Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to God as first cause
Re: An intelligence is a much more probable “first cause”
ammon - maybe you should decide which scientific theory you are speaking of first. The big bang theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the complexities of life. Intelligent design which is what you are offering may be a counter argument to the scientific theory of evolution but complexity alone is not enough to reject what we know to be true in favor of conjecture premised upon religous belief.
The one point I implied in this post is that God as first cause does not equal the definition of the Christian God or the God of any other religion. Only bias and preconceived notion allows someone to arrive at that conclusion based on what we know. Life may have been intelligently designed but to offer a definition of the designer and insist that the designer was a singular entity cannot be honestly arrived at with the arguments you are choosing.
Nor can the notion of this mythical being living forever be derived from your arguments. For all we know the first particle of hyper condensed matter and the first replicating carbon based cell may have been the extent of the abilities of these beings. In any event we are certain that no being we know of that exists for certain, lives for billions of years. Complexity alone is simply not a solid enough argument.
posted by
gomedome
on November 18, 2008 at 8:11 PM
| link to this | reply
An intelligence is a much more probable “first cause”
than any type of unintelligence because the intricacies of design are apparent in our observation of life. The design of the eyeball and the anatomical workings of the body are prime examples. It is much less probable that the complexities of life could have come about by the mere happenstance occurrences of random reorganizations of atoms and matter amidst a chaotic universe. It is much more probable that they were “caused” and this is exemplified by our observations of cause and effect in our environment and also is the foundation of the theory of causation, as you have introduced in your post here today.
posted by
ammon
on November 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: When we talk about "First Cause", there is an inference of a beginning.
Xeno-x - According to the big bang theory, the universe came into existence within a void where a single particle of hyper condensed matter began to expand. It would probably be helpful if it were referred to by its original name as the "Primordial Atom Theory"
I agree, this is all speculation, the only statement I have made in this post that is absolute in nature is that God as first cause does not define God in any way.
posted by
gomedome
on November 18, 2008 at 4:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: I would think that you would find the cosmological argument more convincing
ammon - you begin by speaking of empircal evidence then offer your inherent bias and speculation as arguments. This is not a statement that can honestly be derived from scientific knowledge or observation: ". . . is it much more probable that such a first cause would have been initiated by an intelligence," We cannot say if the initial event propagating the big bang involved any form of intelligence, it may have but that conclusion is not "more probable" as you would like to interject. Then you attempt to use the ontological argument and cosmological arguments as either/ors when so many other possibilities exist.
You may be right however, mankind may be working towards attaining perfection, and the perfect circle or sphere analogy you gave somehow did the trick this time, despite my having heard it to the point of nauseum.
Mankind will achieve the first perfect circle or sphere in the form of circular logic, the type that has someone offering the ontological argument as reasonable dialogue (God is because we can envision that God is) and thinking that it actually has some form of significance.
Spare me this drivel in the future, please.
posted by
gomedome
on November 18, 2008 at 4:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno – it would seem to me that it is possible to marry
the cosmological and ontological arguments with the hypothesis that, as we progress toward infinity, we move into an alternative dimension that involves a different reality. Plato set forth this idea, that our existing dimension reveals only shadows of the perfections that exist in an alternative dimension, which is also somewhat consistent with the traditional accounts of heaven that are revealed in religious literature. The writings of C.S. Lewis are also quite compelling, with regard to this alternative reality that we call heaven.
posted by
ammon
on November 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM
| link to this | reply
When we talk about "First Cause", there is an inference of a beginning.
The Universe has existed for Infinity. We have to ask the question that will probably remain unanswered -- what was before the Big Bang? There has to be something. The Big Bang was not the beginning, simply an event in the history of the Universe. There was matter, etc. all before the Big Bang. And what was the Big Bang? The best minds can only speculate.
Here's the thing -- infinite concepts -- all the knowledge in the world of infinite concepts is infinitesimal in size. It is interesting to speculate -- we have something of an idea of the history of the Universe and our galaxy and solar system and planet and life on our planet and the rise of intelligent species on our planet.
And the speculation will change as we receive more knowledge. Always, "we know in part; we see in part".
Sometimes, when we attempt to consider God, we can do this best by focusing on the around at the present moment.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 18, 2008 at 8:04 AM
| link to this | reply
I would think that you would find the cosmological argument more convincing
because it uses empirical information as its foundation. Because we can clearly observe that each event in our universe is the result of some cause, it is logical to speculate that, if one regresses backwards, at some previous point, there must have been a first cause. The big bang theory is an example of cosmological thinking. When we then think in terms of probabilities, is it much more probable that such a first cause would have been initiated by an intelligence, as opposed to out of absolutely nothing.
The only argument, with any real substance, that can stand against cosmology is the assertion that there is only infinity, in which case one would regress forever in search of the first cause. But the issue of infinity is well addressed by the ontological argument, which is the observation that, because we may progressively move in increments toward greater and greater perfections, such perfections must exist, as in the fact that we may attempt to create a perfect sphere or draw a perfect circle but ever progressive magnifications of such circle or sphere will reveal flaws that need to be smoothed out, so that our quest for perfection continues. But because we can proceed concretely toward this perfection, we know that it must exist, at some level of infinity. If not, then we must give in to the cosmological argument and involve the need for a first cause.
It is interesting that some see this as substance for the assertion that God is both infinite and concrete, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.
posted by
ammon
on November 18, 2008 at 1:53 AM
| link to this | reply