Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[blü 2]

So just a question of semantics then?

It's not as if the meaning of the words is the problem. 'Cause' and 'effect' are concepts that humans use to explain and control their environment. You might try to account for the same phenomena limiting yourself to the vocabulary of change, for example.

 

[blü 2]

We could disappear down a rabbit hole for hours, just trying to agree on a meaning of the term ‘supernatural’; and I don’t see much mileage in doing so. The fact remains, we don’t yet have a scientific materialist theory for consciousness. If we are prepared to consider the possibility that consciousness may be fundamental, at least to human experience, as time and space, or energy and matter, are fundamental, we may begin to develop new* perspectives on the material world and our place in it.

'Supernatural' is from Latin, meaning 'above nature' meaning in turn 'outside of nature'.

Nature is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

And it seems fair to say that the only way the supernatural (and its elements such as gods, ghosts, souls, devils, wizards, fairies &c) is known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains ie not as independent elements of the world external to the self.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So just a question of semantics then?

It often is.

I find that with a lot of questions that seem deep and confounding at first glance, when we're careful to clarify what we mean, the answer becomes obvious.

 

[Madsaac]

Can you explain how natural selection, which doesn’t even account for abiogenesis at this point, might in any way be responsible for the Big Bang? Because we’re considering the entire cosmos here, not just life on earth. And the Standard Model of cosmology leaves plenty of questions about the origins of the universe unanswered.

Yeah, natural selection is the wrong term, not responsible for the Big Bang and the cosmos.

You're obviously a smart person, so how can you disagree with some of the smartest people (Geniuses) on Earth who think the cosmos was formed because of physics or whatever the appropriate science term is, for the formation of the universe and our planet?

If it isn't too much of a personal question, is it faith, hope or you honestly believe that these people (Geniuses) are probably wrong?

 

[Madsaac]

I fail to see any logical difference.

The evolution of life forms is simply the expression of what is possible against what is not possible. As is everything else occurring in the universe. So the need for a source of those possibilities and impossibilities remains. Evolution does not somehow magically usurp that need. Neither does claiming that they 'just are', and that there is no source.

Okay, that's cool.

What about this?

You're obviously a smart person so how can you disagree with some of the smartest people (Geniuses) on Earth who think the cosmos was formed because of physics or whatever the appropriate science term is, for the formation of the universe and our planet?

If it isn't too much of a personal question, is it faith, hope or you honestly believe that these people (Geniuses) are probably wrong?

 

[Madsaac]

To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness

And, human consciousness is simply part of the human evolution. As many of the geniuses of the world have said.

What we observe in nature, or the natural order of things is not God rather the habits of God. I don't know why it's not obvious to all this thinking that in order to observe the universe one must be apart from it.

Again, in order to observe nature and be part of it, we need a high level of consciousness, which came about because of evolution

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yeah, natural selection is the wrong term, not responsible for the Big Bang and the cosmos.

You're obviously a smart person, so how can you disagree with some of the smartest people (Geniuses) on Earth who think the cosmos was formed because of physics or whatever the appropriate science term is, for the formation of the universe and our planet?

If it isn't too much of a personal question, is it faith, hope or you honestly believe that these people (Geniuses) are probably wrong?

Well firstly, I don’t see any contradiction at all between respect for science and scientists, and belief in God. Science didn’t create the universe, and no scientist would argue that it did, since science is the study of the natural world, through observation and experiment. The laws of science derive from human observation of regularities in nature; laws which can predict and explain, with varying degrees of accuracy, the behaviour of the material world. Though scientific enquiry may continue to refine and perfect these laws, doing so cannot answer Stephen Hawking’s question, What is it that puts the fire in the equations?

Plenty of astronomers and theoretical physicists do believe in a deity of some kind, btw. Here’s Nobel Prize winning astronomer Anthony Hewish;

“I think both science and religion are necessary to understand our relation to the Universe. In principle, science tells us how everything works, although there are many unsolved problems and I guess there always will be. But science raises questions it can never answer. Why did the Big Bang eventually lead to conscious beings who question the purpose of life and the existence of the Universe? This is where religion is necessary…”

And here’s another Nobel laureate, Isidor Rabi, writing in Physics Today;

“Physics filled me with awe, put me in touch with a sense of original causes. Physics brought me closer to God. That feeling stayed with me throughout my years in science.”

 

[RestlessSoul]

It often is.

I find that with a lot of questions that seem deep and confounding at first glance, when we're careful to clarify what we mean, the answer becomes obvious.

We should always be wary of the obvious answers, in my experience. And to reduce concepts to the terms used to define them, is to confuse the map for the territory.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Neither does the theory of gravity or game theory or relativity &c &c. The fundamental relation of cause and effect is explained by their respective definitions.

As defined in philosophy (Aristotelian metaphysics).

 

[Colt]

And, human consciousness is simply part of the human evolution. As many of the geniuses of the world have said.



Again, in order to observe nature and be part of it, we need a high level of consciousness, which came about because of evolution

Either way consciousness is a degree of transcendence; the observer is apart from even the observation of themselves. In theistic evolution there is an innate purposive potential.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

True, Colt, good point, "innate purposive potential," the Holy Spirit Will to me in logic:

Acquinas was explained the mysteries of the Triniry by a child mystic on the beach, in France I believe.

For from The Holy Spirit and through Jesus and to The Father are all things. To God, as one in being, be glory forever. Amen.

Behold Your Mother.

Baptizing is from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being in the Body of The Christ in all mankind. In logic, the spirit in the soul of the being through the flesh gets immortalized, transformed and glorified transfigured manifested by the Power of the Holy Spirit. We are created mortal and corrupt from the first spirit and riddled with internal temptations and soiled with choice failed in mortality. And we become Baptized sanctified from the Holy Spirit through the flesh for the soul from the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth of The Christ in our own immortal and incorruptible Christ as brothers and sisters of Jesus from His Birth to heaven for all mankind from the Cross where the blood and water flowed, "Ecce Mater tua," and from all of the wondrous mysteries of the Faith as our own personal epiphany, our own personal manifestation of God in our own soul. And we become again from immortal and incorruptible to glorified and transfigured, re-imaged in the Confirmed and re-Sanctified Will of the Creator God for The Father through death and resurrection because the sacraments from death to life are Baptism and Penance. Through Atonement in Confession for remittance of sins in hearing the Words of Absolution and forgiven in Penance and Sacrifice of The Host in Communion with Him we are re-Confirmed sanctified in the fulfilled Faith and Morality of The Christ in all mankind. Fulfilled in Faith and Morality is what would Jesus do in all cases of Faith and Morality just as the Will of The Creator God, The Word that becomes flesh, for The Father united as one in being together with the Father and The Son becoming again as glorified and transfigured into the image of The Creator God for God the Father.

To me, the logic of the Virgin Birth of The Christ is for all mankind on earth for our glorious assumption becoming glorified and transfigured as brothers and sisters of The Christ in all mankind.
"Ecce Mater tua"
In logic, The Christ existed before creation was ever created was even created as The Word, The Eternal Priestly Authority and The Will of the Father in The Person of Jesus. Blood and water birth creates the Soul of the Being on earth and The Christ was Virgin Born on earth because He preexisted and Blood and water born back to Heaven from the Cross, where the blood and water flowed for all mankind becoming glorified and transfigured from immortal and incorruptible as Baptized.

To me in logic, the “RI” real intelligence today is the intelligence that will never fail in eternity and is brought to earth by The Word that becomes flesh as the Will of the Creator God for The Father from the Person of The Holy Spirit through the Person of Jesus becoming what would Jesus do in all cases of fulfilled faith and morality.

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We should always be wary of the obvious answers, in my experience.

We should also be wary of people who obfuscate by not defining their terms properly.

And to reduce concepts to the terms used to define them, is to confuse the map for the territory.

No, it really isn't.

... but if confusion is something you're looking to avoid, a great place to start is making sure that the people in the discussion aren't all describing different concepts with the same terms.

 

[PureX]

Okay, that's cool.

What about this?

You're obviously a smart person so how can you disagree with some of the smartest people (Geniuses) on Earth who think the cosmos was formed because of physics or whatever the appropriate science term is, for the formation of the universe and our planet?

They are not addressing the question at hand. Which is, where did the "physics" come from? They may be geniuses at understanding the physics, but they know nothing at all about the source of the "physics code". Why, according to the "laws of physics" are some things possible, and other things not possible? The real question here is not physical, it's philosophical. And it seem, sadly, that a lot of people are having a lot of trouble accepting that fact. Because 'scientism' (an irrational glorification of science as being the only rational source for truth) is becoming the new replacement for religion.

If it isn't too much of a personal question, is it faith, hope or you honestly believe that these people (Geniuses) are probably wrong?

I can see that they are not addressing the real questions at hand. Why/how does something exist and instead of nothing? What made something existing, possible? And why is it being fulfilled in this particular way? All of these questions come down to what was/is possible, set against what was/is not possible. It is the source of these possibilities/impossibilities that is the great mystery behind all that is.

There are no geniuses in the face of this mystery.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's not as if the meaning of the words is the problem. 'Cause' and 'effect' are concepts that humans use to explain and control their environment. You might try to account for the same phenomena limiting yourself to the vocabulary of change, for example.

The concept of causality is fundamental to our understanding of the universe and our place in it, sure. And as such, is far too significant a principle to be left unquestioned.

Non-local, and therefore seemingly non-causal, correlations are central to the disparity between classical and quantum physics, for example.

 

[blü 2]

As defined in philosophy (Aristotelian metaphysics).

A whole lot of different kinds of 'causes', as I recall ─ from many years ago ...

 

[blü 2]

Non-local, and therefore seemingly non-causal, correlations are central to the disparity between classical and quantum physics, for example.

Quantum physics is a good example. It offers phenomena not 'caused' in the classical sense.

 

[PureX]

Something happened (instead of nothing) because it could.

How was it possible? And why did this happen and not anything else?

Whatever the answer is, it clearly transcends the limitations that have been imposed on existence as we know it. And therefor, on our ability to comprehend it.

 

[blü 2]

Something happened (instead of nothing) because it could.

Whatever the answer is, it clearly transcends the limitations that have been imposed on existence as we know it. And therefor, on our ability to comprehend it.

There is nothing absolute in our understanding of physics, but I can't think of any basis for your absolute assertion that the answer is unknowable.

 

[wellwisher]

See the beginning of the argument:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result”

The 5th Way is more fundamental. It explains why there is order and regularity in the natural world (natural laws) - why non-intelligent things act "always, or nearly always, in the same way". For example a moon orbiting.

To explain something in the 5th way, you need to go back to the beginning, as far as possible. Evolution currently starts at replicators, which is not as far back as you can go. In the beginning, was not just replicators in water, but very simple chemicals in water. The latter is the 5th way. If you do not go far enough back, this will preclude full logic, and will require, dice and cards, since you lack the very beginning logic to explain the anomalies that need diced and cards.

As an analogy, say you meet a new person who starts a job where you work. They are quiet and do not offer much in terms of their past. All you have is data connected from t=0, defined as when they started work. After a few years, you may think you have them pegged; correlated, in terms of behavior and quirks. However, all that which happened, from birth, to when they started work, will still be needed to get a full picture, as to why they do certain things. Correlating why their lunch has to sorted a certain way, is not the same as, why do they do it that way? Somewhere in the past, before your t=0, this all began.

The 5th way requires more out of science than they expect of themselves. The idea is to reach logic, and get past the whims of the gods that result when you start too late, and don't know how the play began.

Say you go to Broadway to see a play and due to traffic you enter at the first intermission. If you do not inquire what happened, in act one, but start the play at the second act, your logic may diverge from reality, You will not know that two characters were once close, had a fight and now avoid each. What you see is two antagonistic characters. Your line of reasoning starts wrong and when the play ends you are confused as why the author caused such an irrational ending, based on your best logic. He must be a Creationists.

I never learned about the 5th way, but do it naturally. Even BB needed one to got back further than the singular, to address all the mysteries that the current theory does not extrapolate, such as the rapid formation of galaxies and universal superstructure. This is why I use conceptual framework for thinking, to make sure all the basics add up and there is no extra puzzle pieces left over. If there are, we need to go back further in time to find out why? Somewhere, much earlier there is a logic even for this, which can be added to make the theory better.

 

[PureX]

There is nothing absolute in our understanding of physics, but I can't think of any basis for your absolute assertion that the answer is unknowable.

Our understanding of physics is irrelevant to our lack of understanding why something exists as opposed to nothing. Physics is the something that exists, not the source of it's being able to exist.