Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[PearlSeeker]

In other words, the intellect that directs them is coming or operating from outside (extrinsic) to the objects ("is not human and not in objects")
unconscious intellect on the other hand would be intrinsic, but unconscious intellect is also not a lack of intellect within the objects themselves. Rather unconscious intellect would be within the objects themselves. For example when the heart beats in a human body, it is automatic and unconscious, but this is directed by an intellect within the human body and within the heart itself.

The objects in question are nonconscious, with no intellect (not unconscious).

 

[jhonsteve111]

Both arguments are from design (teleological) but they are totally different.

The Watchmaker analogy:
1. focuses on the complexity of living things, their organs...
2. depends on extrinsic teleology.
3. is a probabilistic argument - God is more probably the cause than an impersonal force. Evolution theory drastically lowers this probability.

Aquinas's 5th Way on the other hand:
1. is based on Aristotle's intrinsic teleology - final causality in the world.
2. Examples are also simple regularities (no need for complexity).
3. The argument is a metaphysical demonstration (not just probability or "God of the gaps"). Evolution theory does not affect the Aquinas's Fifth Way.

Hi, Hope you are doing well! I want to ask you how Aquinas’s Fifth Way differs from the Watchmaker analogy in explaining design, and why it is unaffected by evolution theory

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What alternative is there to explain "telos" (goal-directedness) in nature?

Do you know the story of the two frogs sitting next to a random pond where they live?

One says to the other "look at how perfect this pond is for us to live. Surely it was made for us."

I'll let you try and figure out what is wrong with that statement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But why are there natural forces, why is there order in the universe, and how and why did that order give rise to conscious observers capable of questioning it?

If things are going to exist, then they are going to exist in some way in some environment.
Meaning that these things and their environment are going to have certain properties. A "state of being" if you wish. The interaction of those properties are going to make things work in a certain way as opposed to some other way.

So when the question is asked "why are these things so", my default answer would be something like "why wouldn't it...."

The problem with this "cosmic" why question in the context of a teleological argument, is that it is a loaded question. It assumes planning and intent. As if things were meant to work the way they do. That is not clear to me at all.

We can ask a "why" question in the sense of how. We can ask "why the moon orbits the earth" and the answer will involve things like gravity which ultimately comes down to the state of being of things (matter has mass and mass warps space-time etc).

But the question "why does the moon orbit the earth" in the sense of some kind of purpose or intent... That's a loaded question. It assumes there is purpose and intent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course. But that doesn’t invalidate the big question; Why are we here?

How about "how are we here"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or better still, why is ANYTHING "here". What is the source of this experiential quandary? What is the purpose of it? Then, what part in it all do we play?

Wouldn't you first need to establish that there IS a purpose, before asking what that purpose is?

So first, you need to ask "is there a purpose to it?".

With the evidence I have currently at my disposal, the answer there seems to be "it doesn't look like there is".

 

[PureX]

Exactly. Wouldn't you first need to establish that there IS a purpose, before asking what that purpose is?

I don't need to establish anything. Because you aren't the judge of anything. And neither is any other atheist trying to push his biased agenda.

All I'm doing us asking the obvious questions to be asked, and contemplating the logical validity of the possible answers. Your skepticism really doesn't have anything to do with it.

So first, you need to ask "is there a purpose to it?".

The fact that existence exists, implies that it does so to fulfill a purpose. But no matter how many times or ways this is being explained to you, you will not recognize the logic of it, because you are here to push your atheist agenda. Not to listen or understand anything else.

With the evidence I have currently at my disposal, the answer there seems to be "it doesn't look like there is".

And then in the next breath, you will claim that you have no evidence. So really, your "evidence" is worthless and confused at best.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't need to establish anything. Because you aren't the judge of anything. And neither is any other atheist trying to push his biased agenda.

lol, owkay then. First, your resentment of anything you deem to be connected to "evil atheism", is noted.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with "me" being judge of anything and everything with basic logic and reason and the problem with loaded questions.

Some things have purpose and some things don't.
So to ask "what is the purpose of x" before establishing there is a purpose, is a loaded question.

There is no need to get so defensive.

All I'm doing us asking the obvious questions to be asked, and contemplating the logical validity of the possible answers. Your skepticism really doesn't have anything to do with it.

And all I'm doing is pointed out loaded questions. Regardless of what you do or don't find to be "obvious".
I find it far from obvious to just assume something has purpose before actually establishing that to be the case.
I'ld say it is far more obvious to instead ask "Is there a purpose and if so, what is it?" instead of simply skipping the first part entirely and just making assumptions.

The fact that existence exists, implies that it does so to fulfill a purpose.

How so?

But no matter how many times or ways this is being explained to you, you will not recognize the logic of it, because you are here to push your atheist agenda. Not to listen or understand anything else.

Well, so far you have explained it exactly zero times.

And then in the next breath, you will claim that you have no evidence. So really, your "evidence" is worthless and confused at best.

I indeed have no evidence to support the proposition that there is purpose.
You are more then welcome to share any if you have any.

Likely, you won't and just go into ad homs again about my "evil atheism".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Consider this: if space, time and object are the only things in existence and there are no worlds or universes beyond what we see, then we are truly alone in this existence.

IOW, you agree that all available evidence supports the conclusion that no gods exist.

But if space, time and object are not the only things in existence, then science has by far a long way to go. And human beings can look forward to much more than their own extinction. But a more evolved destiny with an unforeseeable end.

This is the essence of our teleological evolution.

You paint an attractive picture but also show a constrained imagination (constrained by theistic assumptions, maybe?).

For instance, your language suggests that you've assumed that the things beyond our knowledge don't contain things that could cause our extinction. You suggest that things we don't know will provide "a more evolved destiny" but don't consider the possibility that they could make our lives even more futile.

Remember the example of goal-directedness that was brought up earlier in the thread: acorns turning into oak trees, even though the vast majority of acorns don't end up as oak trees. If that's the sort of "goal-directedness" that we're inferring in nature, then there's no reason to assume that some grand "goal-directedness" of the universe would translate to any particular individual significance or even that the path of one's own life would be in the same direction as the "goal-directedness" of the universe.

Our oak trees may have started as acorns, but are you personally destined to become the human equivalent of a mighty oak tree or the human equivalent of squirrel ****? The arguments presented in this thread suggest that even if there's some invisible God guiding the universe to his own goals, odds are that those goals almost certainly don't involve you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An outlined version of the 5th Way

1. In our universe we experience regular cause-effect relationships, where causes have specific, determinate effects

2. The only sufficient metaphysical explanation of these cause-effect relationships is the principle of finality, which states that causes are intrinsically directed/ordered to determinate effects as ends

3. In order for a cause to be intrinsically ordered/directed to a determinate effect as to an end, that effect/end must in some sense exist prior to the action of the cause

4. But an effect cannot exist in real being prior to the action of the cause, because then the effect would be prior to its cause, which is absurd

5. So the effect/end must exist in the order of mental being, as an idea, prior to the causal action

6. Hence the ends of all causal actions must exist in some Supreme Intelligence which directs those causes to their ends.

7. These ends are intrinsic to the nature/essence of the beings which act causally, so what directs the beings to their ends must be likewise the cause of the existence of those essences/natures, which (per the Second Way) must be a Being of Pure Act, or Being Itself

8. This is what we call God

Source:

Outlined Version of the Design Argument

Here is an outlined version of Aquinas’s Argument from Design, or his Fifth Way. This is just an outline. The full series of articles can be found here, here, and here. Refer to those for the…

senshomines.wordpress.com

And you find this rational?

Care to justify, say, point #2?

 

[PureX]

lol, owkay then. First, your resentment of anything you deem to be connected to "evil atheism", is noted.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with "me" being judge of anything and everything with basic logic and reason and the problem with loaded questions.

Some things have purpose and some things don't.
So to ask "what is the purpose of x" before establishing there is a purpose, is a loaded question.

There is no need to get so defensive.

You just blindly presume that you are the decider of what has purpose and what doesn't based on the evidence that you both claim to have, and not to have. So ... arrogance riding on ignorance. And then you demand that I must answer to this foolishness.

And so I have.

And all I'm doing is pointed out loaded questions.

All questions are "loaded". It's why we ask them. What you're trying to do is dismiss them. Because they don't comport with your atheist bias.

Regardless of what you do or don't find to be "obvious".
I find it far from obvious to just assume something has purpose before actually establishing that to be the case.

Of course you do. But that's not my problem to solve for you.

I'ld say it is far more obvious to instead ask "Is there a purpose and if so, what is it?"

Only if you refuse to recognize that the thing you're asking about is the result of a very specific and consistent set of possibilities and impossibilities acting as design parameters that then result is a highly complex and specific outcome. As you are working so hard at ignoring.

Well, so far you have explained it exactly zero times.

I and others have explained countless times, but you simply don't listen to understand; only to argue, as you are now doing. So of course you still don't understand, and likely never will. And anyway, it's not our job to do battle with your determined ignorance.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If things are going to exist, then they are going to exist in some way in some environment.
Meaning that these things and their environment are going to have certain properties. A "state of being" if you wish. The interaction of those properties are going to make things work in a certain way as opposed to some other way.

So when the question is asked "why are these things so", my default answer would be something like "why wouldn't it...."

The problem with this "cosmic" why question in the context of a teleological argument, is that it is a loaded question. It assumes planning and intent. As if things were meant to work the way they do. That is not clear to me at all.

We can ask a "why" question in the sense of how. We can ask "why the moon orbits the earth" and the answer will involve things like gravity which ultimately comes down to the state of being of things (matter has mass and mass warps space-time etc).

But the question "why does the moon orbit the earth" in the sense of some kind of purpose or intent... That's a loaded question. It assumes there is purpose and intent.

And yet the moon still goes round the earth, and we continue to ask both how and why; which as you point out, are different questions with different implications.

Both may be ultimately unanswerable; gravity is not really an answer to the How question, unless we can answer the question, What is gravity? Which we can't really (Isaac Newton was careful to avoid the question altogether). We can call it the effect of the distortion of spacetime by proximity to mass and energy, but that only invites the question, What is time? And so on.

And I don't see how you can possibly interrogate the How, without coming back to the Why? Why is there order in the universe, Why is it observable to us, and Why is it susceptible to logic, reason, and mathematical modelling? These questions might be unanswerable, but they are also, imo, unavoidable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You just blindly presume that you are the decider of what has purpose and what doesn't based on the evidence that you both claim to have, and not to have. So ... arrogance riding on ignorance. And then you demand that I must answer to this foolishness.

Dude, why are you so triggered?
Quite ironic also, since in this conversation, you are the only one who (implicitly) asserted that there is purpose by asking the loaded question.
I on the other hand was merely pointing out the loaded question. I didn't assert anything.

All questions are "loaded". It's why we ask them. What you're trying to do is dismiss them.

No. Asking a married man "do you hit your wife?" is not a loaded question. "why do you hit your wife?" is.

Because they don't comport with your atheist bias.

That's nonsense. Nothing in atheism demands me to assume or assert or believe that the universe has no purpose.
I could believe the universe has a purpose without believing in gods.
Perhaps the real issue is that your theistic bias requires you to believe there is purpose and that that is the reason you just assume it to be so?

Of course you do. But that's not my problem to solve for you.

I don't consider it a problem to not just make assumptions.
I consider the opposite a problem.

If the universe doesn't have a purpose, then the question "what is the purpose?" is not a valid question.

Only if you refuse to recognize that the thing you're asking about is the result of a very specific and consistent set of possibilities and impossibilities acting as design parameters that then result is a highly complex and specific outcome. As you are working so hard at ignoring.

You haven't established in any way shape or form that there are purposeful "design parameters" set in place to achieve a "specific outcome".
This is exactly the issue. You just (implicitly) asserted it to be so by asking that loaded question.

Note, again, that at no point have I asserted that such is not the case.
I don't know if it is the case. I see no reason to assume it is the case.
It doesn't seem like you have any reason to assume such either, other then your a priori belief that it is so.

I and others have explained countless times, but you simply don't listen to understand; only to argue, as you are now doing. So of course you still don't understand, and likely never will. And anyway, it's not our job to do battle with your determined ignorance.

A link would be nice to where these supposed explanations are.

Not holding my breath.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both may be ultimately unanswerable; gravity is not really an answer to the How question

Off course it is an answer to the how question....

, unless we can answer the question, What is gravity?

That would be a different question. Answering how gravity works, wouldn't change the answer to the moon question.

Which we can't really (Isaac Newton was careful to avoid the question altogether).

Einstein didn't avoid that question.

We can call it the effect of the distortion of spacetime by proximity to mass and energy, but that only invites the question, What is time? And so on.

As Lawrence Krauss once said, off course you can continue asking where did that come from, and where did that come from, and where did that come from, and...

And eventually the answer will be "GO TO BED"

While that is a funny joke, it is not clear to me at all how theists think you can end that seemingly endless line of questions with "god did it".
Because the follow up there would simply be "where did god come from?"
And at that point, special pleading usually sets in.

And I don't see how you can possibly interrogate the How, without coming back to the Why? Why is there order in the universe, Why is it observable to us, and Why is it susceptible to logic, reason, and mathematical modelling? These questions might be unanswerable, but they are also, imo, unavoidable.

I think I already answered that question:

If something, anything, is going to exist, then it is going to exist in some way. That way is going to have parameters and those parameters, the interaction thereof, is going to make things work in some way as opposed to some other way.

This is necessarily the case. Regardless if a god or a natural process was responsible for the universe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Off course it is an answer to the how question....



That would be a different question. Answering how gravity works, wouldn't change the answer to the moon question.



Einstein didn't avoid that question.



As Lawrence Krauss once said, off course you can continue asking where did that come from, and where did that come from, and where did that come from, and...

And eventually the answer will be "GO TO BED"

While that is a funny joke, it is not clear to me at all how theists think you can end that seemingly endless line of questions with "god did it".
Because the follow up there would simply be "where did god come from?"
And at that point, special pleading usually sets in.



I think I already answered that question:

If something, anything, is going to exist, then it is going to exist in some way. That way is going to have parameters and those parameters, the interaction thereof, is going to make things work in some way as opposed to some other way.

This is necessarily the case. Regardless if a god or a natural process was responsible for the universe.

The joke is funny because it implies that adults will always get tired of answering questions before children will tire of asking them. Yet another reason not to completely stifle the child in us, imo.

The question you believed you answered assumes that any natural process must necessarily be ordered, repetitive, deterministic. But there is no logical reason why this should be the case; indeed, quantum theory indicates that there is at least a degree of irreducible randomness in nature.

 

[PureX]

Dude, why are you so triggered?
Quite ironic also, since in this conversation, you are the only one who (implicitly) asserted that there is purpose by asking the loaded question.
I on the other hand was merely pointing out the loaded question. I didn't assert anything.



No. Asking a married man "do you hit your wife?" is not a loaded question. "why do you hit your wife?" is.





That's nonsense. Nothing in atheism demands me to assume or assert or believe that the universe has no purpose.
I could believe the universe has a purpose without believing in gods.
Perhaps the real issue is that your theistic bias requires you to believe there is purpose and that that is the reason you just assume it to be so?



I don't consider it a problem to not just make assumptions.
I consider the opposite a problem.

If the universe doesn't have a purpose, then the question "what is the purpose?" is not a valid question.



You haven't established in any way shape or form that there are purposeful "design parameters" set in place to achieve a "specific outcome".
This is exactly the issue. You just (implicitly) asserted it to be so by asking that loaded question.

Note, again, that at no point have I asserted that such is not the case.
I don't know if it is the case. I see no reason to assume it is the case.
It doesn't seem like you have any reason to assume such either, other then your a priori belief that it is so.


A link would be nice to where these supposed explanations are.

Not holding my breath.

Why bother. You ignored it in the last post and you will ignore it in the next. You aren't here to understand. You're here to argue.

 

[Ponder This]

The objects in question are nonconscious, with no intellect (not unconscious).

The point remains, that you've supposed them to have no (intrinsic) intellect but then contradicted that by saying that there must be an (intrinsic) intellect (unless you mean instead that the Supeme Intellect is extrinsic to the objects).

 

[Searching4God]

How did Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc., exist right around each other? Have we had any philosophers on this level since then?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question you believed you answered assumes that any natural process must necessarily be ordered, repetitive, deterministic.

It assumes no such thing. It merely states that if anything is going to exist, it is going to exist in some way. And the way it exists, is going to determine how it works / interacts. And that will in turn create predictable patterns. Regardless of HOW (or "why") these things exist.

IOW, the mere fact that things exist in such a way that predictable patterns emerge in the interactions of those things, doesn't tell you anything concerning how or why they exist.

But there is no logical reason why this should be the case; indeed, quantum theory indicates that there is at least a degree of irreducible randomness in nature.

This isn't actually true. Quantum theory isn't sheer randomness. Quantum theory is probabilistic. Even in the quantum world, predictable patterns emerge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why bother. You ignored it in the last post and you will ignore it in the next. You aren't here to understand. You're here to argue.

What last post?

Link?

Good thing I didn't hold my breath.