Chicken or the Egg argument.
Is the ability to reason, which is required to understand our surrounding (as explained with science below), proof of reason existing prior to our own reason? I'm following Aristotle's concept of Efficient and Final Cause and Plato's concept of True Forms. What is the True Form of intelligence? What is the Final Cause of intelligence? Is it merely evolution? Or is intelligence the final cause of evolution, which was used to produce the efficient cause [evolution] of consciousness in humans? I gather it might have been purposeful if you ponder the 4 causes.
If evolution is the efficient cause, is there a true form of intelligence that evolution is mimicking?
First, a quote by Aristotle, "If, therefore, purpose is present in art, it is present also in nature."
Kind of like cause and effect. But on an intellectual level.
Following Aristotle's 4 types of causes. If science is the efficient cause of humans, who is science's Final Cause, or the intent of science? If we are the afterthought of a design of the creator who implemented science to create us, same as a sculpturer is the efficient cause of a statue, but the final cause is the concept the sculpturer has of which he is trying to imbue into this statue. The cognitive memory, or intent. Humans can serve as the intent of science.
So carrying that forward to ourselves, and our own intelligence. Our intelligence is the efficient cause of being human, of the affect of being placed within the universe by the universe's own mechanisms, and we have become aware and can understand our surroundings. As I have previously mentioned, the efficient cause is science, but what is the final cause of science?
So that begs the question, at least in my opinion, who asked the question of science that produced the ordered system of scientific results (applying Socrates reasoning here by asking questions)?
We find that we asked the question ourselves, through logic and deductive reasoning; given to us not by ourselves, but by the laws of the Universe having produced us. We are able to shed light on the subject. However, that light is only us understanding the logical order of the universe as exposed by science.
TLDR So... if science is seen to have a conceptual order to it. Doesn't that order beg the question to require intelligence to understand it; and therefore could be argued required intelligence to have it implemented (same as the final cause and the statue)? Couldn't the laws of science and it's resultant movement be regarded as the divine, for it is the reason we all have life and thought?
I guess a shorter question is. Can science be the efficient cause of ourselves existing, can we therefore ask what is the Final cause of science?
Or, can order be present without intelligence to present it, does our ability to reason demand a purpose...?
One obvious answer:
Is it simply enough to say that it has just been [science]. Science's requirement of requiring intelligent life to make sense of it does not necessitate intelligence to have supplied it [science].
That I think would be a logical fallacy in it's own right. It's like saying a room full of chimpanzees (the random universe) has a [small] chance of alphabetizing a list for us [the alphabetized list is the efficient cause, which can be translated to us human beings]. Even if we did see the list alphabetized. We would reason the chimpanzees had some sort of intelligence to have done so rather than attribute it to some random chance event.
So again, seeing human's exist in a universe being able to reason is almost like seeing an alphabetized list and asking oneself who made the alphabetized list. Who made this construct of applied reason? Am I to believe that the random machinations of entropy can produce intelligence without any type of plan to do so, or is science a natural producer of intelligence because it was designed that way.
Update To respond to Einer
Thanks for the watchmaker analagy.
Richard Dawkins. Yes. I remember him. He seemed hard set to PROVE GOD didn't' exist. That's why I never read his book. I honestly don't care whether he exists or all, but whether my consciousness exists. But that's my bias.
So Richard's answer is... the sign of intelligence a bike... is the construction of another sign of intelligence, some other person that made the bike...
So is mine.
Anyways, his plane analogy doesn't take into consideration 1 final mover over an initial perpetual state that continues. Richard posits that the plane required another initial mover. That's not the case with our supposed closed system of the universe. Everything was set by the initial mover. Aka predeterminism.
Argument over on that point.
"But this goes for every imaginable sets of laws of physics."
(Edit: NM: Following Uniformitarianism (as applied to science)... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism))
Assuming the laws that we have endured led us to this point. Is it safe to assume that those laws represent the Final Cause's Purpose? The Final Cause's Intent?
Can we argue that Aristotle's concept of Final Cause is broken when it applies to concepts outside of human behaviour? Or does human behaviour show that intelligence does indeed cause change and it can be argued that change was started from intelligence?
Which is my point. It's the way it is to derive us, and when we "awake" and evolve enough as a society to understand. It is then and only then that we understand it took us this long to achieve that understanding that the [purpose] laws of the universe are in place to produce intelligence enough to understand how they came to be. One could argue that this is pointless to all those lives gone without understanding this.
I think Socrates was onto something when he suggested our consciousness survives, but that's a stretch and not really part of my argument.
The evidence is almost in front of us everyday. Whether we realize it or not. The fact that we are even here is an astronomical anomaly. My guess is... it was set that way on purpose, which is my argument for the Final Cause.