In The Origin of the Cosmos I argued that scientific principles support the conclusion that the cosmos was not self-originating, but had an initial cause (IC). In An Infinite Initial Cause mathematical principles demonstrated that the initial cause must be an infinite initial cause (IIC). Turning Nothingness Inside Out demonstrated mathematically that everything that exists came from zero complexity or nothingness by means of the IIC. Now I want to take a closer look at the properties of the IIC.
Just as there is no scientific data available to demonstrate an effect without a cause, neither is there data to demonstrate the occurrence of an attribute or parameter in an effect that was not present in the cause. DNA mutations can result in changes in shapes, sizes, colors, and functions of a subsequent generation, but there will still be shapes, sizes, colors, functions, and DNA. Though many theorize the onset of new parameters, there is no data to support such claims.
Evolution theorizes the rise of new and better attributes in subsequent generations. Did they come into existence on their own, or did they derive them from an ultimate cause, such as the IIC? As fully as current evolutionary theories are accepted, it is surprising that they are accepted without any evidence of attributes coming into existence spontaneously without cause or without being present in their predecessors. This pre-existing attribute criterion, or PAC, is an issue conveniently skirted by many theorists. Contrary to current theories, proven evolutionary changes involve mutations, but not different elementary building blocks. In computer technology we have learned to rearrange the 1’s and 0’s in different sequences for new results, but they are still 1’s and 0’s.
If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, taking it to its limit so to speak, then the IIC had to have personality, since some of its effects do.[1] Therefore it will hereafter be referred to as the infinite initial cause with personality (the IICP). We can theorize that personality came into being via a collection of experiences, relational neurological synapses, or some other random connectedness, but it sidesteps the pre-existing attribute criterion. The very fact that artificial intelligence theorists are working steadfastly to reproduce intelligence in the ultimate machine, is in and of itself evidence for this argument. Whether personality is simply a collection of ideas or not is ultimately irrelevant. The artificial intelligence gurus miss the point if they think they can prove spontaneous generation of personality by duplicating it in machines. Ponder this for a second: if the artificial intelligence community is successful at building personality into a machine, where did the machine get its personality? From its causes! The point is, regardless of what personality is, the IIC had to have had it!
So, where does the God concept fit in with all this? I see little difference between God and the IICP, except that the God label is more restrictive, given the profound negative and positive preconceived images that it conjures up in the human mind. Throughout the rest of my posts I will use the IICP and the God labels interchangeably with some reservation due to so many distorted images of God. Some may find the IICP label too impersonal. I intend quite the opposite, yet understand if it does seem so. I have used the acronym so much over the past decade that I am accustomed to it and feel at home with it, especially given its ultimate connotations. Perhaps it will grow on you too as we go along.
-Sam Augsburger
Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos
[1] For the purposes of this discussion, implicit in personality are also sentience, intelligence, and consciousness.
