The signs of fine-tuning in the universe suggest intelligence — Devans99
The start of time suggests intelligence — Devans99
I doubt the first cause can be a random process: — Devans99
That's informationally a something from nothing. All humans have ever been able to manage is pseudo-random. — Devans99
There are no signs of teleological fine-tuning. That is an interpretation that once again assumes the necessity of an intelligent creator, making the argument still circular. — Kenosha Kid
Precisely the thing you seek to prove. Circular. — Kenosha Kid
A causes B. B causes C. D causes E.
If A did not cause B, would D cause E?
Hence we reach the conclusion that any causal regress must have a concrete first cause - they just can't stretch back infinitely — Devans99
It could possibly be that the 'God' I refer to is somehow synonymous with the universe itself - the universe itself is somehow self-driven and capable of intelligent action. But personally, I think a distinct, intelligent entity is more likely. — Devans99
What's the alternative to "concrete" first cause? Is there another kind of cause we should be worried about? — TheMadFool
Also, from your statement, If A did not cause B, would D cause E, I could ask what caused A? Either you'll posit a cause for A, in which case an infinite regress results or you'll say A is uncaused and if you do why shouldn't this A be the universe? — TheMadFool
I sincerely hope you're kidding. — Outlander
There a many of signs of fine-tuning of the universe for life — Devans99
The chances of the universe supporting life by purely a co-incidence are very remote... That correspondingly makes the chances of the universe supporting life by design very high... and by accident is exceedingly unlikely. — Devans99
However tiny changes between characteristics of modern humans do not prove you evolved from some slimy fish frog that was essentially a retarded mutant that was born with freak appendages that allowed it to crawl on land. Does it? How so. Why aren't people born with extra hands or legs today. For example. — Outlander
You were proposing that it was logical that human consciousness exists through logical necessity. And so, what else exists through logical necessity? — 3017amen
Kenosha Kid
307
There a many of signs of fine-tuning of the universe for life
— Devans99
Only if they are interpreted as being teleologically fine-tuned, which they are not. Hence the circularity. You find God in the evidence to support your proof of his existence, be he there or not. Which he's not.
The chances of the universe supporting life by purely a co-incidence are very remote... That correspondingly makes the chances of the universe supporting life by design very high... and by accident is exceedingly unlikely.
— Devans99
But these are arguments from ignorance. We do not know why the laws of nature are as they are, nor do we know if our universe is special. Leading theory has that it is not, and that theory at least has the features of being a) possible and b) mechanically worked out, which the God hypothesis is not blessed with.
The possibility of inflation theory being right not only rules out the non-existent necessity of an intelligent first cause, it renders whatever back-of-the-envelope estimate you have of our improbability meaningless.
Finally, any number, no matter how small, is large compared with zero. Even if we agree that the probability of this universe existing by chance is one in a trillion, that can still be (and is) much larger than the probability of it being created by a nonexistent creator. You cannot assume that God creating the world is more probable than accident in your proof that God exists. That would, again, be circular.
If we assume that God does not exist, the probability of him having created the universe is zero, compared to which sheer chance is good odds. — Kenosha Kid
This is an alternative way of looking at the same problem:
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
So there has to be one concrete reason (the first cause) outside time. That reason must be uncaused. — Devans99
Only if they are interpreted as being teleologically fine-tuned, which they are not. Hence the circularity. — Kenosha Kid
The possibility of inflation theory being right not only rules out the non-existent necessity of an intelligent first cause, it renders whatever back-of-the-envelope estimate you have of our improbability meaningless. — Kenosha Kid
Finally, any number, no matter how small, is large compared with zero. Even if we agree that the probability of this universe existing by chance is one in a trillion, that can still be (and is) much larger than the probability of it being created by a nonexistent creator. You cannot assume that God creating the world is more probable than accident in your proof that God exists. That would, again, be circular. — Kenosha Kid
Even accepting this, how do you get from "there is a first cause" to "God exists"? You're missing a premise, and also a definition of "God". Perhaps by "God" you just mean "the first cause"? So long as you don't then start sneaking in certain other properties like "being conscious", "having a will", "being all-powerful", "being all-knowing", etc. then you might have some ground to stand on. But then if it turns out that this "first cause" is just some impersonal thing like a quantum fluctuation of energy then what's the rationale for calling it "God"? It's a loaded term with so much extraneous baggage that it has no place in your argument accept as a dishonest attempt to prove something like Christianity. — Michael
Quantum fluctuations don't fluctuate outside of time and the first cause must be timeless. Quantum fluctuations also respect the conservation of energy. They are also a fluctuation of a pre-existing field - they are not 'something from nothing'. Also, they are tiny so to all intense and purposes, they are causally inert - cannot be the source of the vast quantities of matter in the universe. — Devans99
I gave my definition of God here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/426361
The first cause is synonymous with God. — Devans99
The extensive signs of fine tuning for life in the universe is one reason I think the first cause must be intelligent.
By "like" I meant "similar to". It might be that the first cause is just some impersonal "event" that without any intention or intelligence or will happened to create time, space, energy, etc. — Michael
The first cause obviously has no cause, but it must cause the first effect. I do not believe in random - my argument is that random would be something from nothing in informational terms - impossible. We can only do pseudo-random with maths and computers and pseudo-random has a cause — Devans99
But to be fair, I acknowledge that the main thrust of my 'the first cause is intelligent' argument comes from separate arguments that we have discussed since the OP was posted - IE fine tuning, the start of time, the universe is not in equilibrium, Aquinas 3rd argument. Things have got a little muddled. — Devans99
Why would an unintelligent first cause unintentionally creating time and space count as "something from nothing" but an intelligent first cause intentionally creating time and space not count as "something from nothing"? — Michael
Even granting the fine-tuning of the universe, it doesn't follow that the first cause is the thing responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe. Gnosticism for example believes in the Monad as the first cause and a separate demiurge with its subordinate archons as being responsible for fashioning the physical world. — Michael
My argument is that the first cause is not a random act, therefore it is a deliberate act - it has to be caused by something self-driven, self-motivated, IE intelligent. It cannot be some dumb, natural process as all dumb, natural processes have causes - so none of them can be the first cause. — Devans99
But the Monad is the first cause and is so responsible for the existence of the demiurge. So the first cause is indirectly responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe (obviously the first cause is indirectly responsible for everything in the universe). — Devans99
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time — Devans99
Can you set out the premises that allow you to conclude that the first cause must be intelligent? — Michael
You said that the first-cause must be intelligent because the universe is fine-tuned. But if something like a demiurge is responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe then this only suggests that the demiurge is intelligent. The first-cause might be unintelligent. — Michael
Furthermore, this allows for multiple reasons that are outside of time. What if they're all jointly responsible for the creation of the physical world? Which one is "God"? Or what if just one "timeless reason" is responsible for the creation of the physical world (or the demiurge) but that it itself isn't a first-cause? — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.