• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    This is incorrect. All that is required is that there be properties that determine what happens next. In other words, ordinary causality. So,in the example we have been using, gravity is a property that matter has: any two pieces of matter will attract each other in a specific way. This means...
  2. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    This is the leap I don’t see. Why would regularities imply “ends”, in other words, intentions? It seems to me that intentions require minds that in turn require regularities to even exist. Regularities simply require things have properties. The opposite of chaos is not intention.
  3. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    So stars can exist without there being an idea of a star. So no minds are required for stars to come into existence. QED.
  4. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    Interesting that the articles linked to are trying to find alternatives to teleology and find ways to correct student tendencies towards such mistaken thinking. maybe you should read the articles you link to? Oh, and there is the discussion concerning the *historical* views about teleology by...
  5. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    No, quantum theory is NOT non-materialistic. If anything, it *defines* what it means to be 'material'. Reality as a simulation is a simple enough concept, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. And certainly quantum theory has no bearing on such. The biggest problem people have with...
  6. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    Aquinas was working under Aristotelian metaphysics, which we *know* is wrong in many different ways. In particular, the idea of a 'final cause' is no longer taken seriously in philosophical circles unless there is a previous intelligence known to be involved. Simple patterned behavior (you have...
  7. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    But the understanding has no causal effect on that gas. So no, what happens to the gas is not influenced at all by the *idea* of the gas. The gas exists. it has properties (like gravity) and those properties mean it behaves in certain regular ways (like collapsing and forming stars). And the...
  8. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    Why would having properties imply a mind? Regularities only require properties, not minds; not intentions.
  9. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    No, quantum physics says no such thing. Well, it is a priori for epistemology but not for ontology. minds are needed for knowledge, but not for existence. I disagree. But meaning is something that comes from minds, not from the nature of things. Well, that is your claim. But all you have done...
  10. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    And I see no reason to think that is the case. Why would a mind be required for regular behavior? Isn't simply having properties enough? Definite properties would lead to regular interactions which leads to regular behaviors, right? The cycles are simply the fact that there is feedback (which...
  11. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    But why would a mind be required at all? Nothing you have said forces there to be a mind for something to exist? Maybe to be known to exist requires a mind, but not existence.
  12. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    And yet, the idea being in minds has no bearing on what happens to that gas. But for that idea to exist, there have to be living beings that have minds. There were none for the first generation of stars. The ideas exist because there are (now) minds. But the gases and other stars existed long...
  13. Polymath257

    Congratulations to President elect Trump and VP Elect Vance.

    He literally said that he will be a dictator on day one.
  14. Polymath257

    Congratulations to President elect Trump and VP Elect Vance.

    I can't believe we elected someone who openly says he wants to be a dictator. America is dead. The only question is where to move to. But no place will be safe now.
  15. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    Huh? No, there were stars that formed by this process long before I existed. In fact, long before humans existed. This process was not an 'idea in someone's head' prior to the formation of the stars. In fact, the first stars formed by this process long before there was life in the universe (and...
  16. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    Not true. When Galileo first turned a telescope to the sky, NOBODY expected there to be stars that were never seen before. Most galaxies we have observed were not even an assumption prior to observation. And we have no reason to think they were observed by anyone else. For that matter, we...
  17. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    Stars existed before humans and were unobserved but still existed.
  18. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    No, they do not. Consciousness arises from them. Objects can exist even if nobody is conscious of them.
  19. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    Well, as long as the gas cloud is large enough. Correct. Because there are no stars, then gravity acts, causing a collapse, and stars form. huh? How does that follow? At first, there are no stars, then after a while, there are. There is no sense in which stars exist before they form. No, it...
  20. Polymath257

    Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

    Well, at the quantum level, the conservation law you implicitly use (conservation of energy) can be violated in some circumstances. Nope. History is not irrelevant blather. Art makes no truth claims: it is about aesthetics, not truth. Philosophy has a value in pointing out where our reasoning...
Top