logically before it. So asking for an explanation of the first cause is like It’s like asking ‘what is the length of an idea?’ - ideas do not have a ‘length’ and the first cause does not have a ‘why’.

Can’t get something from nothing so something has always existed. That something is the timeless first cause. What is its nature? It must be able to cause change somehow without being changed itself. So it must be self-driven, IE Intelligent.

It seems a timeless intelligence is the only thing that could have caused the universe. There is no point in asking how did the timeless intelligence come about; it did not; it has always existed timelessly.