The signs of fine-tuning in the universe suggest intelligence — 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.

The start of time suggests intelligence — Devans99

Precisely the thing you seek to prove. Circular.

I doubt the first cause can be a random process: — Devans99

I doubt that it could be an intelligent creator. Would you accept that as dismissal of Aquinus' and by proxy your proof? If not, why should anyone accept the above?

That's informationally a something from nothing. All humans have ever been able to manage is pseudo-random. — Devans99

The conservation-of-information argument is a good argument against certain interpretations of QM, such as the Copenhagen interpretation. All other forms contain probabilistics and conserve information.

That said, information is not proven to be a conserved quantity like energy or momentum anyway. If your argument relies on it, it ought to be stated as an assumption at least.

Hahaha....I know, I pray for him, just like a pray for Trump lol.

But seriously, just think about it. If you study enough philosophy, you will see that 90% of all domain's invoke or posit God's existence. Go figure... .

That question doesn't make sense to me. I don't "believe" in logic. Logic is fundamental to my thinking. — Echarmion

You were proposing that it was logical that human consciousness exists through logical necessity. And so, what else exists through logical necessity?

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

- There a many of signs of fine-tuning of the universe for life (see arguments given previously)
- 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.

There is really nothing circular about this argument: the universe is life supporting by accident or by design - these are only two possibilities - and by accident is exceedingly unlikely.

Precisely the thing you seek to prove. Circular. — Kenosha Kid

We have the dimension-like degree of freedom that is called time. It has a start. I find the idea that it was started by a random process unlikely. As mentioned true random may not be possible, it would have to be pseudo-random and that would require an underlying cause. And also time looks like it was designed for the purpose of hosting evolution. And also I don't believe any random process that could result in the creation of a dimension-like structure like time - how could some poxy quantum fluctuation ever cause that? Then there is the Big Bang (probable start of time) - it looks a lot like it was intensional - for example the expansion of space is just what is needed to prevent everything collapsing into gravitational equilibrium (one big black hole), thus enabling life. So it seems the start of time was likely a deliberate act caused by an intelligent entity.

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

What's the alternative to "concrete" first cause? Is there another kind of cause we should be worried about?

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?

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

Why?

What's the alternative to "concrete" first cause? Is there another kind of cause we should be worried about? — TheMadFool

There appears to be no alternative - causality forms a pyramid-like structure in time, with the first cause at the tip of the pyramid and then causes and effects multiply out to form the rest of the pyramid (the base of the pyramid being today. Such a pyramid cannot exist at all without a concrete first cause.

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

It could be the universe, but the speed of light is an argument against - parts of the universe are causally disconnected from each other (moving apart faster than the speed of light). So it the universe itself was some sort of intelligent entity, then parts of that entity would not be able to effect other parts, suggesting its not a valid entity. But maybe it somehow ignores the speed of light speed limit.

Why is there no alternative? There's infinite regress or no cause for the universe.

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.

I sincerely hope you're kidding. — Outlander

If only I had a dollar for all the times Cicero's said that to me.

It's nice of you to say so. I wander about vaguely here and there.

If one were to use logic (not that our sense of logic explains other world view's), the infinite regress of turtle power would mean that there was no Big Bang. If physical science had not discovered the phenomenon of the Big Bang, then I suppose you could argue that infinite regress, being one in the same as eternity, would have precluded the need for a first cause in the first place.

However, in that scenario you are still left with the question pertaining to the definition of time itself. So, to that end, in theory, time would be considered eternity then, right? There would be no need to consider a timeless cause.

And if that makes any sense, you would nonetheless still be wondering about what caused eternity. (And that's because you have something rather than no-thing that exists.)

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.

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

"Does it? How so." Even Youtube has more than ample resources to make clear it does, and how. As of this moment, plus the minutes it will take you review that material, you have no longer any excuse for ignorance on the matter of evolution.

You were proposing that it was logical that human consciousness exists through logical necessity. And so, what else exists through logical necessity? — 3017amen

Actually, it's the other way round. I am saying the world is how it is because we exist. Humans existing means that the world must allow for humans to exist. That's essentially what the anthropic principle says.

When people ask the "fine tuning" question, they generally assume the viewpoint of some objective observer outside time. In a way, by doing that, one is assuming God. Because your actual perspective is that of the human asking the question, and you can't just ignore that.

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

You are correct in what you infer, that there is NO UNAMBIGUOUS evidence of fine-tuning.


The problem with your argument is the use of the singular "God" (and the unnecessary use of the singular masculine pronouns "he" and "him.")

Many gods may exists; a single god may exist; no gods may exist.

Your guess about that is no better than Devans...and your arguments in support of your guess no more sound or logical.

@Devans99
You've been beating the dead horses of your nonsense claims for it seems years. The same arguments. All turned and refuted in multiple ways by different people. Above I asked why; no answer. Again, then, why do you continue? What are you about? What is your purpose?

Of course. Then it (the anthropic principle) must preclude consciousness emerging from chaos then, right?

And, since you said: " Because only in a universe with patterns would there be some patterns capable of thinking about it. Logically, if humans can ask the question then the universe must allow humans. So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer to the question: "why does the universe allow for life?" is: "because there is life in it".

In other words, our existence is logically necessary. What else then is logically necessary to our conscious existence?

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

Even accepting this, how do you get from "there is a first cause outside time" 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 except as a dishonest attempt to prove something like Christianity.

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.

I might could answer that. You have much more evidence that the concept of God is behind the cause of conscious existence than atheism, which is no-thing. Or, perhaps there is some other sentient baggage at work that most angry atheists seem to have, who knows... .

Accordingly, the reality is It could be the same leap of faith that causes one to believe in the paradigm of atheism. But that would mean that atheism is just another religion LOL

Only if they are interpreted as being teleologically fine-tuned, which they are not. Hence the circularity. — Kenosha Kid

How do you know these obvious and abundant signs of fine tuning are not teleological in nature?

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

Eternal Inflation theory does not rule out the need for a first cause - it explicitly requires a first cause - the anti-gravity material that starts off inflation has to come from somewhere.

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

But the probability of the universe being a creation is rather high (its either a creation or not - that's 50% / 50% - plus all the other abundant signs that it was created - start of time, big bang, universe not in equilibrium, argument from causality, Aquinas's 3rd argument) and the probability of the fine tuning for life happening by accident is incredibly low. GO FIGURE.

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

I gave my definition of God here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/426361

The first cause is synonymous with God.

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.

The extensive signs of fine tuning for life in the universe is one reason I think the first cause must be intelligent.

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

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.

I gave my definition of God here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/426361

The first cause is synonymous with God. — Devans99

But your definition contains more terms than just "first cause". It also contains "intelligent" and "benevolent". You've done exactly what I warned you not to do; sneaked in properties that don't follow from your premises.

The extensive signs of fine tuning for life in the universe is one reason I think the first cause must be intelligent.

Your argument said nothing of "fine-tuning". Your argument was just:

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

Nothing in this argument allows you to conclude that there is an intelligent and benevolent first-cause.

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.

If the above is correct then the first cause is not a random act. Now it can't be caused or influenced by anything - so that seems just to leave a deliberate act as the only possibility.

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. Things have got a little muddled.

Benevolent is a separate argument I did not mention. It assumes the first cause is intelligent. Then:

Your Orientation: EVIL Other Person’s Orientation: EVIL Result If you meet: Evil punishes evil
Your Orientation: EVIL Other Person’s Orientation: GOOD Result If you meet: Good punishes evi
Your Orientation: GOOD Other Person’s Orientation: EVIL Result If you meet: Evil punishes Good
Your Orientation: GOOD Other Person’s Orientation: GOOD Result If you meet: Good rewards Good

This argument applies to all intelligent entities (including the higher animals, any aliens, artificial intelligences and any gods) - everything is constrained to be good.

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

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"? And what's wrong with "something from nothing" anyway? It might violate physical laws, but presumably the first cause which is responsible for the creation of physical laws isn't itself bound by them?

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

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.

So as well as showing that there is a first cause and that the fine-tuning of the universe depends on an intelligent designer you also need to show that the first cause is the intelligent designer.

FYI, I've deleted some posts that were just insults and any posts that replied to them (as they won't make sense anymore). Please refresh the page so that you don't waste time replying to a post that has been deleted as your replies will just be deleted as well.

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

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.

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

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).

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

That wasn't your argument. Your argument was:

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

Can you set out the premises that allow you to conclude that the first cause must be intelligent?

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

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.

I think that if we're inclined to pontificate (it seems an appropriate word) on the subject of the existence of God, and intend to come to any conclusion which might be described as based on a proof, we must content ourselves with "proving" nothing at all, or at most very little.

As is so often the case, definition is essential to any argument. If you want to prove that something exists, it's useful to define that something in the simplest, most abstract manner possible. The less to prove, the better. A creator God must, at the least, have caused the universe to exist. So, it's necessary, at the least, that there must have been something that caused the universe to exist.

Proof of that, according to some, is achieved by one of "Fat Tommy" Aquinas' "proofs" which is mentioned in the OP. That proof he borrowed like so much else from Aristotle.

However, if that "proof" is, in fact, a proof, all it establishes is a "cause" of the universe. But it seems that we can't know anything significant or even meaningful about that cause. It might be argued that such a cause must have existed before the universe did. That could be problematic, though, as "existence" as we know it as concept we define based on characteristics and events which take place in the universe. So, for that matter, is "cause." In fact, anything we know, anything we think, feel, speak of, observe, describe, or do, is based on what takes place in the universe.

So, we can't prove or infer that this "cause" has any of the characteristics we normally attribute to God.
We can't say that it is within us and everything else. We can't say that it's wise, loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, that it is Jesus (or whatever), that it listens to and answers prayers, that it requires we perform certain rituals, that it regulates our sexual conduct or other conduct, etc.

To prove such things about the "first cause" requires much more in the way of proof. I can't understand why the "proofs" of God's existence are of significance to anyone as a result. Believers in God as we normally think of God are reduced to the sad tactic which has been employed by Christian apologists for so long, which is merely to claim that the presumed first cause is Jesus and has all the traits we want it to have, consistent (sometimes) with what we think of Jesus.

3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time — Devans99

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, having been created by some other reason that is outside of time?

There is so much that you try to conclude from the cosmological argument (even when considering also the teleological argument) that just doesn't follow from the premises.

Can you set out the premises that allow you to conclude that the first cause must be intelligent? — Michael

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
4. The thing that caused [3] is outside time - nothing caused it or comes logically before it
5. The reason in [3] is not purely random (random does not seem to be possible)
6. The thing that caused the first reason therefore acted in a self-driven, deliberate manner
7. Only intelligent things act in a self-driven, deliberate manner (automons are created so cannot be the first cause).

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

If the demiurge was created, he was created directly or indirectly by the first cause and that would require intelligence.

If the demiurge evolved somehow, then the universe must be such that it supports evolution. That would require fine tuning of the universe - which would be caused by the first cause, implying an intelligent first cause.

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

Does causality (or something like it) apply outside time somehow?

- If yes, then all the reasons outside time are caused by a common first reason/cause.

- If something like causality does not apply outside time, then we could imagine multiple timeless things co-existing. It is most likely that one of them only is responsible for our universe. I am not sure how they could collaborate without something like causality. But I agree, it might somehow be a joint effort. So there seems a small chance of multiple gods.