Q&A: Between a Philosophical God and an Intelligent God
Between a Philosophical God and an Intelligent God
Question
How do the cosmological argument and the teleological argument that you presented in the notebooks prove an intelligent God? All those arguments prove is that there is some entity that created the world and the laws of physics. But there is no reason to say that it is intelligent — it could just be some dumb mechanism instead (and it makes no sense to ask who created it, because it is not within our experience). And if that is true, doesn’t that undermine the move from a philosophical God to a theistic one, since there is no reason to assume that this mechanism would reveal itself to us?
Answer
In principle, this proves God, not necessarily an intelligent God. But by reasoning, it seems that the source of the design is not mechanical but intelligent; otherwise it itself would need a cause (what difference does it make whether or not it is within our experience?). Beyond that, in practice, a tradition has come down to me that He revealed Himself, and that repeatedly confirms the thesis that He is intelligent and wants something from us.
Discussion on Answer
A mechanism does need a cause. The argument is built on the fact that there must be a first link that does not need a cause, otherwise we end up in an infinite regress. But reasoning suggests that this link would not be mechanical, and the tradition reinforces that.
By the way, I didn’t say that it’s because He is not within our experience. I said that He necessarily does not need a cause, because otherwise we end up in an infinite regress. And to the difficulty from the principle of causality, according to which everything needs a cause, I answered that He is not within our experience. That is a very significant difference between the formulations for our purposes.
Meaning, even for things that are not within our experience you would expect there to be a cause, but it’s not necessary?
And why does reasoning suggest that a mechanical first link needs a cause more than an intelligent first link does?
Because a machine is usually created by someone.
You could even say that a machine must be created by someone and cannot come about otherwise; the question is whether that is an intuitive conclusion or a logical and compelling one, or both? The counter from atheists is that it’s simply not enough in order to believe, because there has to be some implication for reality and not just lofty philosophical talk.
Intelligent things too are usually created by someone in our experience. By their parents.
Exactly the same way God doesn’t need a cause (and in the notebooks you said that’s because He is not within our experience), the mechanism also doesn’t need a cause..